These are nothing compared to censoring qualified experts vis-a-vis the mRNA shots. You're talking about cultural talking points versus censoring individuals online who are credentialed and qualified to render opinions on the biggest story of our lifetime. Not all censorship has the same consequences.
For those who buy into the single study purporting to show "mRNA shots saved lives," I suggest that you divide your analysis into the reality -- the first three incarnations of the virus (mRNA likely saved lives) and what has come after. What has come after is that the mRNA has likely cost lives, although those over 50 may be in toss-up range.
Again, I notice that the pro-mRNA crowd doesn't mention the excess deaths since the mRNA shots began. Those excess deaths run about 10 percent in the US (which has redefined its way of "counting") and well into the 15% to 20% range and beyond in Denmark, Japan, and many other countries, who have not redefined their way of measuring excess deaths. Correlation doesn't translate directly into cause-and-effect, but there is a relationship between percent of population having taken the shots and the excess deaths.
If you don't know anything about this, or don't mention it, I have to ask why. Shame on you for making the argument without mentioning this. Could censorship of the topic have anything to do with it? If this were anything other than government-backed corporations associated with 10-20% excess mortality in countries, these numbers would be on the news every other night until some conclusions were reached or something was done or, at the least, it was explained.
There is nothing ho-hum or normal about 20% excess death numbers across the globe, with those numbers correlating with mRNA-shot percentages.
