Got a cite for that claim?
In any case, isn’t a prophylaxis or early treatment far preferable? Especially when the protocol for use of the monoclonal antibody treatment is this...
Ivermectin is not a prophylaxis. It is at best a weak early treatment. Monoclonal sorry virtually stop the disease in its tracks. The literature on ivermectin is at best equivocal if one reads it instead of worships it.
Monoclonal are also an excellent post exposure prophylaxis. This plus a targeted therapeutic are exactly what the vaccine doubters want. The question is will you be intellectually consistent?