None of them provided evidence showing that ivermectin should be a recommended treatment for COVID - and certainly not without proper testing & evaluation.

The first 10 "studies"/papers linked from the FLCCC write-up:

1. Tested ivermectin in a petri dish, not testing in humans or even animals - sure, maybe that warrants further real world testing, but does not in any way by itself make ivermectin a recommended treatment for COVID.

2. Tested the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of mouse hepatitis virus (not COVID) studying the livers of 56 female mice. Did not test for ivermectin's effectiveness for treating COVID.

3. Was rejected rejected by at least one journal because "the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups. Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies "the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups. Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies."

4. Tested ivermectin on something with rabbits, but no mention of COVID.

5. Not peer reviewed; computer model of bonding ability of ivermectin - didn't actually test effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID in people or animals.

6. Tested ability to attach to spike protein; conclusion: "the ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection." So, didn't conclude that ivermectin should be used to treat COVID.

7. Linked to web site of the British version of the FLCCC pushing ivermectin (not an independent or unbiased source).

8. Link requires submitting info to download report, so not sure what's in it.

9. Not peer reviewed, no control group, conclusions vague.

10. Linked to web site of the British version of the FLCCC pushing ivermectin (not an independent or unbiased source).

I figured that if the group pushing ivermectin can't even include a study that shows true evidence it's effective within the first 10 studies it links as support for its effectiveness, it's all bullshit and really not worth my time reading through any of the other links.

I have no problem with proper medical studies looking at ivermectin as a potential treatment - we all want to find ways out of this pandemic! - but the evidence is not there yet, so pushing it as a treatment option is dangerous since it gives people false hope of a treatment that will cure them if they don't get the vaccine.