If you watch his videos, you'll find he's a Democrat. He's said that many times before. He questions public health policy, not only that surrounding COVID, but also cancer, so it's no surprise you'll find many hit pieces on him.
Ok, the fact he's a "democrat" means nothing. Thats an American political party that presumably sits somewhere on a politcal spectrum - and brings nothing to this topic.
And whats the difference between a "Hit Piece" and legitimate criticism of opinions and views that aren't supported by evidence? It is very easy for some to play the victim, and say "hey, I'm just asking questions" hiding behind
being reasonable whilst clearly pushing against whatever the general concenous is just to stand out.
Also, as he is a physician, surely the place to question "public health policy" (That is,
American puclic health policy, since, you know, he's American) is in research, studies and papers? That is generally how Science progresses. Those who immediately rant on social media about how medicine is doing something wrong without providing anything in the way of evidence could - and should - be dismissed.
What if public health policy is based on misinformation and is putting people in danger? How about all the misinformation exaggerating the risk of the virus? That was pretty harmful and could have lead to needless deaths.
Which is why these decisions are made by large groups of experts, and not a "lone wolf" contrarian doctor who fires off incedary tweets, a few youtube rants, then plugs his patreon page. Nothing is risk-free, and everything is a weighed up against benefits and harms - thats what all medical interventions are, a risk/benefit analysis. Offical recommendations can, and should, change based on updated evidence. Again, simply saying " ahh but what if they're wrong!?" is no reason for complete inaction because you disagree with what has been decided. The US at one point was losing >3000 people a day. Thats over 20k people a week - not really a time to sit on your hands whilst we wait for studies to finish that only serve to prove what we know from previous pandemics.
The problem with something new, such as a novel virus, is there are a many unknowns. The only the narrative accepted by the authorities was allowed on Twitter. The fact it's a private company doesn't wash. It bowed to pressure from the government and implemented censorship to support their narrative. It's a big problem with Big Tech in general. Governments worry about the free flow of information and apply pressure on them, so they voluntarily censor themselves, though fear of more legislation.
Of course there are many unknowns, there was a frantic rush to find out what was happening in the early days and it was hard to filter out the noise to find actual helpful information. Rampant speculation - combined with some very loud conspiracy theoriests and contrarians only made matters worse. Twitter isn't (or
wasn't) going to allow a complete free for all - it has to abide by certain rules, and also to appease its advertising partners.
No company is going to want to be assosciated with a company that freely allows racist, antisemetic, or comments intended to harm (or a call to harm). So you can't expect those same companies to stick with twitter if it lets people post information that damages public trust on health authorities leading to more harm and lives lost. This doesn't mean that government policies were right, or wrong - just that the censorship on social media debate has been raging for ages. Honestly, it sounds like you either want there to be absolutely no censorship (in which case one could just acuse anyone of something, and calling others to burn their house down) or it's just you don't like it when the posts
you agree with are censored?
There are objective facts, but more often than not there are so many unknowns and nuances, it's impossible for a single body to decide what's objectively true and what's not. There have been many times in history, when what was considered to be the objective fact, has later turned out to be false and those who've discovered it have been persecuted. Galileo is a classic example.
So, you're suggesting that unless there is clear and concise agreement and 100% certainty on what a situation is and how it should be handled, we should just sit and wait for it? During a pandemic? You can point out many examples of when conventional wisdom has been overturned, but that doesn't really mean anything. There have also been many times when things that have been taken as fact - continue to be fact. Simply saying "ahh well, sometimes people are wrong" doesn't actually help in any way.