Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to mor

Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions: "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics." https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-therapy https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... "The Kory et al. preprint ignores the basics – there are no criteria for inclusion, studies have different mixes of treatment and control and different standards for describing treatments compared with ivermectin and mixes of treatments including ivermectin. These factors alone make the value of their meta-analysis doubtful. However, their evidence base is my major concern as it has been widely reported on social media without the wider (and more technical) context of how meta-analysis ought to be performed" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/publication/351359435_Ivermectin_COVID-19_Miracle_Cure_or_Cruel_Hoax/links/6093dbd392851c490fbc851f/Ivermectin-COVID-19-Miracle-Cure-or-Cruel-Hoax.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/public...