Does this follow, logically?

As in period (3), the study suggested that the monthly incidence rate of malaria had rebounded to 4.57. Secondly, between period (1) and (3), the capturing and subsequent examination of A.gambie revealed an increase from 8% to 48% in the Leu1014Phi kdr west allele responsible for pyrethroid resistance. A positive correlation between the increase in the monthly incidence density of malaria and the kdr west allele in A. gambiae was inferred. However, it may be too reductive to suggest that the increase in pyrethroid resistance of A.Gambiae was a result of the introduction of LLINs alone, as the use of pyrethroid insecticides and residual indoor spraying policies elsewhere may have contributed to said increase. The combining effect of these variables may have been one which had increased the pyrethroid resistance of A. gambiae. Nevertheless, the article suggests a reduction in the efficacy of LLINs, which may be a result of said variables. Therefore, the rebound in malaria morbidity may be suggestive of this.

Does this follow on, logically? is it grammatically correct? Can you write it better than this?

Is it not very good?

help teachers,

Thanks.