I think more important than whether or not Ivermectin is actually helpful (it seems to have a following, but there appears also to be contradictory evidence and

I think more important than whether or not Ivermectin is actually helpful (it seems to have a following, but there appears also to be contradictory evidence and it's weirdly entangled with people advocating against using covid vaccines) is the whole censorship issue raised in the article. I definitely don't want YouTube or whoever deciding what I'm smart enough to think about and accept or reject on my own. They (tech elites generally) went down a dangerous but self-constrained road when they started censoring during the election, but extending this to scientists etc, and by extension somehow pronouncing on what scientific opinions are valid and which are not, moves into a whole different realm of inappropriateness