Your language suggests that you’ve already decided how you would like to believe, and your rebuttal to the OP fails to move past the first couple paragraphs of

Your language suggests that you’ve already decided how you would like to believe, and your rebuttal to the OP fails to move past the first couple paragraphs of the guardian article or appreciate the other sources that are linked in the article, which elaborate on the concerns with the paper’s methodology and data. This additional analysis on the data [0] to me appears to be of significant concern to the validity of the study and suggests fraud on the behalf of the investigators, or at the very least significant methodological failures with study design and data capture which trickled down into ultimately a flawed the study which at the very least is highly suspect to largely useless in adding knowledge to the question of whether ivermectin is a beneficial treatment for the COVID Arsenal. In an era where the politicisation of COVID and it’s treatments is at such a high level, and the thirst for polluting the discourse so high from bad actors, all players in this space need to be attempting to uphold the highest levels of scientific rigour and unfortunately it appears that standard is not being delivered upon here. There are many other sources that you can follow from there from investigators (using the term in the academic/scientific sense) reviewing the data and paper that your keen interest in following and reviewing the evidence yourself will lead you to should you so desire [0] https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021/07/Some-problems-with-the-data-from-a-Covid-study.html?m=1 https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021/07/Some-problems-with-t...