Fact check: What specific studies have been done regarding ivermectin use to treat Covid. And who paid for the studies

1. Summary of the results

The research on ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment presents conflicting findings across multiple studies, with the majority of recent systematic reviews showing no significant clinical benefit.

Major systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

• Multiple comprehensive reviews analyzing 24-33 randomized controlled trials involving 6,310-10,489 participants consistently found that ivermectin did not significantly reduce mortality or mechanical ventilation requirements in COVID-19 patients ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• The evidence quality was consistently graded as low certainty across these studies ^{[1] [2]}

Individual clinical trials:

• A large Brazilian randomized controlled trial with 1,358 high-risk outpatients found no clinically meaningful benefit from ivermectin treatment in reducing hospitalization or emergency department visits ^[4]
• A Sri Lankan study showed a statistically significant reduction in viral load by Day 10 but no significant difference in clinical progression or symptoms ^[5]

Contrasting evidence:

• Some earlier reviews, particularly one published in the American Journal of Therapeutics in 2021, suggested potential benefits including reduced mortality, faster viral clearance, and prevention of disease progression based on meta-analyses of 18 randomized controlled trials ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Funding sources identified:

The original question specifically asked about funding, but most analyses did not provide detailed funding information. Only one study explicitly mentioned funding: the Sri Lankan trial was funded by the Medical Research Institute of the Ministry of Health in Sri Lanka ^[5].

Methodological concerns:

• Multiple reviews highlighted significant methodological limitations in ivermectin studies, including potential bias and low-quality evidence ^{[2] [3]}
• There appears to be a temporal pattern where earlier reviews ^[7] were more optimistic about ivermectin's benefits, while later systematic reviews (2022-2023) were more skeptical (p2_s1 vs p2_s2, p2_s3)

Stakeholder interests:

• Pharmaceutical companies manufacturing ivermectin would benefit financially from positive results
• Alternative medicine advocates and certain physicians like Pierre Kory (mentioned in p3_s2) have promoted ivermectin use and would benefit from validation of their positions
• Regulatory agencies and mainstream medical institutions would benefit from studies showing no efficacy, as this supports their cautious stance

Dosing variations:

Studies used different dosing regimens, from 400 μg per kg for 3 days ^[4] to 24 mg daily for 5 days ^[5], making direct comparisons challenging.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation but rather seeks factual information about studies and their funding sources. However, the question's framing suggests an awareness of potential conflicts of interest in research funding, which is a legitimate concern in medical research.

Key limitations in available information:

• Funding sources are largely undisclosed in the analyses provided, making it impossible to fully answer the second part of the question about who paid for the studies
• The analyses show a clear evolution in scientific consensus from initial optimism to current skepticism about ivermectin's efficacy
• Publication bias may exist, as studies showing positive results might have been more likely to be published early in the pandemic, while more rigorous studies showing negative results emerged later

The scientific consensus has shifted significantly from 2021 to 2023, with more recent and comprehensive analyses consistently showing no significant clinical benefit from ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment.