Understanding Censorship in COVID-19 Discussions

Recently, I faced censorship regarding my article on booster shots, which was rejected by a well-known Medium publication.

This piece, titled “COVID-19 Booster Shots: Boosting Immunity or Boosting Profits?” was dismissed by an editor who claimed it might hinder vaccination efforts and breached Medium's policies. The editor misunderstood my critical examination of the Biden administration’s booster strategy and the potential financial gains for pharmaceutical companies as anti-vaccine sentiment.

In my article, I emphasized that “vaccines are undoubtedly the best tools we have to protect ourselves from COVID-19 and manage the pandemic.” Personally, I am vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and advocate for vaccination among others.

However, I harbor doubts about the necessity for everyone who is fully vaccinated to receive a booster shot six to eight months after their last dose. The available data on booster efficacy for the general population remains inconclusive, and the FDA's advisory committee recently voted overwhelmingly against broad approval for booster shots (16 against, 2 for). Other medical professionals and researchers share similar hesitations.

Why, then, did the editor choose to reject my article? I have no personal stake in its publication in that platform, which makes it disheartening that a wide audience will miss out on these vital discussions. My views are not fringe; many experts support my stance regarding the dubious benefits of boosters for the general populace. For high-risk groups—like the elderly and those with compromised immune systems—boosters should be accessible, as the FDA has supported.

After a contentious exchange with the editor, he asserted that my article could “impede vaccination efforts” and that my inquiries were “biased and could lead to fatalities.” This claim is astonishing. He attributes the lack of vaccination among millions of Americans to the questions raised in my article. Rather than stifling dissent and mandating boosters for all, we should confront why many individuals have yet to receive even one dose. Transparency and honesty are crucial in this conversation.

A significant factor behind vaccine hesitancy is the ongoing discourse around boosters. Convincing people to get a first vaccine shot is already a daunting task. Now, informing them that they will need additional shots shortly after being fully vaccinated complicates matters further. Many unvaccinated individuals cite concerns about boosters as a primary reason for their distrust in the vaccine.

The issue of natural immunity, which has been largely overlooked by mainstream media despite numerous peer-reviewed studies suggesting its effectiveness—often exceeding that of vaccine-induced immunity—also warrants attention. I will delve into this topic in a future article.

If we cannot freely discuss the efficacy of booster shots and the financial motivations behind pharmaceutical companies promoting them—coupled with their lobbying in Washington—public trust in media and health communications will continue to erode. Editors should not silence dissenting voices or discourage inquiries into financial and political influences in public health policies. True diversity in publishing involves showcasing a variety of opinions, even those that challenge prevailing views. Accomplished editors recognize the importance of diverse ideas, regardless of their personal beliefs.