So, it appears that they reported the wrong sort of numbers. Or, rather, they used a set of numbers that make the not-vax appear much more useful than it really is. They reported the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), which was ~95%, rather than the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), variously around 1% for different versions of the vax. Meaning it was statistically insignificant.
Meanwhile, over at ZeroHedge, they have a story about big story on Ivermectin in the NY Times. (PDF of original story here.)The author is confused why it has not been pursued more aggressively when there is no money in it compared to shiny new untested but patented and expensive drugs… Hmmm… whatever could it be?