#Thread
"The scheme initially got off to a slow start, and in the first six years of operation, until 2015, only 80 #JanAushadhi Kendras were functioning. However, the pace of expansion accelerated and between 2016 and 2025, around 14,000 new Kendras have been established." 1/n
"The scheme had outpaced the government’s deadline, achieving the goal of opening 10,000 Kendras well before the March 2024 target. The next target of opening 15,000 Jan Aushadhi Kendras by March 2025 was also achieved, beating the deadline by two months." 2/n
"Currently, every district in India has Jan Aushadhi Kendras. The most significant expansion occurred in 2024–25, with a record 3796 new kendras, bringing the count to 15057, despite apprehensions from segments of pharma industry " 3/n
Avg population covered by kendras (2025)
A lot being written about Brazilian regulator "rejecting" Covaxin. I'll wait for more information to emerge to ensure larger pharma interests are not in play.
3 factors:
1) WHO's BB inspection didnt find anything. 2) Lower half of the map 3) Read paper(gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/…)
1: WHO's inspection report of @BharatBiotech's facilities (who.int/immunization_s…) . They seemed happy. Now, unless things degraded fast, I'm surprised why Brazilian team would find anything fishy.
Brazil was the ONLY prominent developing country opposed to India and South Africa's joint proposal to the WTO against vaccine monopolies. The strange map says it all.
It’s now become fashionable to act as if the early & decisive lockdown was an unmitigated disaster. However, the aim of the lockdown was to hit a pause button in a time of almost complete uncertainty. It helped the health system prepare well. 2/n
It can be debated how it was implemented, whether we dragged on for too long, etc. But at that point in time,the lockdown, a blunt instrument was all we had to keep damage low & to buy time. Now, armed with low mortality stats, we cannot complain it didnt eradicate the virus. 3/n
I remember answering long questions from the author of this piece. Guess they didn't find my inputs on the invisible (& imaginary for now)catastrophe alarmist enough.
The official response from The Hindu on #KuchBhiResearch is based on a strawman argument. It asserts that the flawed method was called "fudging of data". NO.
The "experts" systematically used wrong data to overestimate multiplication factor and published wrong numbers.@orfonline
"One can differ with the writers’ methodology & their estimate, which is based on a raw factor of multiplication and ...... but that does not diminish their plea for a robust health data system."
Talk about how charlatans hijack a genuine demand from researchers for data release.