I mean, it's great that you personally believe something, but to make ethical medical decisions we need lots of clinical data. If your belief is well founded, which it damn well might be, the data should bear that out.
The data on the safety of Ivermectin is very well established.
It's well-known to be very safe with pretty minimal side effects and extremely low serious side effect rates despite the billions of doses handed out over the past decades.
The real question is about its anti-viral properties. We know they exist, but don't know why or to what extent. Further, we don't know if they extend to COVID and we don't now if the effective dosage is high enough to increase the rates of side effects (especially bad ones).
The result is extremists on both sides saying wild garbage. Either it's the salvation of mankind hidden from you by the grand conspiracy or it's toxic horse dewormer that will certainly kill anyone who even approaches it.
This is a real problem. If I were researching Ivermectin and COVID, I'd be scared that loonies from one side or the other might attempt to hurt me or ruin my life over their delusions.
We have lots of clinical data, their belief is well founded, and the data does bear that out. It's as if you commented without even skimming the Wikipedia article about ivermectin.
