The vaccine is experimental and the full safety profile is still being discovered. The EUA specially requires that there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". The conclusion: "large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" suggests it may be a viable alternative to widescale deployment of a vaccine that did not go through the full approval process.
No, sorry. The linked study suggests a 60% reduction in deaths from this drug. Even if it were true, it is nowhere enough to be an adequeate alternative to the vaccines, that were both vastly more effective at reducing deaths and could also significantly reduce transmission.
If you got the first dose of vaccine and then presented with COVID (that does happen), a short course of ivermectin immediately could likely do you some real good.
That is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand: whether use of this drug would have prevented EUAs for vaccines. It clearly would not have, this is just a pure conspiracy theory.
I am double vaccinated. I'm not proposing ivermectin as a substitute for vaccination. It's a palliative which may reduce serious consequences if an unvaccinated (or partially vaccinated) person presents with COVID. In that case, a vaccination would not act quickly enough to develop immunity. Even early use of Ivermectin would not have prevented the EUAs, because around 30% of those taking Ivermectin develop serious COVID, some progressing to death.
The problem is the EUA argument preventing the use of Ivermectin, not the other way around.
You are missing the point. We now have some idea of the effectiveness. No one wanted to hear anything about Ivermectin for most of the past year. The world economies have lost trillions and some large portion of the 3.8 million dead were needless. Pharma companies knew there was a potential for Ivermectin and worked to discredit it because it was a threat.
