Thanks for the links, I will take a proper look later. However, I have to repeat my point about scientific convergence because your links, in contrast to what you said earlier, demonstrates it is yet to happen. Popp et al. acknowledges the presence of the meta-analysis I linked above, and that it has a different conclusion to itself. It acknowledges that the approaches were broadly different, and that the criteria for inclusion of various studies in the meta-analyses were different. Future papers are going to have to continue to refine and agree on biases in individual studies that rule them in or out of subsequent meta-analysis.

Or, to put it more succinctly, science has not yet converged.

Yet, COVID is killing people, so we can't wait for science to converge before doing something about it. It therefore makes most sense to use educated guesses and conduct evidence based medicine with appropriate weighing of risks versus rewards. What ivermectin has going for it is that it is an extremely safe drug with a long history of use as an antiviral. Repurposing existing drugs is also far easier (and quicker) to get approval for than new vaccines. Even if the papers you linked are eventually proved right, and ivermectin is not beneficial, the evidence from ivermectin's use over 40 years suggests that it does very little harm - deaths caused by ivermectin intervention are essentially in the noise. What's more, it's out of patent so we're not paying $20-40 a pop like we are with the vaccines. It's got so much going for it that any level headed risk versus reward calculation should include it in the arsenal to fight against COVID.