At least one of the studies included in the above analysis was discovered to very likely be fraudulent.

The authors say it didn't change the overall finding but it certainly takes away my confidence in their ability to discern a well designed study from a fraudulent one.

And as we all know in CS: garbage in, garbage out

Details: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

The Wall Street Journal actually published a follow-up to that "Also related" link, with the headline "Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction

(Subhed: "We have egg on our faces.")

https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-ivermectin-study-retra...

The link you provided still stands behind the main claim... - "We retract the part of our article that relied on the data from Dr. Elgazzar’s study. But the broader point stands: There’s strong evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in treating Covid-19."

The problem is that there isn't. A metastudy found that virtually the entire positive affect attributed to ivermectin derived from the Elgazzar study, which was fraudulent. Ivermectin doesn't work on COVID.

The American Journal of Therapeutics paper you linked includes falsified data from a since-retracted paper. It is also the only literature review that indicated Ivermectin does anything at all against COVID-19. If you remove the falsified data, you will see that the drug no longer seems effective.

Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain.

The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of pharma companies is shameful.

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests?

Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

Wouldn’t one also perhaps analyze manufacturers of drugs may be given during a course of treating covid on a hospitalization? Ivermectin is a very very cheap drug, used in bulk with livestock for worming, and likely with low margins.

I think you're coming to a strange conclusion in what you've said...Ivermectin is out of patent - far less money can be made from it. US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin actively discourages use of ivermectin -- Also Merck signs $356M deal to supply US with experimental coronavirus drug. These are the financial interests you should be looking at.

https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/

Vaccine prices have been increasing.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/1...

Additionally, 'one $5 vaccine' is just wrong. There is already 3rd booster shots being administered in Israel with the pfizer vaccine as its effectiveness is diminished with the delta strain (and Epsilon..no doubt till Omega) ...The possibility of these vaccines being used similar to annual/bi annual flu booster shots is far from 0.

Nor is your comparison a fair one...It isn't a split between use the vaccine or have everyone require days of medical care (that would of course cost more...Not necessarily to the benefit of pharma companies though) -- IF ivermectin was a effective (even just 5%) prophylactic OR treatment/therapy against severe covid symptoms (let alone possibly doing both of these things) that certainly would affect the profits of phara companies getting contracts and sales of their patented offerings.

To be fair, Insulin is out of patent, and yet prices have still gone up.

> Also the vaccines are pretty cheap

cheap times billions of doses is not cheap anymore. And Pfizer and co continuously increased the prize of the vaccines without any pushback.

How many doses of ivermectin are needed? If it is billions of doses for the vaccine, it is tens of billions of ivermectin, because you would have to take it regularly prophylacticly (forever?).

The ivermectin paste everybody is using for a few doses costs $7. People aren't paying wholesale costs for these drugs.

You can't say they pharma companies that make the vaccines are evil and only want money, but the other pharma companies that produce ivermectin are only promoting the drug out of the goodness of their hearts.