As a case in point to the bias I'm referring to, read the response of howweroll above. He manages to conclude that a paper shows promising results for Ivermectin from "70 summaries of clinical trials". And his citation is a paper that simply talks about 70 ongoing trials that hadn't yet completed.

Obviously he misread the paper, but it is a huge mistake of a misread and he responds sarcastically with a "hmm" suggesting to me his utter certainty of correctness, and I don't see any likely explanation for it except a strong cognitive bias. It is a bad sign for rational scientific discourse when someone with zero expertise in an area is willing to gleefully contradict experts in the area, especially when backed with no argument of substance.