That was one example everyone knows about. Talk about Ivermectin, or previously, WIV lab release hypothesis... all censored at the time. (now they have allowed some discussion again, but the damage is done and agenda realized).
This was a case where the (obviously from the start) bad science was propagated, primarily through mainstream media, leading to basically the entire anti-vaccine movement we see today.
The question I think this raises is: can we trust typical journalists to do their due diligence when they make claims about very serious public health issues? In the context of the Wakefield MMR scandal, I think we were shown that the answer is no. Following that, the question is what to do about it.
There are too many one sentence questions on these issues of censorship. I would say they provide no value to the conversation.
I haven't seen the studies you're talking about, but the FDA claims Ivermectin hasn't yet been proven effective, and the WHO says it should only be used in clinical trials. But assuming for the same of argument you're correct, your claim is that the only available source of knowledge about Ivermectin anywhere would have been videos which were deleted from Youtube, making it impossible for anyone to avail themselves of this miracle cure due to Youtube's "censorship", and that there are people who avoided taking any of the other existing and effective COVID vaccines and who died of COVID as a result, and that Youtube is therefore to blame.
That's pure speculation based on an already far-fetched premise.