An important part of science is admitting when we’re wrong
theverge.com
theverge.com
But what if your whole paradigm is wrong? What if the entire idea you are labouring under, is mistaken? Can we even consider this and change tack? Can the Verge consider this idea?
No.
I'm indifferent to vaccinations - I don't know if they cause more good than harm. If pushed, I tend to think that the human body is a better handler of disease than doctors, given the right food, water, and general environment.
I do see that the medical industry does stand to benefit from selling vaccines. This is to say that as for a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail, for the medical industry every problem requires medical intervention. They cannot in good conscience to their shareholders recommend that people eat a better diet, not go to hospital to give birth, nor gain natural immunity. Such answers cannot be leveraged for profit.
I think its fair to say that we have a sickness industry, where all the incentives are to treat sick people. We do not have a health industry - where someone gets paid for ensuring that we live as long and as well as possible. The incentives are all wrong. Perhaps the industry is happy to have a large pipeline of sick people, or people that they can 'treat'. Of course companies think mostly of profit - but would they even go so far as to create (fake) opportunities to open new markets to the world? Do vaccines that needs to be taken annually, by a global population, perhaps mandated by law, constitute a big enough market to make it worth it? Could such an industry admit a mistake?
I am not aware of any scientific discussion that says otherwise, perhaps you can provide some additional information to further clarify what you mean?
[0] https://www.who.int/publications/10-year-review/vaccines/en/
However, iatrogenic causes are said to be the third largest cause of death in the US. There are various values bandied about, but I think this is in the order of 225,000 deaths per annum. So, this is to say, doctors taking an incorrect action eg prescribing the wrong drug, wrong amount, catching MRSA in hospital, etc, is the third largest cause of death.
I think, but cannot be sure, that this was the case for someone in my family. An elderly relative who had been on the same medication for 40 years, had their medicine changed. Within a month, that person had a stroke, and was dead a year later. Obviously this is anecdotal, and I actually don't think this would even have counted as a iatrogenic death statistic, but it does indicate how this could be the case. And that the actual iatrogenic death numbers could be higher, if it were possible to get accurate breakdowns of causes of death.
Most statistics regarding diseases and disease outcomes are collected by the national health services in a country, not by the pharmaceutical industry.
https://www.who.int/about/planning-finance-and-accountabilit...
With regards to coronavirus, people who die "with" coronavirus and die of say, a heart attack, are being counted as coronavirus deaths. They aren't dying "of" the virus, they just happen to have it. But this doesn't count as a heart attack statistic.
Not to forget, that there are financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to mark deaths as coronavirus deaths.
People don't die of coronavirus. They always die of some other cause like cardiac arrest, internal bleeding, organ failure, ... Let's take your specific example. Where do you draw the line between corona virus and cardiac arrest? In practice there will be many cases where the distinction is not clear cut.
The statistics are gamed to prove the case.