You didn't link a "peer reviewed, reproduced, double blind study". You linked a meta-analysis of other studies. One that admits near it's conclusion "[...]th

You didn't link a "peer reviewed, reproduced, double blind study". You linked a meta-analysis of other studies. One that admits near it's conclusion "[...]the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance." Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's something. So again, why is your burden of proof less than mine? I don't have any studies of my own, I assume you don't either, nor the resources to conduct them. All I hinted at that there was a seeming connection between an off-patent drug that had gotten an exceptional amount of hubbub. It's interesting how aggressively this argument is fought, considering there's a lot of drugs/medicines that are similar in structure and have similar but notably different effect. If this drug is just ivermectin designed more accurately for the coronavirus's protein structures, that should be lauded! It's a family of drugs with a safe track record! But instead it ignites a fiery debate filled with spite-filled comments. Get it?