Over the past few years, I have dedicated my work to exploring complex medical and scientific questions, particularly surrounding COVID-19, immunity, and public health policy. I have always believed that science thrives on debate, evidence, and rigorous questioning. Yet, increasingly, I find myself and others being censored - not for spreading misinformation, but for simply asking questions.
The latest example? My recent posts on LinkedIn, where I raised concerns about excess deaths, vaccine outcomes, and scientific transparency, have been restricted or outright removed. Why? Because they challenge the dominant narrative.
Banned LinkedIn Post!
The spike protein poses a serious risk to human health by binding to multiple normal proteins, increasing the likelihood of autoimmune responses. Crucially, this risk could exist regardless of the SOURCE of the spike protein.
A key concern is its interaction with CD147, found on certain immune cells. This could link autoimmune responses to immune dysfunction and even contribute to the exacerbation of some cancers.
Given these mechanisms, is it reasonable to extrapolate these scientific concepts to explain the unusual disease patterns we are now seeing?
Behl, Tapan, et al. "CD147-spike protein interaction in COVID-19: Get the ball rolling with a novel receptor and therapeutic target." Science of the Total Environment 808 (2022): 152072.
Read paper here >
Since When Did Inquiry Become Dangerous?
Scientific progress has always relied on the courage to challenge accepted beliefs. Galileo, Semmelweis, and countless others faced ridicule and suppression for questioning the status quo. Yet today, in an era of supposed free speech and technological advancement, scientific discussion is increasingly policed by opaque algorithms and corporate gatekeepers.
This censorship isn’t just happening to me. It’s happening to doctors, researchers, and data analysts worldwide who dare to scrutinize the narratives surrounding COVID-19, vaccine efficacy, and public health policies. If a question can be silenced, so can the truth.
What Are They Trying to Hide?
If the science is solid, why fear scrutiny? If the data supports the claims, why suppress analysis? True science welcomes questions because it has the answers, or is willing to find them.
By shutting down legitimate inquiry, Big Tech and institutions are sending a clear message: some truths are too inconvenient to be discussed. But history has shown us that suppression never eliminates reality, it only delays its reckoning.
The Real Consequences of Scientific Censorship
When scientific debate is stifled:
Errors persist longer because dissenting voices are not allowed to challenge flawed conclusions.
Public trust erodes as people realize they are being fed only selective information.
Medical innovation suffers because researchers become afraid to explore controversial but necessary topics.
Policy mistakes go uncorrected, harming the very populations we seek to protect.
This isn’t just about me or a few suppressed social media posts. This is about the future of free thought, medicine, and the integrity of science itself.
A Call to Action: We Must Demand Open Dialogue
I refuse to be silent, and I know many of you feel the same way. If we truly believe in evidence-based medicine, free thought, and the pursuit of truth, we must resist this growing trend of censorship.
Please support my research efforts by subscribing to Vejon Health Substack. Your support allows me to continue bringing you my insights in a timely and effective way.
Share this post