Well fine, but most people are going to get vaccinated rather than relying on Invermectin as the golden bullet that's being proposed by a fringe group of people.
Diseases are often treated with multiple drugs. A vaccine is ideally administered prior to infection. A virus is not intended to cure a disease, but to stimulate and tailor immune system defenses. If administered after the disease has progressed in an individual, the results can unfavorable. Each case is different.
In the case of COVID, corticosteroids are best administered later in disease progression because they suppress immune response, which can be life-saving in the event of severe cytokine storm, but if steroids are administered early, their immune suppressive effects can enhance viral replication. Hydroxychloroquine was found quite effective if administered at onset of symptoms. However, poorly designed clinical studies administered hydroxychloroquine to hospital patients after viral replication was not a problem, so there was no effect, or there was increased mortality because of overdosing the hydroxychloroquine.
Ivermectin is not a substitute for a vaccine. It is a cure for COVID, at any stage: prophylaxis, onset of symptoms, during hospitalization and with cytokine storm because of its anti-inflammatory effects and non-toxicity.
The big US efforts went to using remdesivir, an antiviral, which from what I've read, is almost useless, and over $3000/dose. In the US, any other therapetics were strongly discouraged. Doctor friends have told me that they would lose their license to practice medicine for the sin of administration of hydroxychloroquine.
The big winner is big pharma.
Remember that before any idea became mainstream, it started small. It was fringe. This is true for essentially every innovation.
