> The entire public health apparatus in the West has a huge desire to treat all illness with only on-patent, new medications.
This and
> The vast majority of the studies about Ivermectin have been observational, run by front-line clinicians.
> Prior to 2020, basically everyone on earth agreed (including the WHO, who STILL agrees) that front-line clinicians and observational studies are excellent signals that can lead to scientific investigations that can lead to medical breakthroughs.
and
> Doctors in my area are prescribing IVM to treat covid because in their experience and that of their peers IT WORKS. They have fewer deaths, fewer complications.
Don't really add up. Best case interpretation of your argument is that you think doctors are split in half - not wholly aligned behind novel treatments - the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" group and the "only throw new custom expensive stuff at it" group, but even that doesn't really match what I'm seeing.
A large number of doctors are out there throwing all sorts of things at a new disease because nobody knows what works yet. The data is going to be incredibly messy. One thing that has looked effective in many cases is steroids, very much not new. Other things that looked potentially effective haven't continued to look effective as more studies have been done.
Where's the massive pushback against steroid treatment if this is an institutional greed thing?
It looks to me much more like some people get married to their early hunches and dig in hard when the evidence doesn't pan out.
Throw enough shit at the wall in enough places and all sorts of false leads are going to appear. Some of them getting shot down isn't a conspiracy. It's how we learn.