It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyo

It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyone would catch without the intervention but in general there's a disregard for what mistakes you are making when your choice is a bad one instead of a vaccine. Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events. The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?