Based on global averages, out of 110 household contacts, you’d expect 30 Covid infections, and around 15 of them symptomatic.
This study found 4x global averages. That is an irreconcilable discrepancy.
It is either fundamentally flawed or intentionally fraudulent, and either way it is completely bogus.
Based on global averages, the human male is 5' 9.3". So a male claiming to be 6' 8" is bogus?
You seem to be suggesting that an average found for a large population need apply to every small sample studied, which I'm sure you realize is not so. The 58% value they give is within the range of values found in the JAMA paper. Furthermore, the authors admit that they diagnosed covid based on symptoms (and blood tests and scans) and not PCR, so the actual number of covid cases was probably lower.
Standing up for something that is way outside the realm of possibility isn’t thoughtful discourse.
I'm not defending this paper, which provides only weak evidence for using ivermectin.
I'm standing up for the idea that we can critique the specifics of a research article, rather than simply dismiss it out of hand, based on the country where it was done, or the weaknesses in the experimental design. No research study is perfect - What's important is to understand just what the limitations are. I don't see such a discussion as being outside the realm of possibility.