The videos was pushing a medical theory that is unproven by medical standards and scientific standards. The social media companies clearly feel a liability risk at allowing this unproven content to be displayed on the privately owned sites. It is their call as they are privately owned. That should end this debate. That would have ended the debate before Trump.
What has been shown is that the risks of it do not outweigh the benefit.
There has been some evidence of maybe effective use in early stages before symptoms, but that is also hard to determine real effectiveness because it could be like chicken soup for the flu.
It looks like that once symptoms are showing and Covid 19 tends to cause blood clots, a treatment that can cause a heart arrhythmia has risks that outweigh the benefits.
I would think the question in the OP would be better directed at the social media sites who pulled the video. They would be in a far better position to answer the question of why they pulled the video than a bunch of anonymous people on a political forum.
Here is the dilemma. If the survival rate of a disease is 99%, how many people do you need to treat with HCQ before you have a statistically significant result? How many do you think an individual doctor claiming the efficacy of HCQ has seen?
If you want 95% confidence that your HCQ treatment is valid (normal survival is 99% so you need a confidence interval of one) that results in a sample size of 9604. Do you think the doctor has seen 9604 Covid positive patients? Assuming he has been seeing only Covid positive patients five days per week, 10 hours per day since March…that leads to about 9 patients per hour. Doesn’t seem realistic.
“A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government’s use of the drug itself, were disputed.“
“It’s a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects.“