YouTube Bans Mercola Videos

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

banned youtube mercola videos

Story at-a-glance -

  • YouTube has now started banning our videos, a majority of which are interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise and viewpoints on COVID-19
  • After I raised a firewall against Google scripts on my site, Twitter began falsely labeling Mercola article links as unsafe and malicious, warning potential readers my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer
  • Google has been banning Mercola content from its searches since mid-2019
  • NewsGuard classifies mercola.com as fake news because we have reported evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 virus could be a manmade virus leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China
  • Two of my COVID-19 interviews have also been deleted off Spotify without recourse

The noose of censorship continues to tighten. I recently reported how Twitter now falsely labels Mercola article links as unsafe and malicious, warning potential readers my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer.

It is absolutely false. On the contrary, my site now has a firewall preventing Google analytic scripts from running on our pages, thereby protecting you from Google's intrusive data mining. Unfortunately, by declaring our pages dangerous, they successfully suppress about 95% of our Twitter views.

Google, of course, started banning Mercola content from its searches mid-2019. I wrote about this in "Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News" and "Google Buries Mercola in Latest Search Engine Update." Facebook also suppressed our reach, and in August 2019, I made the decision to stop supporting their unscrupulous data mining efforts by leaving Facebook.

More recently, NewsGuard (again) classified mercola.com as fake news because we reported evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 virus could be a manmade virus leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China, and two of my COVID-19 interviews have also been deleted off Spotify without recourse.

Spotify claims it only prohibits illegal content, hate content and infringing content. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., clearly do not fall under any of these categories, yet they were removed anyway.

YouTube Bans Competing Health Views

As expected, YouTube has now descended upon us and has started banning our videos, a majority of which are interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise and viewpoints on COVID-19. They include the following videos that you can watch in full on the uncensored Bitchute that many alternative media sites are now using for their video content.

YouTube also banned my video discussing the World Health Organization, and one in which I provide information about and instructions on how to use hydrogen peroxide therapy as a prophylactic against COVID-19.

YouTube Fulfills Promise to Censor on Behalf of the WHO

While disappointing, this censorship was not unexpected, considering YouTube's CEO went on record saying they will censor anyone speaking against the World Health Organization. In an April 23, 2020, article,1 Business Insider reported statements made by YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper:

"Wojcicki says the platform will ban content peddling fake or unproven coronavirus remedies. In an interview with CNN, she also suggested that video that 'goes against' WHO guidance on the pandemic will be blocked.

For example, she said, content that claimed vitamin C or turmeric would cure people of COVID-19 would be 'a violation of our policy' and removed accordingly. She continued: 'Anything that goes against WHO recommendations would be a violation of our policy …'"

It's important to realize that by banning anything that contradicts the WHO's recommendations, Wojcicki asserts that the WHO is infallible, which it clearly is not. There's no shortage of examples proving WHO has been wrong on many occasions, and should not be relied upon as the premier, let alone sole, source of information and medical instruction.

The WHO is beyond conflicted, and because of its existing funding fails to complete its initial mandate to promote the attainment of "the highest possible level of health" by all peoples. Since the U.S. government has withdrawn its support from the WHO, Bill Gates — with all of his drug company interests — is now its largest funder.

The WHO Has Deep Conflicts of Interest

The idea that the WHO is infallible and should be the sole source of information is incredibly dangerous. Where are the checks and balances to its power and influence? And why should we swallow everything it says without question, when it has previously been strongly criticized for its handling of other pandemics, such as the 2009 swine flu pandemic?2

In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) concluded "the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a 'waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.'"3

Based on the data we now have, can anyone seriously say that large sums of money have not been wasted and that the narrative of the pandemic response has not pushed unjustifiable fears about SARS-CoV-2 health risks, as it pertains to a majority of the population?

Back in 2010, PACE concluded that the drug industry had influenced the organization's decision-making and had been a driving force behind its fearmongering.4 Again, there can be little doubt we're seeing the same influence in action right now, as we continue to be told life cannot go back to normal until we get a vaccine and inoculate the whole world.

Meanwhile, Big Tech — the surveillance capitalists backing the WHO and the drug industry and doing their bidding — are suppressing and outright banning preventive and alternative strategies, the most obvious examples being vitamin C, vitamin D, ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen and hydroxychloroquine, all of which I've discussed in recent articles.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the WHO is making correct, unbiased decisions. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction, and this is precisely why one must not silence experts who challenge and point out flaws in the narrative.

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which typically gets top billing when it comes to infectious disease expertise, has issued recommendations that conflict with those issued by the WHO over the course of this pandemic, such as whether healthy people should5 or should not6 wear a mask in public.

Egregious Examples of Censorship

The examples of censorship are so numerous at this point, it's impossible to present a full picture of just how much information is being ruthlessly removed. Here is but a small handful of recent examples that fortunately have received some measure of attention:

  • The documentary "Plandemic" by Mikki Willis, featuring Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. was banned from social media platforms and hidden by Google. If you do an online search for it, all you find are dozens of pages with articles calling it a hoax, a fraud or the dreaded old "conspiracy theory." Google Drive even removed downloaded copies of the film from users' personal files.7
  • A video by Knut Wittkowski, Ph.D., DSc, an epidemiologist and former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, was removed by YouTube. In it, he challenges the wisdom of lockdown orders.8
  • A Full Measure News report9 in which award-winning news reporter Sharyl Attkisson interviewed doctors reporting good results with hydroxychloroquine was removed by YouTube. The segment also looked at the potential financial motives driving the mass media's disdain for the drug, while promoting remdesivir and as-of-yet-unavailable vaccines.10
  • In April 2020, Twitter suspended the account of the publicly traded biotech company AYTU BioScience after it shared information about its novel UV light therapy for COVID-19, which it is developing in collaboration with Cedars-Sinai medical center.11 YouTube also removed a video demonstrating how the technology works.
  • YouTube also took down a viral video12 by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California, in which they questioned the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality statistics and the logic behind California's stay-at-home order. 

All of these examples are part of Silicon Valley's surveillance capitalism apparatus. It's really all about controlling entire populations and shaping public opinion to benefit certain companies, industries and/or political parties. And it's shockingly effective. Google's search algorithms alone have the power to shift 15 million votes leading up to the 2020 presidential election, according to calculations.

You can learn more about this in "Google — A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known," in which I interview Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google's manipulative and deceptive practices

Free Speech Being Decimated — Can We Live Free Without It?

Can health be maintained if you only have access to one point of view? Can democracy be maintained without equal access to all sides of an issue? Can what is right for individuals and the nation as a whole be ascertained without being able to hear differing points of view? I don't think so. Censorship is anathema to health and freedom across the board.

Now, even those who only a few months ago didn't care about the censoring of certain individuals or groups are starting to wake up to see the dangers of our current trajectory. Clearly, action must be taken if we are to maintain any semblance of personal liberty.

May 28, 2020, President Trump took the initial step of signing an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,13 which requires the Federal Communications Commission to clarify regulations under Section 23014 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what, so far, has allowed social media platforms to pick and choose what they allow on their site while still being afforded legal protections. 

In simple terms, if you're an internet service provider, you're not liable for what users are posting on your platform, but you still have the right to block harmful content (such as pornography) provided it's done in good faith. If you're a publisher, on the other hand, you can be held legally responsible for the content you post, and therefore have free reign over the viewpoints you will or will not allow.

Social media giants like Twitter and Facebook have long asserted that they are internet service providers, and therefore not liable for content. Yet they systematically censor only certain points of view, which is the complete opposite of what Section 230 sought to achieve.

Within 60 days, the Secretary of Commerce, "in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)," is required to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, and the FCC is asked to act "expeditiously" in presenting its regulations.

Who Decides What's Right and What's Not?

It's hard to fathom that in this 21st century we're on a fast-track into a new intellectual and scientific Dark Age. Just who is actually qualified enough to decide what content is misleading or what health practices are harmful?

Unequivocal scientific consensus is hard to find, no matter what we're talking about, and when it comes to a novel virus that is still being actively investigated, it seems foolish to ban any view, no matter how unpopular it might be with the scientific, industrial, military and political establishments.

How else can we possibly ever get to the truth and find out what works? As long as we have scientists looking into things, the science on any given topic will never be fully settled. For this reason, avoiding conflicting viewpoints and differing scientific findings will be virtually impossible. The alternative is to cease scientific inquiry altogether and surrender to opinion alone.