If we lived in a world that made sense, this would just be an open debate that scientists and doctors could have publicly without being ridiculed or having their credibility questioned.

I fully agree with this point. And I see no reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to take the "people form" of Ivermectin if they contract covid-19: it is cheap and it is unlikely to harm them, AFAICT, as long as the dosage is properly controlled.

The only problem I have with Ivermectin is that it is widely being promoted by anti-vaxxers as a very effective treatment to covid-19 and there is little evidence to support that: the data is a bit of a wash. I believe this strong push for Ivermectin (and hydroxychloroquine, for that matter) vs the vaccine by people who basically don't have any real medical background (except their "independent research" skills) is a product of strong political bias. Frequently these are the same people who came up with what can only be called "unhinged" theories about microchips in the vaccines and plots to use vaccines to somehow subjugate the world (and somehow mask-wearing is supposed to do this too, through some sort of behavioral conditioning, which I suppose means surgeons were enslaved long ago).

And the problem with this overly-positive narrative about the effectiveness of Ivermectin is that it convinces the vaccine-hesitant to believe that they don't need to get vaccinated against covid-19 (which studies have conclusively shown actually is effective at preventing contracting covid-19 and suffering serious effects from it). It leads them to believe they can just take Ivermectin (or hydroxychloroquine, or a vitamin drip, or whatever drug is in vogue at the moment on an alt-right site) if they contract covid-19 and they will be fine. And that can have very unfortunate consequences.