You're implying I have selective bias in the evidence I put forward. However, you have only put forward a hunch - "my money is on". Your method of critique is

You're implying I have selective bias in the evidence I put forward. However, you have only put forward a hunch - "my money is on". Your method of critique is post-modern - you have your evidence, they have their evidence. But that is not true. There are no studies (apart from one) that show Ivermectin is not effective - it's just the effect level that differs between them. There are now 30 RCTs! When you know that Ivermectin works best when given early and at higher (but safe!) doses, you can design studies that show a lower effect level. Just give it late at low doses on a healthy cohort. Then you conclude "Ivermectin has no effect". But meta analyses account for variances between RCTs - and they show it works. If you look at the MacMaster and Oxford trials - it allows participants who have had first sympthoms of Covid up to 14 days ago, from age 30. And they only dose for the first 2/3 days at 200/300 mcg/kg, respectively. We know from the meta analyses there is a dose response, and ivermectin has safety data with over 1200 mcg/kg. So, yes, you can design a RCT to give the answer you want - if you are incentivized to do so. Show me the incentive and i will show you the outcome.