The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

Sorry but I don't buy it. The website has a clear agenda focusing on right-wing talking points and being selective or misrepresentative of the actual science. For example, if anyone searched "Ivermectin" without any prior knowledge and read Will Jones' four articles, they would think that the research is overwhelmingly that it is effective, when in fact the opposite is true [0,1] . Similarly, anyone searching for "climate change" would think that scientists all over the world are speaking out in denial of there being any climate urgency, when again that's not the case [2]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9215332/ [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y [2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/...

The Covid therapeutic and prophylactic literature has been chock full of crap studies, so you really have to be careful taking meta analysis at face value. Some interesting discussion on this, which includes the prophylactic literature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

Most/all of those studies have been proven to be falsified with repeated data and/or poor data. In fact, the company who make Ivermectin have even stated it has little or no effect on Covid. Why would a company that focuses on profits from the product categorically tell you not to use it? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

At least two pro-ivermectin studies have been retracted. The remaining evidence is weak. I don't think your claim of misinformation is well supported. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y