Is it ethical not to consider Ivermectin? Feb 17

Tess Lawrie (director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, UK) has recently released a  meta-analysis of ivermectin data regarding its use as COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis. Please see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348297284_Ivermectin_reduces_the_risk_of_death_from_COVID-19_-a_rapid_review_and_meta-analysis_in_support_of_the_recommendation_of_the_Front_Line_COVID-19_Critical_Care_Alliance_Latest_version_v12_-_6_Jan_2021  

She started with 27 randomized (RCT) and observational controlled trials (OCT) mentioned by the FLCCC (https://covid19criticalcare.com/) and pared them down to 9 RCT and 6 OCT.  This resulted in 1835 subjects in the treatment analysis and 1542 in the prophylaxis analysis.  She considered a number of endpoints.  But if I include just those not subject to investigator bias, she finds that the risk of dying is reduced by 62 to 92%.  With respect to prophylaxis, the chances of developing a positive PCR test is reduced by ~88%.

I think that it is time for Ontario to consider the use of ivermectin to complement vaccines, and do it now.  Lawrie's analysis makes the argument in favour of ivermectin use as strongly as would a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.  The development of new COVID variants with different sensitivities to vaccines is a good reason for our authorities to give serious consideration to potential drug therapies (such as ivermectin) that could complement vaccines.  Although the Canadian vaccination implementation is picking up speed, it will still be months before herd immunity can be achieved.  

Under these conditions, is it ethical for the Province of Ontario not to consider ivermectin?  Will people die because we dither?