47 pages with the rest being references. Here is the conclusion paragraph

Conclusions During this period, ivermectin was officially adopted in South Africa but not widely used, adopted but later dropped in most of India, and adopted in Indonesia. In the United States and the United Kingdom, projects with involvement of both the governments and commercial companies were announced for development of new pharmaceuticals for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19, indicating unclear boundaries between these entities. The dismissal of repurposed medicines including ivermectin continued in high-income countries due to very differing views on what constituted evidence of efficacy. The divide between ivermectin proponents and opposers remained mostly unchanged during the period, indicating a stagnated situation. There was a noticeable centralization of power, with pandemic response and public discussions largely directed by a few organizations that were largely funded by a few billionaires which, in turn, were affected by their own personal preferences and biases such as obsessive-compulsive attachment to testing and new technologies, primarily vaccines. Legal responsibilities of these organizations appeared, in the words of one researcher, “obscure”.

Commercial interests appeared to override public health interests during this period. As a result, se- veral low-and-middle-income countries and regions either implicitly or explicitly disregarded the WHO guidance, accelerating an erosion of WHO’s credibility.