It really doesn’t matter whether it’s on YouTube, BitChute or Stormfront; the important point is that it’s not in the scientific literature.
Why does this matter? Because the workings of vaccines are a highly technical subject, and therefore claims about them have to be scrutinised and discussed by people with appropriate technical background, knowledge and experience. For instance, you could go to Facebook to investigate whether you can replace a 2005 Citroen 17380 diesel injector pump with a 2003 Peugeot 17014 so long as you adjust the rail pressure up to match the Citroen engine’s greater compression ratio, but you’d get a much higher proportion of informed discussion on a forum frequented by diesel mechanics.
When a supposedly scientific assertion isn’t in the scientific literature, you need to ask yourself why. It certainly isn’t because it’s being censored on YouTube. YouTube is not a gateway to The Lancet. More likely it’s that the assertion would last about as long as a snowball in hell.
I find quite amusing the outrage surrounding a few doctors getting “censored” on Facebook etc. This has been happening to critics of Israel for nearly a decade. Private corporate websites never were suitable environments for political advocacy. Nor were they ever suitable for scientific discussion.