Let's rephrase your category b and see it it sticks: b) the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence,

Let's rephrase your category b and see it it sticks: b) the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence, pushes an anti-intellectual agenda, pushes pseudo-treatments that are at best not known to work or at worst a health hazard, and tries to fill in the gap between their beliefs and reality with conspiracy theories? Yep, fits like a glove and with that shows it is unwise to try to frame one of the sides of a polarised discussion. If you truly want to engage in a debate on such subjects the first thing to do is to leave your bias at the door, otherwise you'll only add fuel to the fire. Whether Ivermectin works or not is something which can be found out through the scientific (with a small 's') process, is it not up to 'The Science' to decide this upfront. If it does work this would be a good thing given the relative safety and low price of the preparation. If it does not work, well, that's too bad, hopefully something else will be found which does work while having the same advantages - safety and low price - as Ivermectin has.