this article is very poorly written, in it's survey of the science around the topic. that said, it would appear that this doctor is promoting the use of the drug as a prophylactic (which is not based on any science), rather than as a treatment in severe cases (which appears to be part of an effective strategy to prevent septic shock, when it sets in, which is the same way it is used to treat lupus, rather than malaria). as badly written as the article is, the doctor appears to have genuinely misunderstood the science.

however, her confusion is not a reason to censor her.

when somebody is confused about something, attempting to silence them is more likely to increase their confusion than resolve it. people easily develop persecution complexes, and like-minded people are quick to erect martyrs out of people that they feel are being suppressed. if your goal is truly a greater public understanding of the proper uses of this drug in the context of treating covid-19, it is a far better idea to engage this person in discourse, and try to convince them that they are incorrect than it is to silence them or shut them down with force.

further, before you silence dissent, it is always of paramount importance to ask yourself if you might be wrong. for, you might be wrong, and history will judge you terribly for it.

the science is in fact crystal clear that there are valid therapeutic uses for this drug (which is in fact approved by the appropriate bodies, worldwide, for these reasons) in the context of treating severe cases of covid-19. a little discourse may help everybody understand this better; clearly, sending experts out and demanding people obey their authority isn't actually working that well, is it?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kulvinder-kaur-gill-tweets-cpso-1.5680122