The force is you preventing me from getting Ivermectin. If you take a step back, the rest is your description of your perspective ie why it annoys you. From my perspective, there is no noteworthy negative effect of me getting it and i can clearly describe the negative effect in you preventing me from getting a functioning placebo. From my perspective, an action you take (limiting the availability of a non harmful placebo) has a negative effect on me. This motivates me to a reaction. And i dont think you could expect otherwise, its what any rational actor would do.

So again, neither of us needs to be convinced that i am not an utter moron,

that might not be possible, but do you really want us to go on opposite sites of political camps over this? Not only am i not a nazi but i am a friendly idiot that is actually looking for cooperation, if you cant get along with me, who do you get along with? Because it seems to me like you already burned a lot of bridges and my cooperation can be bought at the very cheap price of not interfering in me getting my horse dewormer despite your utter contempt for my idiocy. Yes i do understand its a placebo, it isnt a substitute for a vaccine and i am of legally sound mind. So where do i sign?

So do you have a thought process and evaluation of the cost benefit analysis of starting a conflict over this? Because it seems not. You believing you are right doesnt make the consequences of those actions (the reactions) go away. The world is full of idiots who react to your actions unrelated to whether you are right. Which you can think about. And should unless you want to end up over time having started a conflict with all the idiots (ie everyone given the exposure to enough topics) despite being right.