No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1].
[1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
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.
(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.)
By itself? Or as part of the supposed protocol from HQC/zinc/zpak pushers?
Obviously the fda would say this is the approved, safe medicine, so this other stuff is not approved and safe. The fact is that as far as the fda knows, they don’t know anything about if it’s safe or unsafe so they call it unsafe.
> the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization
They must have a subscription to Rolling Stone.
But they have of course carefully chosen their wording. This could mean there were two people hospitalized that took ivermectin and got symptoms the hospital thought were due to that. But it turned out to be something else.
Just like the cdc, they have received ‘increased numbers of reports of side effects’. Wow, who would have thought if a 100 times more people take a drug, that would result in increased reports of side effects. The generic side effects that are also a side effect of placebo, like headaches and nausea.