People who will read that evidence without full contextual intellectual preparation will not be able to be certain of their evaluation; they are not competent to review it ("review" as in the expression "peer review").
On the other hand, yesterday I started exploring the material of a medical doctor who publishes interesting conferences - found as I was looking for other material, and to my surprise, from what he practices on himself I am sure he would disagree with your previous post. Who to trust?
On the other hand, if I see censorship, few exceptions aside it will be very clear that the censorship will help approaching truth. And for this, one name I will give: Lex Fridman, who denounced the matter a few weeks ago, while interviewing for this podcast one of the notable censored voices.
(Just to give an example: I have heard about a plausible argument about that «manufacturers say it[']s ineffective», and I do not think the matter should not be discussed in this context, but arguments exist. Good or bad: that is for the analysis table, not the "I just had two minutes available". If matters were clear-cut, the whole problem would not exist.)
--
¹Edit: for clarity: with «go[ing] into details» I meant that I invite the poster against introducing statements like «people who believe [whatever is controversial]», and especially because this thread is not here have us stuck in those controversies, and because they would not be solved with two sentences, surely, since there are apparent non-lunatics defending those positions.