Indeed. The problem with "scientific studies" is also that they are often no better than anecdotal evidence, and sometimes worse. Poorly designed studies, sometimes deliberately so, are used to obtain pre-defined results to satisfy the sponsors of the study or to obtain a positive result so that the paper stands a chance at publication (negative or inconclusive studies are rarely published). Statistical analyses are either poorly understood by researchers, or deliberately gamed to achieve the desired results. Science, as it is currently practiced is horribly broken and has been for many years. That's not to say that scientific studies are not worthwhile. When done competently and without bias they are tremendously powerful, but definitely not infallible. These days, there is a quasi religion in the form of scientism, where "The Science" is always right, and anyone who disagrees with "The Science" is effectively a heretic. Prior to COVID this was most evident in climate science, but is present in most scientific disciplines to some extent. I've looked at quite a bit of research on Ivermectin and I'm quite satisfied that it is a highly effective treatment with an excellent safety profile. Doctors in my country would be deregistered for prescribing it for COVID.