I mean...this is kinda silly. I'm usually a fence sitter, but there are a number of issues you don't, or can't, "sit on the fence" for because there's no fence to sit on. You have to pick a "side". And global pandemics are one of those. I'm no leader and have no desires to be a leader, but that has nothing to do with realizing that some issues you can fence sit on, and some you can't.
But the thing is that's a HUGE mistake on his part and calls into question his methodology across all his research, as well as how much he's allowing his biases to impact his hypothesis and data. I mean, as far as I can tell from some casual research it was never actually prescribed in Japan in meaningful numbers, it was just a bunch of rando's on Twitter pointing to the coincidental drop in cases after the authorization for the use of ivermectin...despite the fact that there was no actual connection between the two outside of timing.
Yes, this has been the case from the very start. And it's a source of, for example, all the "studies" that promoted snake oil like ivermectin. This is why many in this thread have been repeatedly warning not to take pre-published and non-peer reviewed studies with as much credibility, especially if their conclusions are wildly out of line with everything else we're seeing right now.
I mean...based on what you've posted here about him and what little research I've done today, I see no reason why he should be a remotely credible source of information about covid.
This guy is a nurse educator, not an infectious disease specialist or anything that would actually give him any unique or informed insight about the virus. And given the quality of his "conclusions" so far, I'd feel confident saying that while he may be an excellent nurse educator, he's absolutely not an expert infectious disease expert. Nor am I.