You do realise that it often takes heterodoxy - i.e. going against the orthodoxy in a field - to achieve a breakthrough? You also realise that the people Brett Weinstein is talking to are anything but quacks?
Why, then, this cheap shot of implying that what they are discussing is quackery? What is to be gained by such behaviour? It is not as if the orthodox approach to the treatment of SARS2 has been set in stone, nor is it a spectacular success. If the treatment they discuss - mainly Ivermectin as prophylaxis, Ivermectin in combination with Fluvoxamine and some other preparations as treatment - work they should be used given the long experience with and low cost of these preparations. They indicate these preparations help against 'long-term covid', they claim to have proof of their efficacy. What is to be gained by ignoring what they have to say? I understand that Pfizer, Moderna, Curevac, Astra-Zeneca, J&J, Merck and a few others potentially stand to loose a great deal should the emergency use authorisation for their vaccines be withdrawn prematurely because of the proven efficacy of other preparations - this is what would happen if the rules were followed which state that EUA is only given where there are no alternatives. That is not a valid reason for not allowing them to present their claimed evidence.
What is to be gained by defending the continued suppression of this information? It is clear that the information will come out in any case, most likely soon - it will be published no matter the hurdles which are being thrown up. Should their proof hold it will be yet another blow against the trust people have in the institutions of government.
I say publish this information, without censorship, without interference. The mantra of "trust the science" can only hold when the scientific method is allowed to function. Censoring anything which goes against the orthodoxy is not science, it is authoritarianism. It is what allowed Trofim Lysenko to push his Lamarckian nonsense which eventually led to disastrous famines in the Soviet Union and Communist China [1]. Just like Lysenkoism was not science, authoritarian dogmatic orthodoxy is not science.
Publish and discuss, in the open, without fear of repercussions, without censorship.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko#Consequences_of...