Instead of hinting at it, they should support the forbidden topic with credible evidence. And if the vast majority of credible evidence contradicts the forbidden topic, then maybe it's not forbidden, it's just incorrect and people are tired of seeing it.

I’ve read plenty of controversial posts here. If it’s written by someone with actual expertise in the field and fact-based it’ll do fine. The stuff which gets flagged tends to be written by political pundits pretending to be medical experts, making huge extrapolations from limited evidence, or failing to make testable claims which can be evaluated scientifically.

I’m not clear what people would be posting about that’s not extremely contrived.

This is an article about how bad Covid is for the heart. Are you saying people are still making the anti-vax flawed neophobic claim that vaccines are worse than Covid. If that’s the case, I feel sad for those people suffering from their phobias.

We sure do appreciate your brave "calling out" of "forbidden topics". Your contribution to the intellectual discourse here is invaluable.