That was most of them. But I recall at least one deceptive Lancet paper arguing against ivermectin which was also fraudulent. Lancet has a long long problem with controversial papers with the 'right' opinion which get far less scrutiny than required.

Why would you assume that? You'd have to read a scientific paper to reach that conclusion (or do the experiment yourself) and the trustworthiness of that is what is at issue!

You’re kidding, right?