If that was the case no government funded study would ever produce results the government didn't want to hear.

Yes - exactly. It's not always, but very frequently studies do give the result the funder wants.

Meta analyses are useful in their place and that place needs to trustworthy.

You're not wrong, but not right. If Liam Mannix had any real qualms, he should be able to point out how (for example) how Mahmud has a conflict of interest. If Liam had reservations about accuracy, they could limit it to the peer-reviewed studies: https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpp

"While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection."

Taking a medication as a prophylactic "forever" isn't viable, or good. It would be nice if there was a safe-working vaccine - but there isn't. You realize the studies that say "vaccine X is 90% effective" are based on only a few hundred infections, and they all have conflicts of interest right? Pfizer says it works because Pfizer wants to sell vaccines.

Is there a reason why governments would push ineffective vaccines (with the requirement of suppressing valid treatments)? Yes of course - profit. Blackrock owns a large chunk of Pfizer. Thomas is with blackrock. Thomas' associates influence the whitehouse:

♦ Tom Donilon’s brother, Mike Donilon is a Senior Advisor to Joe Biden {link} providing guidance on what policies should be implemented within the administration. Mike Donilon guides the focus of spending, budgets, regulation and white house policy from his position of Senior Advisor to the President.

♦Tom Donilon’s wife, Catherine Russell, is the White House Personnel Director {link}. In that position Donilon’s wife controls every hire in the Office of the Presidency.

♦Tom Donilon’s daughter, Sarah Donilon, who graduated college in 2019, now works on the White House National Security Council {link}

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/20/blackrock-in-the-white-house/