Science works on consensus and iteration. Government policy generally (and I think should) follow that process, not form policies on minority opinions at the time. For instance, although the droplet vs airborne debate was incorrect initially, the error was found and corrected via consensus, and government policy follow that consensus. That's how it SHOULD work.
Most of your writing is a bias filled rant, complete with misinformation (no, the consensus for science was that the lab leak was extremely unlikely, and still remains so today as far as I've seen, again, a few individual researchers thinking it likely does not make consensus).
You seem heavily invested in going against consensus and best practice, and I'm genuinely not interested in that position as I disagree with it. While things could have been better, given the circumstances the scientific community and world governments generally did a good job at protecting people.
On the topic of what should be allowed on social media, there is room for debate there, but I stand by that freedom of speech does not require you have equal standing or that people listen to you. I don't believe fringe science or non-science deserves equal time in the spotlight. So I suspect we won't be coming to any agreement.