Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc
You are trying to make a personal offence and claims without any references. That sounds like a blind repeating of the narrative, even if it wasn't intended to be so.
Here's the major question I have for folks like yourself who are still on about ivermectin though - why?
Why are you invested in this one particular pharmaceutical? What is it that makes you think this specific chemical, which has been looked at and found not to be particularly beneficial for covid use, stands out from the other things which have been looked at and not found useful? Why are we allowed to dismiss and move on from them but not from this?
As for your question, let me give you a very simple answer. As a layman in certain area, I see few facts - several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid.
And at the same time, a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths. Doctor said that if he wouldn't intervene and put him in ICU, he would be dead by now. Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut.
Certainly I am not going to draw any conclusions from those observations. Except one - why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted? There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help, but we have no means to know at what extend or at what price. This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity, which is something we have to use when dealing with challenges like covid. Sadly not many of us are capable of that.
I'm aware of frequent vaccine complications, but haven't heard of government doing any payouts.
Long answer - quite a significant number of people are resistant to vaccines, particularly to mrna-based ones. Government offered voluntary vaccination and managed to vaccinate around 50%, after that different coercion and segregation measures (mandating without actually mandating) were used to raise the number to 94% (among eligible population).
Disappointment is starting to grow lately because despite total vaccination there is no removal of restrictions. While being reasonably open with data, government still plays with it - once vaccinated ppl become constituting majority of cases among fatalities they just stopped reporting how many vacc/unvaxx were among fatalities. This leaves people frustrated and disappointed in govt approach to tackle covid, particularly in this "vaccinate everyone" idea.
A lot of resistance spotted in people 60+, younger generation mostly just goes for shots.
I wonder if older gen has seen enough to not take everything at face value.
Younger generation remained hesitant but government insinuated huge social pressure in schools and colleges. My spouse's 14yo son was initially very resistant to vaccines and we supported it, but immense peer and school pressure pushed him to get the jab.
Additionally government mandated vaccination in cafes and dining venues so younger generation just sees it as obstacle for fun and getting it easily. At younger age you don't think about long-term effects.
Are you aware that this doesn't constitute any sort of evidence about ivermectin's effectiveness?
> a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths.
Are you aware that coronavirus causes clotting much more frequently than the vaccine? I'm sorry for your friend, but if this were commonplace then every other person in the street would be an amputee, given how many billions of doses have been administered.
> Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut.
So how do you know about it? Wasn't a very good gag order then was it if you know and are spreading it on the internet? I'm just going to say it - I don't believe this story.
> why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted?
Well because Ivermectin hasn't been shown to do anything for covid, but quacks are promoting it online. The vaccines, on the other hand, have been tested and found to be a useful way to reduce the consequences of the pandemic. A pandemic that's killed millions so far. So those are pushed. I mean seriously - how weird is that? Who would ever think, something that's been shown to help in a worldwide health crisis, and it's being pushed!
By the way, ivermectin is a pharma product too.
> There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help
Where do you draw this from? This is not clear at all, this is a bland assertion.
> This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity
I agree - you have shown no intellectual curiosity there, asking for studies to be done that have already taken place and you could easily find, and throwing vague allusions about cover-ups around. This isn't intellectual curiosity, it's clinging to a conspiratorial narrative. Perhaps you could use your knowledge of psychology to figure out why you prefer this narrative.
TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.
So I'll revise - studies have been done, but no conclusions about positive efficacy can be supported.
"I think the conventional wisdom - that the most extreme ivermectin supporters were mostly gullible rubes who were bamboozled by pseudoscience - was basically accurate."