Where is that data? You seem very familiar with it. Why not link it? Why do all the links you do post point to random novel .coms with huge batches of totally unrelated studies that just happen to have "Covid-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" in the name, rather than to PubMed, BMJ, or any other more direct source? Why not detail the analysis that led to the conclusion you present? Why do you prefer to talk about your claims of censorship and suppression than talk about the science?

Your statement about "huge batches of totally unrelated studies" is completely false.

All studies on c19ivermectin.com are directly related to Ivermectin efficacy versus SAR-Cov-2, a small number relate to Ivermectins viral efficacy in general.

Hot off the press (all peer-reviewed):

Ivermectin SARS-Cov-2 binding:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13721-021-00299-2

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.5929...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x

Ivermectin in humans, versus COVID-19:

768 outpatients, prospective trial vs control, significant improvement:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122...

Infections - 0 of 788 treated, versus 237 of 407 in control group:

https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd...

Retrospective, 3099 infected patients treated, 1 death:

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-use-of-compassionate...

Examples of counter-studies against Ivermecitn or HCQ (similar profile and response) in journals you love:

https://jamaletter.com/

The infamous Lancet front-page retrospective observational study on HCQ which turned out to be based on zero verifiable data, despite passing Lancet's "peer-review". (Sorry no link, it's been retracted.)