I'm just saying that a study of 1200 people is a very small size.

That should be able to detect a difference between the treatment and control groups of the order of 1%. The claim for ivermectin is that it's a lot more effective than 1%.

Your study cited a similar study of a 600 person or so sample size that drew an opposite conclusion, that Ivermectin was effective.

175 of those people were participants in a trial that didn't have a "high" risk of bias.

This study has better quality.

It's just not compelling in my book.

It's indicative that the effect is non-existent or very weak.

If Ivermictin is in wide use, larger and better studies could be conducted.

You could do a larger study without it being in wide use. The studies done to date don't imply effectiveness, so the use that its getting (and that of hydroxychloroquine before it) are not justified.

These shit stats also "showed" that Ivermictin did not have negative consequences.

At those numbers. It's a well used drug. (Mostly for deworming horses).

But there are side effects.

Commonly:

painful joints or muscles.
unusual tiredness or weakness.
skin rash or itch.
headache.
nausea, vomiting, stomach discomfort.
dizziness.
swelling of the face or the legs.
worsening asthma.

And more rarely here are serious neurological adverse effects