'Misinformation' as defined by whom? Many of the negative comments made by regarding the Covid-19 vaccines refer to peer-reviewed papers. Is this then a second order peer-review process? Clearly it isn't - zero occasion for rebuttal! So nobody needs to take seriously their implied view that the current vaccines have zero shortcomings. Surely we watch YouTube for what it offers not for what it doesn't. Any treatment has pros and cons.
If anyone is looking for a range of opinion on this topic they will look elsewhere (tons of options) where they can use their own judgment as to the validity of any point of view.
one example of specifically "not allowed on YouTube" is:
> Claims that vaccines contain substances that are not on the vaccine ingredient list, such as biological matter from fetuses (e.g. fetal tissue, fetal cell lines) or animal byproducts
If anyone is looking for a range of opinion on this topic they will look elsewhere (tons of options) where they can use their own judgment as to the validity of any point of view.