And your concept was "rigorously peer reviewed". And speaking of peer review . . .
Can you describe "rigorous" peer review generally and more specifically as it applies to this study and the particular journal in which it was published?
A hypothetical question? Partly, but since the beginning of this pandemic I've been astounded by the number of times that individuals (not restricted solely to these forums) have referred to "peer reviewed" articles as if that appellation made such articles unquestionable when my assumption is that the majority of such quoters previously never had reason nor inclination to look at an academic/professional journal.
The site on which this article was published includes a brief description of their review policy.
I readily admit that going to the link you provided was the first time I visited the site and thus was unfamiliar with them or with any reputation that they may have. And while the massive proliferation of on-line "professional" journals has made the dissemination of research much more inclusive, there is still cachet to being published in a journal that boasts a greater reputation. That reputation usually goes hand in hand with a more stringent review process and thus more acceptance of the conclusions reached in published articles. Though I do not lump Cureus in with a number of on-line "peer review" journals that are so obviously thinly veiled scams, neither do I accept that their review is "rigorous".
There is no imposed standard of peer review, however there are some generally accepted policies with the strictest forms usually found in the more prestigious journals. Several links here that discuss review.
Reviewers play key roles in manuscript processing and publication. This article describes in detail how the reviewer serves their two key roles as a gatekeeper of making publication recommendations for the editorial board and a consultant providing constructive ...
Medical research goes through peer review before publication in a journal to ensure that the findings are reliable and suitable for the audience. Peer review is important for preventing false claims, minimizing bias, and avoiding plagiarism. It helps ensure that any claims really are...
Find out how the peer review process works and how you can use it to ensure every article you publish is as good as it can be.
Milton Packer describes the impossible task of vetting medical research
One notable difference between the generally accepted (more rigorous) and Cureus' policies is their acceptance of author invited reviewers, whereas the usual best practice is editor assigned/invited and double blind (neither author nor reviewer know the other's identity). I don't know specifically if the "peer review" for the article you quoted was author invited but my less that satisfactory opinion was partly predicated on the timeline they provided for the review.
A more positive note is that Cureus includes "comments" from readers, something the more disreputable journal sites do not or heavily edit to a set agenda. Some of the article's comments do question some of the study's methodology but unfortunately there isn't a larger continuing discussion, however that may be due to the site's relative obscurity, something I hope will improve over time (along with the review process) because they seem to have an easy to use and inclusive format.
As to the conclusions reached in the study you linked, probably my best response would be to link to comments made in response to a pre-print of the article.
Ivermectin is a drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans and animals. Although some studies conducted on cells growing in the lab suggest that ivermectin has antiviral properties, reliable and large-scale clinical trials in humans haven’t detected significant benefits from ivermectin...