That's the point I always feel is the most incredulous one. They always assume the published studies don't lie. They need to understand the problem occurs with the people who decide what to publish. The studies are cherry picked to promote a specific agenda. The editors of JAMA, NEJM, Lancet are the gatekeepers of information. The doctors trust them implicitly. Really? If 5 peer review studies show that Ivermectin works when used in the proper dose at the onset of symptoms and one study that uses too much or too little when the patient is already critical and concludes it doesn't, they publish the latter as proof that Ivermectin doesn't work and silence the people who submitted the other studies. Then all the doctors say trust the science Ivermectin doesn't work.

If you ask the doctors, who exactly chose to include this specific study to publish they'd say the editor or review committee of JAMA or NEJM or LANCET. Then if you ask them to name the editor or the people on the committee they wouldn't know. They blindly trust gatekeepers they don't know. They trust the publication as if were the Bible and God spoke to the editors in some manner. It's nuts. That's where their argument goes off the rails. They don't challenge "authority" at any level of publication or the ones who craft the "official" protocols. They follow and say it's science because it's easier. Going against the flow is not a way to advance their careers or curry favor with peers.