One question was about a source for the statement that those who are vaccinated are also less likely to develop robust natural immunity after a breakthrough case. There is no confirmed evidence for this claim.
For another post: "How about a couple. Lots of RCT's (the gold standard of science) DO.
Here's a link to EVERY study of ivermectin for covid. Read them yourself.
https://c19ivermectin.com/""
Did you look at the sources and details for these studies? And did you read the abstracts? The list includes: Many very small studies, many without statistical significance, preprints, observational studies, surveys, opinion pieces, those stating the potential use, in-vitro studies, etc., and none published in a prestigious journal. Also, there's no link to the details of the studies showing the methods and analysis.
It may seem impressive when there's a long list of what sounds scientific and professional. These fit the criticism that justify the conclusion that there are only lower quality so-called studies that have positive finding which have not be replicated by a plethora of studies that are well-controlled and meet acceptable scientific criteria. Many of the studies on that list are filled with egregious flaws and misleading information.
For one on that list, a team in Egypt compared patients who did and didn't receive ivermectin, but for the latter group, they included deaths that occured before the study began. The lead author defended the paper in an email, claiming that the withdrawal took place without his knowledge.
For another one on that list, researchers in Argentina said they recruited subjects from hospitals that had no record of having participated in the research. Later, they blamed the "mistakes" on a statistician who claimed never to have been consulted.
It's very easy to be misled, especially when dealing with complex scientific issues.