If "With a meta-analysis, if you detect a high number of fraudulent studies..." applied here, perhaps so. But most of those eliminated were not for fraud, in f

If "With a meta-analysis, if you detect a high number of fraudulent studies..." applied here, perhaps so. But most of those eliminated were not for fraud, in fact only 2 were for fraud, the rest were flawed in ways which, I'm afraid, is equally common (or nearly so) in studies on any other topic. Also, not all of the studies he threw out showed ivermectin working, I recall at least one showed the opposite but that doesn't mean we throw out all studies showing ivermectin doesn't work. Also, the whole point of the exercise is what do you find if you apply good statistical and methodological rigor, but don't have any anti-ivermectin bias.