Youtube censors legitimate debate over vaccines

Youtube was recently in the headlines for banning 13,000 thousands of videos that questioned or criticized the Covid vaccines — and all criticism of vaccines in general.

“Among the channels banned were two of RT’s German-language channels, which were permanently deleted by YouTube this week.

YouTube issued the bans after discovering alleged “medical misinformation” in four videos. Among these cases of “misinformation” was an interview with German epidemiologist Friedrich Puerner, who was critical of his government’s methods of battling the pandemic.”

This is part of the tactic to confuse the public over the mRNA shots, to make us think they are real vaccines, which they are not — and thus to lump criticism of the experimental drug into the so-called “anti-vaxxer” position — when in fact, many who are critical of it are otherwise pro-vaccine.

For example, Dr. Robert Malone is a vaccinologist, so obviously he is not “anti-vaccine” but he does question the mass use of his own invention, mRNA spike proteins, arguing that it will result in variants from ADE — which in fact it has.

What’s wrong with taking a position against other vaccines in favour of cultivating natural immunity?

Allopathic science may have taken a strong position on this, but it still should be left up to individuals to decide their own medical fate, and to do that, they need information to weigh the decision based on all the available information — which they now won’t find on Youtube.

The other problem with this is that the lack of informed debate over an important public issue is contributing to violence. As a result, the unvaccinated are being scapegoated unjustly. This is causing a huge division in human societies worldwide.

For a thinking person, censorship does not make them blindly accept one position. It would do the opposite. It would make that person question why only position is being forced. Why are they doing that? Am I not able to think and decide for myself?

The most important issue here is the question of free speech and censorship. This move by Youtube — which follows on the footsteps of the same censorship on social media in general, is unfortunate because it shuts down legitimate debate over a controversial subject that is deeply affect society.

It gives prominence to one position only, as though that position were beyond reproach. Yet we know it is not. I would side with several Enlightenment philosophers in saying that censorship is wrong, as a philosophical principle.

The label of “medical misinformation” — much like the label of “hate speech” is purposely vague — which means it can mean anything the censors want it. It lumps the lizard people theories in with legitimate scientfic discussion.

This clearly violated freedom of speech. It’s also anti-science. Science requires discussion and debate and juxtaposition. It’s not fixed in stone. Back in the 17thce century Francis Bacon spoke against this reduction of science to what we now know as “scientism”:

“Those who have taken it upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already search out and understood . . . have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men’s efforts than by their own good.” [Bacon, The New Organon]

His last point is important: they have stopped the efforts of other scientists to uncover new insights and truths, by saying that they have the final word on the subject. They have violated Popper’s principle of falsifiability.

Legitimate scientists and physicians have taken to social media and YouTube to raise concerned about the widespread use of mRNA technology. Some of it, dismissed as “misinformation”, has been from distinguished scientists who know more about vaccines than any Big Pharma paid “fact checker” or smug social media censor ever could hope to.

What are some of the things we should be discussing? The claim that the jab may have killed 150,000 Americans. The fact that it doesn’t provide immunity. It has severe adverse effects. The scapegoating of the unvaccinated. The theory that the variant is thought to come from an ADE response to the drug. The fact that in India, they took Ivermectin en masse and it seems to have worked and is low-cost, and has fewer side effects. The absurdity of giving the jab to children, following clinical trials in which 86% had adverse events. Et cetera.

The censorship on social media is due to Big Tech’s collusion with Big Pharma to push its agenda. This is unethical and wrong. It violated our inalienable rights, as reflected in various constitutional documents.

Add a fifth freedom: the freedom of medical choice.

Published by


"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity ... the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the [European] Enlightenment. "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet [or vaccine], and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind ... should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts. "Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas [e.g., Leftist ideology, identity politics] these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from immaturity by cultivating their own minds." - Kant, "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s