The studies on ivermectin seem to be split between "good effect" and "no effect," and there don't seem to be any (by my extremely informal review! going off of memory here) in the camp of "bad effect."
Seems reasonable to take ivermectin as a decent gamble to me while we wait on the dang science to get its head out of its butt.
Thus seeing "no effect" places an upper bound on how good an effect you will see as "none", and a lower bound as "won't kill most people quickly". That's not a good space to gamble into.
It took almost an year until the scientific community settled down that HQC for treating COVID-19 is harmful. The actual formal result is still "no effect and doing more studies is anti-ethical" because nobody can tell exactly how harmful it is. Probably nobody will ever be able to tell (and that's a good thing).
The "bad effect" doesn't have to be strictly medical, and may not show up in studies. It could be that other people who need the medicine can't get it, it could be that it discourages people from getting the vaccine, it could just be that we are lighting a pile of money on fire for no reasons (that's bad, right?).
Could we actually not manufacture enough of it, or were activist pharmacists just refusing to fill prescriptions of it?
If you are concerned about wasting money, consider that for one dose of (also unproven!) medication like convalescent plasma you could buy about a thousand doses of generic, cheap drugs like ivermectin. And that has been tried about 500000 times, still is unproven but is not considered controversial.
After all, unlike iver, there is very good hospitalization data about vaccinated vs unvaccinated now.
The only reason one would be taking iver prophylactically, is because one wasn't vaccinated. And the only reason to take iver after covid symptoms develop is because you didn't take the vaccine.
If one was vaccinated and are feeling sick enough to take iver, she would be better off with oxygen and hospital SOC.
For instance, if you get tetanus after having the vaccine, you'll still be given antibiotics. If someday ivermectin is proven to have a positive effect against Covid, we won't withhold it from vaccinated patients.
Do republicans or liberals get better probabilities? Or is it only for Covid related odds?
Remember that the in vitro study that gets cited a lot used a concentration that would be lethal in humans.
Maybe they are not "significant" enough for you.
Anyways, I've seen enough "iver" posts on [1] to keep me away from it.
The fraudulent studies (y'know, including dead patients, patients that never existed, drugs that weren't administered and so on) have shown a good effect.
The real studies unfortunately showed no effect.
My advice to you; don't gamble. Ever.
That one was a very interesting story. The best informed people made rational decisions to mask up, semi informed believed the bad advice to do without, the least informed acted randomly.