There are (at least) two issues with this approach. The first is that specialised subjects are not well-understood by everyone else. Your frankly incoherent an

There are (at least) two issues with this approach. The first is that specialised subjects are not well-understood by everyone else. Your frankly incoherent and "not even wrong" statements regarding Ivermectin vs other drugs are a good example of this. You assert confidently; but when pressed, you admit not understanding the necessary context at all. The second is that if the mainstream media has a problem with being complete and unbiased, then this goes more than double for other sources. Misunderstanding and disinformation is rife. Easy (wrong but satisfying) answers are easy to come by. And people seeking fame are eager to supply them. As they used to say in computing: "Garbage in, Garbage out" We run the risk of being garbage repeaters. The media is changing, that is inevitable. However there is no guarantee that the change will be an improvement. From what we have seen so far, it is not. I'm not surprised that you did not give any examples of your sources, this is the pattern, nothing that can be held up to scrutiny. We may be "We are transitioning worlds right now" but that does not mean that chemical facts will go away via wishful thinking. Delusions about such consequential matters will continue to to have consequences.