> Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find

> Like this one? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v... Or you can go find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's). Did you read the top comment on your link? “There are a number of concerns with the methodology and consistency in this study: [. . .] might be true that Ivermectin does reduce viral shedding time in mild to moderate COVID-19. However this study is not rigorous enough, includes amendments which could have introduced bias, and has methodological issues. In my opinion it should not be accepted as good evidence that ivermectin reduces viral loads and could reduce isolation time in patients with COVID-19.“ > hope you didn't bury those goalposts too deep as you'll need to move them again. My point is FLCCC assertion is meaningless. Why cite to them and not direct to trials or meta analysis of trials? > Meanwhile the meta-review you cite is the one that managed to "find" only 18 trials As with any high quality meta analysis it describes their search strategy for finding and selecting studies for inclusion: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... Notice how in your own two posts you’ve switched the number dramatically? ‘they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works’ vs now ‘find one of the 21 others FLCCC cites (excluding Elgazzar's).’ This is a good demonstration of how easily the number can be changed when you use a different search method and less or more filtering.