During COVID, I attempted to post two links to peer reviewed medical journal articles in the NIH library. Just the links, not even the titles of the scientific papers linked, no commentary.
One article from 2005 showed that zinc had proven to be effective against SARS (the original one) in vitro and in vivo, which was enough for me to understand that getting Zinc into the cells affected (epithelial airway cells and Type 1 Pneumocytes) was likely the key to stopping the virus.
I believe the other article dealt with how Hydroxychloroquine acted as an ionophore, helping those crucial Zinc ions to get into those same cells and be more effective than just supplementing your diet with Zinc.
By the time I had released my mouse button to post, the post was branded as "misinformation", in less time than it would have taken to click on the link, load, and read the title of the first study.
I have called "Meta" "Fecebook" ever since.
Those two studies vindicated the medical logic behind the tow treatments which have proven viable in millions, and the Ivermectin/Doxycycline/Zinc treatment protocol worked for me, even if rounding up the components amounted to a scavenger hunt that led from the feed store to Walmart to to the walk in clinic and a pharmacy. AMA Forbid you could get all three at the same place. But I wonder how many died needlessly because of such throttling of critical information?
The problem with such gateways is that sometimes the answer to a problem is not within the orthodoxy, and using the rules of the orthodoxy to interfere with the flow of information damns scientific inquiry to a new dark age.
