experimental is acceptable after all?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ivermectin has been approved for human use over three decades ago. In the African countries where it is used as a prophylactic against parasites which cause river blindness, the death per capita from covid is VERY LOW.

Yes. It has been approved. For treating PARASITES. Not viruses.

What you have pointed out is a correlation. What scientific data do you have? How do you know that's the cause?

And specifically, which countries are these? And how is the ivermectin distributed?

Is it to everyone in the whole country? Or is it only distributed to rural isolated populations that are affected by the parasite?

Because if the ivermectin is only distributed to rural populations it could be that the low per capita rate could be due to poor reporting. It could be due to isolation. They're not getting covid simply because they're isolated enough that they're not coming in contact with it.

What facts do you have that ivermectin is the cause?

Say no more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Got some bad news for you about this study.

While I am confident that the authors of this study acted in good faith, one of the clinical studies they based their work on has proven to be fraudulent.

Specifically, the one by Elgazzar, A. in Egypt. He doubled up on data, plagiarized some findings, and may have just straight up falsified patients.

now, you may be thinking, "hey, that's just one study, how much of a big deal can it be?"

Quite a bit. That one study accounted for 15% of their support of ivermectin. And because one part of their data has proven to be wrong, the whole rest of the study has to be thrown out.

If you found out your kid had cheated on 15% of the test, would be like "meh, it's a B. That's fine." or would you reasonably expect to have that test thrown out?

People's lives are at stake here. This isn't good enough. Especially when compared against the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Once a drug is FDA approved, doctors are free to prescribe it for any other use. This is called off label use. It is both legal and common. HCQ is frequently prescribed for lupus and some forms of arthritis. Many drugs are FDA approved without knowing the actual mechanism on how the results are produced. I guess you could say there is no known cause and effect. What studies need to show for FDA approval is a correlation that a drug produces a positive outcome and it is relatively safe. Many FDA approved drugs have serious side effects, some even fatal.

There are quite a few in vitro lab studies that show that ivermectin has antiviral properties against viruses such as HIV, West Nile and others.

During the Civil War, doctors frequently amputated limbs to prevent death from gangrene. At the time, I can assure you, there were no placebo controlled, double blind studies that correlated amputations prevented death. But doctors achieved positive results.

Not even Einstein understands how gravity works. But there is a CORRELATION that objects accelerate towards the ground at 32 f/s squared in the absence of air resistance.

Off Label is as scientific as carrying a pocket full of posies to ward off the plague.

It's literally "well, this other guy tried it and he got better." At its finest moment, it's anecdotal.

Off label isn't even experimental. It lacks data. It lacks review. It lacks control.

Why would you be willing to trust your life to something no one knows anything for sure about but not a vaccine?

A vaccine that is specifically made to deal with this virus, has tons of data, and has been extensively reviewed.

First three statements are incorrect.

Ivermectin has beennused safely used against parasite that causes river blindness. It has a much safer track record than the vaccine does.

Parasites are not viruses.

Using parasite medicine for viruses with scientific data is dangerous.

Parasites are not viruses.

Here is an article that details some of the studies regarding ivermectin/Coronavirus. The details of the micro biology might be too much for the average imgflip user

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

Drug repurposing, drug redirecting, or drug reprofiling is defined as the identification of novel usages for existing drugs. The development risks, costs as well as safety-related failure, are reduced with this approach since these drugs have a well-established formulation development, in vitro and in vivo screening, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Moreover, the first clinical trial phases of many such drugs have been completed and can be bypassed to reduce several years of development. Therefore, drug repurposing has the potential to reduce the time frame for the whole process by up to 3–12 years and carries great potential [6].

This article also cites the deeply flawed Egyptian study by Elgazzar, A.

Using anti-parasite medicine to deal with a virus is at best reckless and at worst dangerous.

I get it. You want to "own the libs" and show them it's no big deal and you don't need a vaccine cause this here horse paste will do you up right! You don't need no fancy white coat from an ivory tower to tell you how to handle anything!

You need to stop.