Most of that wikipedia article is devoted to pointing out that most of the time "argument from authority" is legitimate. And to the extent that the article doe

Most of that wikipedia article is devoted to pointing out that most of the time "argument from authority" is legitimate. And to the extent that the article does say that even a legitimate authority needs to present an argument, in this context, they have! Like the situation here is medical experts have said "hmm these studies that appear to show ivermectin's effectiveness are fraudulent and suspicious". Like, with the exception of the complete theory that ivermectin studies in some nations are naturally confounded by the presence of worms, the arguments he's made about the unreliability of the ivermectin data is the mainstream argument about the unreliability of ivermectin data. He even cites a number of experts whose analysis he sometimes relies on!