necessarily factually untrue. it may be factually unsettled. but the problem is it doesn t fall along mainstream media s talking points. that s what they are labeling misinformation. which is wholly upsetting. that s not what science is. science, you have to be able to openly debate. it s about the free exchange of ideas. that is how we evolve as a country to become more scientific with everything else that we have that we re successful because people come together and we openly debate. but, when you start having big tech tyrants and now the white house wanting to remove opinions because it doesn t fall in line with the white house s talking points, all that will do is breed more skepticism and confuse a lot of people. rachel: yeah, dr. bahaa abu dr. you areplatform to talk abow doctors that have had their licenses threatened because they want to prescribe early treatment ivermectin. this is something we need to get to the bottom of and of course relationship between pharma and
exceptional measures to meet those very exceptional circumstances. i want to get to the issue of labeling misinformation. you still allow the misinformers to get their information up. shouldn t there be just a flat policy? if you re a known misinformer, whether it s on covid or the election, whether it s one strike, two strikes, three strikes, maybe you can decide how many times you intentionally misinform, throw them off. you seem to want to find a way to keep these folks on. how does the warning label help? it keeps the misinformation out there. sure. the first thing to say is, of course, if someone keeps saying things which leads to real world harm, we kick them off. we do that on a very, very significant scale, i think far more significant scale than any other part of the industry. you re quite right. if someone is saying stuff that s going to lead to real world harm, that s simply not