Let's grant you that antivax positions were being surpressed for the sake of the argument (in reality I saw it everywhere, even in the US senate). Were McCullough and Malone right about anything at all? You should start doing the retrospection and check their claims point by point, and see how much they got it right. I'll tell you right away, not much.

Debate for the sake of the debate is pointless, especially in urgent and endangering situations.

I would think a responsible dissident would error on the side of not further normalizing trust and acquiescence to an authority that is already allegedly trying to replace his people. But again, you’re doing the opposite.

I won't ever side with nonsense just on the basis of it being the dissenting position.

Flat earthers are also a dissenting side, yet I don't want to hear their takes on electromagnetism/gravity-denial, or see their perspective in school textbooks, because it's clear to everyone sane that they're wrong and don't have any predictable model.

But also, the thing is that flat earth doesn't really affect anyone, even if tons of people do adopt that position. With antivax stuff you're directly endangering others around you, so people have even more motivation of censoring it.

Dissent for dissent's sake is also pointless, sometimes even harmful.