> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.
In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.
[1] prevent, v.
1. keep (something) from happening or arising.
2. make (someone or something) unable to do something.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship
I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.
>Have a miracle cure for COVID?
Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Calling medical doctors and researchers who risk their careers to publish studies backing up potential treatments are not charlatans, they’re heroes.