I have certain reservations about Bret Weinstein, about his wife, about his brother.
I think that link is a hatchet job. For example-- the claim that the Delta variant has been "devastating in India". According to Weinstein & Co. --some of India's states & territories opposed Ivermectin. Others adopted it. And they claim outcomes were clearly-better in the Ivermectin areas. Including vs. the Delta. Weinstein claims Ivermectin is effective against all variants/ and the jabs are not reliable across all variants. Rather than address Weinstein's claims directly-- the Quillette authors lump all-of India together into one "devastated" pot.
In the case of the Argentina study-- Quillette declares the study results to be impossible... due to the 18 hour measured half-life of Ivermectin. However: Weinstein hasn't claimed that the mechanisms of Ivermectin's effectiveness.. is even fully known. Quite the opposite: his cohort cite people in Africa who take 2 doses of Ivermectin within 48 hours... and then wait 6 months before taking 2 more doses with 48 hours. Weinstein claims those people have markedly better results vs. Covid than other African areas which don't use Ivermectin-- to combat the worms which cause river blindness.
Quillette quotes the BMJ review of available science... which discards the pro-Ivermectin studies "“because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision”. But Quillette doesn't not mention that Weinstein & Co. responded to that specific claim. Namely: they pre-registered their studies-- so that if the studies failed to prove Ivermectin effective... the negative result wouldn't be be hidden from disclosure. And the pre-registered positive study results-- were thus not the result of cherry-picking. Weinstein also notes that the Big Pharma jab studies were not held to this same high standard of evidence.
Quillette accuses Weinstein of exaggerating the dangers of the Big Pharma jabs. But Quillette does not acknowledge Weinstein's provable claims-- regarding ways that patient and doctor and institutional reporting of negative-effects of the jabs... has been hampered by censorship, and intentional choices made which obscure data collection about negative effects.
Regarding the relative-effectiveness of Ivermectin vs. Jabs... Quillette says Jab reduces your odds of getting-Covid... 20 times less likely, than No Treatment At All. While Ivermectin is 6.67 times less likely than No Treatment At All. Even accepting those numbers-- Quillette does not acknowledge the subtlety of Weinstein's message: The Jabs are not yet as widely available as Ivermectin. For much of the globe, their real choice is Ivermectin NOW or Jab LATER. And Weinstein argues that adopting the less-effective Ivermectin now has a better chance of stopping the virus BEFORE it become endemic.
Time & again, Quillette overlooks Weinstein's strongest arguments-- pretending his arguments are weaker than they really-are.