YouTube and Facebook are public platforms. Nobody benefits from the general public being sold unsubstantiated theories of miracle medicine X before there is scientific consensus. My beetroot-cures-cancer video has no right to be there either.

We are talking about scientists presenting important evidence about existing and useful treatments, and about the public discussing it, and about large companies censoring that debate. That is not anywhere near "selling miracle cures". Discussing good news, even if they may be incomplete or inaccurate is beneficial to many people.

Most of these videos are not “evidence” being presented, but merely opinions or advocacy. The general public has no need to “discuss” unproven treatments. Evidence is presented through studies and medical journals.

Witness testimony is evidence, these are respectable and accomplished people. You are wrong about the needs of the public. Public does need to be able to communicate about this. There are levels of evidence, not everything is presented through medical journals. However, there are papers in those journals too, see the article that this discussion is associated with.

Thank you for determining what I should or should not discuss.

The church has a similar perspective about “off limit” topics too.

In the 16th century falling out of favor with the church’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.

In 2021 falling out of favor with your social media platform’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.