Your statement about "huge batches of totally unrelated studies" is completely false. All studies on c19ivermectin.com are directly related to Ivermectin effic

Your statement about "huge batches of totally unrelated studies" is completely false. All studies on c19ivermectin.com are directly related to Ivermectin efficacy versus SAR-Cov-2, a small number relate to Ivermectins viral efficacy in general. Hot off the press (all peer-reviewed): Ivermectin SARS-Cov-2 binding: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.5929... https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x Ivermectin in humans, versus COVID-19: 768 outpatients, prospective trial vs control, significant improvement: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221001004 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122... Infections - 0 of 788 treated, versus 237 of 407 in control group: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... Retrospective, 3099 infected patients treated, 1 death: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate-ivermectin-in-the-management-of-symptomatic-outpatients-and-hospitalized-patients-with-clinical.pdf https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate... Examples of counter-studies against Ivermecitn or HCQ (similar profile and response) in journals you love: https://jamaletter.com/ https://jamaletter.com/ The infamous Lancet front-page retrospective observational study on HCQ which turned out to be based on zero verifiable data, despite passing Lancet's "peer-review". (Sorry no link, it's been retracted.)