I must note that this was tested early in the course of the disease.
Both the regimens containing Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin (with antibiotic and zinc) were intended to disrupt viral replication, and to be administered early in the course of the disease.
The "Studies" which claimed the drugs were useless were administered without the antibiotic in some instances, always without Zinc, and during middle to late stage disease.
I wonder how Merck's new drug would have done had it been mis-administered that way?
And, of course, how well the HCQ and Ivermectin regimens would have done had they been tested in early onset cases and administered as the complete regimen instead of just one of the three parts (something ignored studies actually say proved beneficial by similar numbers).
Of course, drugs that have been around for a while don't have anywhere near the profit potential of something new...