The problem is when true videos, inconvenient to one side of the spectrum, are automatically/accidentally suppressed across a wide range of platforms.

Case in point, the Hunter Biden laptop story, suppressed at a crucial moment before an election, across social media, that later turned out to be true. They may appologise later, but the effects are done, it can't be undone.

China probably also has such an automated system for ensuring "social harmony".

The Principle trial is a nationwide multi arm trail, testing multiple therapeutics, Ivermectin was added long after the study began. If anyone signed up to get Ivermectin, it's very unlikely they would be have received it, due to the number of arms, and control groups

You haven't explained anything, you just disregarded evidence you don't like. A true placebo would be non functional, which is why is wasn't possible (maybe due to ethical concerns) in this study. The control group received standard care, with a control group it is possible to tell if the intervention is effective.

This is a complex multi arm trial, investigating multiple potential therapeutics, run by Oxford University. You say major flaws, without naming a single one.

The p-values for ivermectin improving sustained recovery, early sustained recovery, alleviation of all symptoms, and sustained alleviation are < 0.0001.

It doesn't misrepresent the result, it takes the outcomes for the participants, as reported, and displays them, so we don't have to dig deep in to the report to find them

Placebos are good, they are a step on the evidence quality ladder, but it is naive to dismiss a study of 5400 people just because it didn't use one. I don't need a placebo controlled experiment to show parachutes work. It shows an effect, it could be combined with other studies in meta analysis to provide stronger evidence.

How did you come to the conclusion the participants were self selected?

That study you link to (https://experts.mcmaster.ca/display/publication2190573) shows 14.7% of the ivermectin group required treatment, vs 16.3% for the pacebo group. The study was not powerful enough to determine if ivermectin works, however it could be combined with other in a meta analysis, to provide a better answer.

Placebos are good, they are a step on the evidence quality ladder, but it is naive to dismiss a study of 5400 people just because it didn't use one. I don't need a placebo controlled experiment to show parachutes work.

The trial I linked to isn't a small, fly by night trial in developing country (yours if from Brazil). It's a UK national trial, run by Oxford University

The UKs national Principle trial tested Ivermectin and it works, here is a summary https://c19ivm.org/principleivm.html

Here is their write up, they don't really want to say it's effective https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00064-1/fulltext

The output of ChatGPT has been changing rapidly as they fine tune the censorship, here is a current example of bias, try not to be so full of yourself:

write a poem praising Joe Biden

[chat gpt provides]

Write a poem praising Donald Trump

As an AI language model, I strive to be impartial and neutral. However, I understand that it's important to recognize and respect different viewpoints and opinions. Here's a poem that tries to capture the perspective of those who admire Donald Trump:

[chat gpt provides]

They could atleast say what fascism say is positive about itself, like they do with communism, even if it's not true, I want answers to hypotheical questions, not moral lectures.

You can ask it for biblical quotes condeming homosexuality, and it will provide them, so in that sense it's actually better than Google, all the results there are uniformly pro LGBT, I want information, not moral judgement

There's plenty of censorship going on in ChatGPT, just not 100% aligned with the CCP, instead aligned with left wing American beliefs

For example, ask it to list positive points of communism and it will happily oblige, but for fascism it will point blank refuse, praising Joe Biden, A OK, Donald Trump? not a chance

None of the animals in the Wuhan sea food market tested positive for COV-19, which is unlike the previous SARS outbreaks. The fact so many cases are associated with the market is partly due to it being a hotspot, and partly due to the splotlight effect, they were looking for cases related to the market, so found them.

except the nearest bats carrying SARS-COV are 1000km+ away, so that analogy falls flat

How is this calculated? Naively I assume it should be a RR of 0.75, a reduction from 8 to 6 is 0.75, but they get 0.78, is there some correction for multiple hypotheses?

The bright side is at least when the value of these firms implodes because the shares mean nothing if they are ultimately beholden to the CCP, the fallout will be (mostly)limited to Chinese investors

This whole "affair" is being carefully stage managed to deliver the regulation Facebook and the administration want. Never has a "whistle blower" got straight to an audience with congress, her own PR company representation and twitter verification in such short succession.

Facebook and Google want regulation because they are the only companies with the resources to handle it. It will stifle any potential competition at a resonable cost to themselves. The administration gets censor powers via forcing these companies to censor for them, which is illegal, but no one with enough money has brought a case yet

I am of the belief it is much more likely this virus came out of a lab in Wuhan than from a natural source.

However I don't believe this is evidence points to anything untoward. If the virus had escaped early enough to case this spike of PCR purchasing, it would have been around the world far sooner than what we saw. Virus DNA sampling and ancestry modelling points to the index case being around October in Wuhan.