Whilst journalist/PR summaries are so notoriously bad they're a punchline when you talk to actual researchers, I think we have to be charitable here and acknowl

Whilst journalist/PR summaries are so notoriously bad they're a punchline when you talk to actual researchers, I think we have to be charitable here and acknowledge that most communication about COVID doesn't have the luxury of writing about every single trial registered (or making puns on the word "fluke"!) So it tends to summarise it as "initially promising results for Invermectin were fraudulent, whilst large trials found no effect at all. Also it has side effects, like most other drugs, so the people ordering it in doses for horses aren't being as clever as they think" which isn't nearly as entertaining or as thorough as Scott's writing, but is a broadly accurate summary of the state of scientific evidence. (Of course you can also summarise it as "there's weak evidence for Invermectin having some therapeutic benefit which is probably related to preexisting conditions"... but we know how quickly that snowballs into "Invermectin stops COVID, scientists ADMIT IT" by the same people that deny the much stronger evidence for vaccine efficacy. Science journalism is bad, but not as bad as the selective reading of it.)