I don't have time or expertise to evaluate, let alone conduct, clinical trial methodologies or meta-analyses, so I have to rely on secondary sources. The institutional consensus (from WHO, etc) is that the treatment is unproven, and further research is required. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...
It is apparent that there is a community (ivmmeta, BIRD, FLCCC) who strongly disagree and believe that ivermectin efficacy is already proven.
So the question becomes: who to believe?
We definitely have historical examples of astroturfing, regulatory capture, etc occurring - such as oil companies going to enormous lengths to muddy the science around climate change. And we also have recent examples (HCQ is the obvious one) where a large number of people became very excited about a treatment which has, I think, been fairly conclusively shown to be ineffective.
I have no magic method to determine which of these is the case this time, but my money is on IVM being a washout after further research.
I am skeptical of the BIRD folks, because they are acting and talking like a pressure group, not an open-minded body. I frankly doubt their impartiality when evaluating the evidence - I'm not alleging a nefarious purpose, just the omnipresent danger of becoming too attached to your pet hypothesis. To paraphrase your statement, I hope the truth on ivermectin comes out. And I hope it is an effective treatment. But these are two separate hopes.
BTW: You're providing an example here of how, once you start looking at a particular issue with a conspiracy mindset, you can easily construct an impervious epistemic bubble. The large trials cannot be trusted because they have been designed to fail; shadowy forces lie behind the doubts cast on the Elgazzar trial; and so on. This is not to say that conspiracies never exist. But it is worth asking yourself: what could I learn at this point which would change my mind?