This is why the "power to shape the debate" is a tool that must be taken away from the legacy media.

The debate as they have defined it: Should people be allowed to take a veterinary medicine untested in humans for Covid?

The absolute ignorance of that construction cannot be overstated.

My wife is a doctor. She personally prescribes Ivermectin regularly for her human patients. The "on-label" use of Ivermectin is as an anti-parasitic. Within her specialty, it is a very common prescription; it has been used for years. As such, there is extensive safety data for Ivermectin. This drug is way way far away from being an "experimental" drug. FDA approval is far back in the rear-view mirror. It is common, with a completely well-known and documented safety record, in humans. To claim otherwise is absolute ignorance, easily cured by the most cursory glance at the history of Ivermectin. Hell, you can even find this on Wikipedia.

What's the debate? Using Ivermectin to treat Covid is "off-label". In other words, the FDA has not given its seal of approval to use this drug for this application.

A note now on the culture of medicine. Fortunately (or not), because during Covid times conferences have moved online rather than in person, I have witnessed many conferences that my wife has "attended" this past year. What is clear from listening to doctors describe their research, the state of the art, and progress in their field - the purpose of medical conferences - is that using medicines off-label is a key privilege which comes with the degree of "M.D." or "D.O." and certification within their specialty by the associated boards. Occasionally using medicines off-label is standard practice, because this is a critical way that they advance the field. Practicing physicians need to be able to try new ideas out, based on their clinical experience and knowledge of the research, so that the field can advance. Off-label use of drugs - carefully documented with motives and reasoning explained - is central to the forward progress of medicine.

The medical consensus on Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid at this time is "inconclusive". Again, you can look this up. That does not mean it doesn't work. It also doesn't mean it does work. It means, more research will be required to determine if it works or not. In the meantime, it is absolutely consistent with standard medical practice that doctors in good standing in their clinical practice be able to prescribe this drug if - in their clinical judgment backed up by their well-documented reasoning from the literature - they believe it will help their patient. In situations without so much political overtone, this is absolutely standard medical practice. Again, I've been listening to this over and over again in conferences within my wife's specialty over the past year.

The fact that Ivermectin is also used in veterinary applications is entirely irrelevant to everything I have written above. 100%. There are many drugs that are useful in more than one species.

The legacy media is absolutely lying in the way they are framing this debate. It is an obscene caricature of what medicine is, its traditions, and what it means.

Does Ivermectin work? I don't know. No one does.

It is a relatively safe drug - based on years of use in humans - and doctors are absolutely within standard medical practice (going back decades) to use it if they see clinical benefit with their patients, knowing the literature about the drug, and knowing the particulars of their patients' care.

Calling Ivermectin "Horse Paste" and suggesting it is untested in human application is an egregious lie. There isn't a gray area here. This isn't a "mistake". It's a lie.