> But you can go ahead and keep doing X/Y/Z yourself; we'll turn a blind eye to that. Just do it quietly." This is not true; the only MD in the discussion ment

> But you can go ahead and keep doing X/Y/Z yourself; we'll turn a blind eye to that. Just do it quietly." This is not true; the only MD in the discussion mentions he was strong-armed out of his personal off-label use, which is also contrary to the non-compliance slack you've mentioned. > This is very different from actually making a recommendation to do X/Y/Z in those situations, because such a recommendation can be interpreted out-of-context to imply that doing X/Y/Z might be helpful I don't know if you've seen the video in question, but they are not trying to make a medical recommendation at all. It is more of a meta-discussion, e.g on several institutional games (in the sense of game theory) including the implications of finding out a cheap off-patent drug that could contend with multi-billion-if-not-trillion-dollar global-scale vaccination drive. > can be interpreted out-of-context to imply that doing X/Y/Z might be helpful, and may mislead some doctors into doing X/Y/Z in situations where it wouldn't be helpful Youtube should not be in the business of assessing this risk, because they don't have the competence for this. I bet they don't even have one person with a medical degree in their policy team that made the takedown decision. When they take down an on-topic video of an MD and a PhD Biology, however unorthodox their expert position might be, it has the contrary effect of promoting folk medicine, not advancing scientific medicine.