I mean if a benign intervention doesn't actually work and it causes people to avoid a real intervention that is problematic. There's definitely plenty of alternative medicine misinformation out there that makes similar arguments about safety and history.
That said, it is wrong for YouTube to be removing these videos IMO. First of all, who at YouTube reviewed the material? Do they actually have the expertise necessary to filter out fake claims? There are plenty of natural treatments out there that actually can be helpful, and I doubt YouTube hired a doctor familiar with the relevant literature for its fact checking operation.
Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos? Is this sort of content about possible preventative measures really more harmful than countless videos that exist on YouTube about natural "cures" for cancer?
And really these are just implementation concerns, there's also potentially more fundamental problems with silencing information like this. I haven't read enough on what the OP posted to comment on how real it may be, but even supposing it were false information, deleting the videos entirely may not be a net positive.
> Second of all, why is YouTube so fixated on removing COVID-related videos?
How about lawsuits? People who followed advice on YouTube (or their relatives) could sue YouTube. YouTube already has the technical means to remove video's (e.g. porn), so they will have to defend why they did not do that in this case. There have been a large number of people in the U.S. that died or were infected, so the number of potential litigants is also large.
I've had COVID, and this is why I will not get vaccinated, despite CDC recommendations. It's very creepy how they've buried treatments and promoted experimental vaccines.
I think GPs point is that if you were optimizing for the best health outcomes, you wouldn't demonize promising, or at least benign, non-vaccine treatments. Doing so makes it seem like the vaccine push is optimizing for something else.
Not GP, but I am not until a vaccine is approved by the FDA for non-emergency use. And even then, I think I will wait for more data to come out about the long-term effects of the vaccines.
One of the criteria for FDA Emergency Use Authorization is that there's no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...) so if they started looking into alternative treatments it could have jeopardized approval of the vaccines.
You'd hope that if there had been promising candidates for prophylactic/therapeutic treatment involving off-patent/generic drugs that the regulator and the medical establishment would have considered them on their merits, and not systematically squashed them with bad studies and half-truths in favor of top-shelf Big Pharma products. It would be unconscionable for people in these positions of authority to have shown partiality towards the pharmaceutical industry in a matter like this which would have delayed access to treatment and which gives rise to serious concerns about patient safety, especially considering the difference in the amount of medium and long-term safety data that is available about them (months compared to decades).
How can you be so gung-ho with relatively new vaccines, but bury relatively benign and longer standing interventions?