The surest way for me to think something's bullcrap is if you claim it's "censored."
It's probably not censored; it's just bad science.
Well, the Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromax/Zinc Sulfate regimen, as it turns out was Not bad science, instead, the articles in nejm and Lancet were retracted because those 'studies' claiming the regimen was harmful WERE bad science.
But YouTube and Facebook censored anything which did not agree with the CDC, which at the time was parroting the (obviously) flawed studies, including Dr Zeleno's original video detailing the pharmacology, how it worked, why it worked, and when it was most effective, all just as soon as Trump mentioned Hydoxychloroquine.
Sorry, but science has been polluted by politics since AlGore stepped up and started braying inconvenient lies.
As a scientist, I want to see the data, understand the processes and cause/effect relationships claimed, and see if the data support the conclusions (and whether the conclusions support the title). Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
So why don't you at least listen to what people have to say and make up your own mind?