
An important part of science is admitting when we’re wrong - fillskills
https://www.theverge.com/21358867/vaccine-clinical-trials-trust-science-wrong
======
feralimal
This is absolutely the case - we need to be happy to admit we're wrong. I
think everyone would agree.

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?

~~~
cinntaile
10 million deaths prevented between 2010 and 2015 does sound like the good
outweighs the harm. [0]

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/](https://www.who.int/publications/10-year-
review/vaccines/en/)

~~~
feralimal
Well, you don't really know how many deaths were prevented. You have what is
effectively public relations arm of the industry computing those numbers.

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.

~~~
cinntaile
Are you calling the WHO the public relations arm of the pharmaceutical
industry?

Most statistics regarding diseases and disease outcomes are collected by the
national health services in a country, not by the pharmaceutical industry.

~~~
feralimal
And the statistics are a mess.

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.

~~~
cinntaile
Of course they're a mess, we don't live in a black or white world. It doesn't
mean that you should disgard them though.

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.

~~~
feralimal
Yes. Its not clear cut. But they are all being counted as coronavirus.

The statistics are gamed to prove the case.

