Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though.

The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.

I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0].

(And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.)

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/

"Give antibiotics for pneumonia" and "give antiparisitics for pneumonia" are slightly different scenarios, yes?

Well, as was pointed out elsewhere on this thread, 1) earlier this decade ivermectin was being studied for antiviral properties. 2) Azithromycin's use as a covid treatment seems to be controversial, even though a couple years ago it would have been considered a standard treatment for _viral_ pneumonia to combat the _possibility_ of bacterial infection.

> Azithromycin's use as a covid treatment seems to be controversial...

By itself? Or as part of the supposed protocol from HQC/zinc/zpak pushers?

Both in conjunction with HCQ and zinc, in conjunction with other drugs (like the antihistiamine treatment I linked to earlier), and by itself.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/

That seems like a false choice