going into great detail, because arguing about studies and the "faults" and weaknesses therein is a rabbit hole that can literally go on forever, I would note that the studies/research are listed categorically, so merely reading from top down might tend to give you an incomplete view of the evidence.

As to the lack of "peer-reviewed" work, I would note two things: 1) there is some such work if you click through one all the links and 2) so called "peer-reviewed" evidence is not the only kind of acceptable scientific evidence, nor has it ever been. It is valued, of course, for various reasons, but I am not sure there is any paradigm of "science" under which it is the ONLY acceptable evidence.. There is an entire spectrum of scientific evidence of various probative value.. each to stand on its own merits. And, like I said, you can argue about the merits of each (and I do appreciate the time and effort in that regard on your part), as you have done so, here. But continuing that dialogue is, as I have indicated, a potentially bottomless rabbit hole. My primary point on number four is, as I have repeatedly indicated, that there IS a body of scientific work supporting the use of ivermectin (if you had read further you would have come to the observational and empirical work regarding use of the medication by practicing physicians and the scientific analysis thereof), although reasonable minds can certainly, as you have, debate the probative value of that evidence

But to say "no evidence exists" is, to put it bluntly, an untruth
[Post edited by EAPo at 09/28/2021 12:43PM]