Looking at that NIH article its a study of other researcher's studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/8394824/bin/ciab591_fig1.jpg
What I do see is that out of 256 records regarding Ivermectin they kept 10 and excluded 246 of the records. How much Ivermectin was given? Did they have an effective dose or were the patients given amounts below an effective level? How long did they receive it?
Because of these questions I would probably try to find an actual study rather than an extrapolation from other peoples works. You can select your studies to support your expected conclusion and I do not think either of us is inclined to review the other 246 studies for content!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results/
By Ben Goldacre on February 13, 2013
I think there is actually a lot of pressure to NOT find Ivermectin effective! See;
https://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/
"On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.
Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.
In a remarkable exchange, a transcript of which appears on pages 137 – 143 in Kennedy’s book, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use"