In this particular case, it's about wanting information from the people actually researching a subject vs people making stuff for political or business purposes.

Even if researchers are wrong initially, because of lack of data, they are still acting in good faith. Which you can't say for people who are spreading made up or poorly sourced information to make a buck.

Society generally frowns upon allowing people to blatantly lie or act in bad faith order to sell products. While that might be a form of censorship, it's one that society largely benefits from having in place.

There were plenty of knowledgable scientists including those with specific familiarity that were censored because it didn't fit the media narrative at the time.

> Even if researchers are wrong initially, because of lack of data, they are still acting in good faith.

A researcher or other "expert" should have at least some sense of when the data being used are limited, flawed, or even unavailable.

Under such circumstances, the only way to act in good faith would be for such a person to say something along the lines of, "I don't know" or "It's not possible to say at this time."

Such a person making some other authoritative pronouncement (even with caveats attached), especially if it turns out to be incorrect, should not be seen as "acting in good faith".

In this particular case, what product was sold by antivaxxers or how did they make money?