> But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin,

Entirely irrelevant when discussing YouTube, which we're doing now. YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.

> YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.

It is not a source, and never was a legitimate source of anything, but a media of communication. I am not sure why people mix the two up. If doctors in one part of their world can share their observations with doctors all over the world, it has tremendous value.

Now it seems that doctors can only share their observations with W.H.O and any inference should come from the top, which they could delay citing sorry "no research" for an arbitrarly long time..

But drug commercials on TV are? I mean, why can't a doctor talk about the benefits of a certain drug with a "but talk to your own doctor first"? How is that any different?

Drug commercials are bad, and banned in pretty much every developed country. Anyway those drugs have been proven to work, this drug hasn't been proven to work.

This is something that really shocks and annoys me when I visit the US. Ad-sponsored TV is unusable.

I disagree. It's merely a platform for content and needs to be evaluated independently per presentation.