There are a lot of studies cited, and linked, here: https://ivmmeta.com/

This site is basically a real time meta analysis of existing Ivermectin studies, it includes over 80 studies covering over 100,000 patients with an overall risk reduction of 63% [95%CI: 52‑71%], p < 0.0001 for early treatment. Yes, it is effective, but works best if given early, or even better as a prophylaxis, and in combination with other drugs and supplements, zinc being one of the most important.

Much of the negative press that Ivermectin has received has been the result of poorly designed studies (highly likely to be deliberately designed to fail), that give Ivermectin too late, in incorrect doses and without any combination. For example, studying Ivermectin in patients already hospitalized (due to cytokine storm) is practically pointless. The lead investigator of the Ivermectin arm of the RECOVERY trial in the UK admitted that there was a beneficial response to Ivermectin, but they stopped adding patients to that arm of the trial at a point designed to ensure that the benefit would not be "statistically significant", if they just kept adding more patients (as the original study design outlined), they would have got to a point where even that trial, which used a low dose given late in the disease progression, would have shown a statistically significant benefit.

Additionally, Ivermectin is a drug with a very well known safety profile, it has been used for many years both as a treatment and prophylaxis and is available over the counter in many countries. It is a drug that is basically safer than aspirin. So, even if it might not be as beneficial as it appears, the risk of using it is minimal, as is the cost.

You should be able to get down in the weeds of as many studies as you want from ivmmeta.com.

If he's going to be like that then tell him he has to do his own google-fu... He better get good at it soon, too.

There's been plenty of evidence... And a lot of it has been suppressed... He needs to learn how to spot that, too.

its a function of risk vs benefit that is taken into account for treatment. ivermectin alone has very little use, when with zinc and i believe its vitamin D it destroys viruses very well, however the risks are less than tylenol and aspirin. now take remedesivir as an example its risk were so high when it was being tested for ebola they basically came out and said its more deadly than ebola so they canceled its use, yet it is the go to drug for covid figure that out. even if it doesnt work as long as the dosing is correct the risks are minimal, when considering taking drugs always consider the risk profile of said drugs, mRNA included

The strongest evidence for ivermectin effectiveness is how much it has been demonized by the media, the CDC, and by the medical establishment.

As far as having ironclad scientific evidence, it's not there. Ivermectin is an off-patent drug that costs pennies to manufacture. There is no money in studying its effectiness. Funding for studies comes from the pharma industry and they're all pushing vaccines.

But if you want a study, here is the latest and largest one:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

You'll see articles in the media say that this study proves that ivermectin is doesn't work against covid. They are lies. There is a clear signal and according to the study authors the study is simply underpowered: it needed way more participants to show the effect.

IMO the study was designed to fail so it could be touted as a failure for ivermectin.

It all comes down to what you consider to be sufficient evidence. One could say that there is insufficient evidence that ivermectin helps with covid, and just looking at the studies, if your standard for evidence is high enough, that's definitely true.

Can't treat a disease that doesn't exist.

Point him to Peter McCullough

The strongest proof of all is my wife.

I got the coof really bad some time back and tried the ivermectin horsey paste. I was back in business in under 24 hours.

Fast forward to six months later when Wifey was feeling a bit under the weather. OF HER OWN VOLITION she got out the horsey paste, dispensed some for herself and THEN told me she was taking some. And in under 24 hours she was 100%.

So not only did she take it ON HER OWN (and she’s a skeptical bitch sometimes), but it worked.

THAT is the best proof ever.

of daily deaths per 100,000 in Africa by IVM use vs non-IVM use for parasites. This probably shows its effectiveness in prevention rather than treatment.

1) covid doesn't exist 2) ivermectin doesn't treat viruses 3) ivermectin treats parasites 4) (((toxoplasmosis gondii))) being treated by ivermectin is the literal only reasonable explanation for the jew rage behind muh ivermectin - this is easily seen by the hilarious amount of kvetching any and everyone gets when they name (((toxoplasmosis))) as a culprit for a lot of the mind altering it causes 5) ivermectin, hcq, and the other one also each cause SEVERE liver damage, so there's that.

Studies are not the only source of evidence; expert opinion is also a very strong form. Countless doctors, and many high profile doctors swear by ivermectin's performance. There is certainly mroe evidence that IVM works than doesnt. Every negative study Ive seen has been designed to fail, or has major conflict of interest, with lead scientists working for pharma on the side, usually without stating as much.