..problem is that you started at the beginning of the list of authorities, which begins with the in vitro and in silica, etc, work concerning the general mechanism by which IVM is proposed to work... so, no... those works do not specifically state "We should use IVM to treat/prevent Covid"... those works, appropriately, only suggest that further work be done. HOWEVER, contrary to what you aver, above, there are multiple (As in, dozens) of studies linked from the FLCCC summary I provide as well as the associated/linked meta-analyses, which specifically address the clinical efficacy of the drug in treating and preventing Covid... some of which I have linked above.

Now, WRT those that I linked (As well as the dozens which I did not) we could of course, as I indicated, argue back and forth about the particular structure, merits, and weaknesses of each one.... But to be quite frank i find that exercise tiresome in this forum. You can lay the most well-constructed and supposedly bulletproof, extensively peer-reviewed, scientific study ever conducted in front of me and I guarantee you I could still find holes/flaws/things-at-which-to-pick. POINT IS: These are not two-paragraph knock-off assertions by Joe Fly By Night... they are well-structured, scholarly works that do, actually, on one level or another, directly support the clinical use of IVM. We can of course argue about the merits of each an every one of those scholarly works and, of course, give lesser or greater weight in our own personal pantheon of authorities to those works... but to say they "do not exist" is, as I have repeatedly stated, untruthful. Do you disagree with that basic premise (even without granting the probative value of any particular study or the aggregate)?