How could Merck stall those studies? Ivermectin is widely available, you don't need to get Merck's permission to use it in a study.
Scott Gottlieb worked at the FDA at a high level, before leaving for a stint in the private sector which included being a partner in a VC fund which invested in many medical startups. He left that to become the commissioner of the FDA under the previous administration. Gottlieb is currently on the board of Pfizer, and has relationships with several other companies in the pharma space.
It's not insane to think this person still has sway with people who are working within the FDA and are considering a move to the private sector.
Do you think there's only one organization in the world that could possibly study these things?
Any discussion of the validity of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is now "political", in the sense that Team Red thinks that its a gift from god, and Team Blue thinks any consideration of it is anti-science stupidity.
And since there is a strong correlation between Team Blue and the vocal science community, in a sense someone could drive consensus about a drug to make and studies into Ivermectin political instead of evidence-based - because who wants their university peers to think they are Team Red instead of Team Blue.
Even though there are peer reviewed studies that show some correlation between Ivermectin and COVID viral loads - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
I'm not saying they did, but its not unimaginable to do.