Except you are still dancing around the topic here. The OP being responded to here, which is clearly widely available if you pay any attention to the news, is that the mainstream, FDA, CDC and pharma companies are seeking to extremely downplay, or outright declare ivermectin to be out of line, without doing any research, AND ignoring already existing clinical studies that show it to be efficacious.

Thats the conversation, not splitting hairs on what is or is not adequate. FDA won't even seem to bother EVALUATING if it IS in fact adequate. Instead these players are acting like it does not exist, or is deadly, when it has a 30+ year history of clearly not being so.

Edit: Hence my point about the billions of dollars in loss.

Were the FDA to declare ivermectin efficacious and adequate then the EUA's would likely have to be rescinded. If not, then people would still have an alternative treatment to the vaccines, and thus pharma would lose billions to alternative treatment anyway.

Option: Take 30+ year medicine with proven track record or take experimental vaccines that have not completed FDA approval or clinical trials, no cross sectional longitudinal studies of effects?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3