I hope it's not rude for me to point out that that is a very direct question.

mc32 claimed damage was done, and I'm asking for clarification as to what specifically that damage was.

Ivermectin? Actual studies now prove it effective. YouTube banned people for talking about it and people died because of it. How’s that?

There are too many one sentence questions on these issues of censorship. I would say they provide no value to the conversation.

>Ivermectin? Actual studies now prove it effective. YouTube banned people for talking about it and people died because of it. How’s that?

I haven't seen the studies you're talking about, but the FDA claims Ivermectin hasn't yet been proven effective, and the WHO says it should only be used in clinical trials. But assuming for the same of argument you're correct, your claim is that the only available source of knowledge about Ivermectin anywhere would have been videos which were deleted from Youtube, making it impossible for anyone to avail themselves of this miracle cure due to Youtube's "censorship", and that there are people who avoided taking any of the other existing and effective COVID vaccines and who died of COVID as a result, and that Youtube is therefore to blame.

That's pure speculation based on an already far-fetched premise.