You have to balance the ‘benefits’ (some real, some not) against the ‘harm’ (some admitted, many not).
‘Did a Military Experimental Vaccine in 1918 Kill 50-100 Million People Blamed as “Spanish Flu”?‘
At the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th, many major cities had deplorable sanitation and water supplies; these began to be seriously tackled at around the time vaccines were being rolled out for many diseases (though smallpox vaccine was invented at at the end of the 18th Century); the vaccine suppliers claimed the great advances in health were down to them, rather than a natural response to proper sewage control and clean drinking water.
If, as appears to be the case, a vaccine ‘failure’ caused 50 -100 million deaths (and that’s just one, though likely the biggest to date, vaccine ‘failure’) then they would have to ‘save’ a heck of a lot of lives to make the benefit/harm ratio anything like acceptable.
‘Scientists learn history of Spanish Flu at Fort Riley‘.
Notice they don’t say a word about ‘dodgy vaccines’; ‘…Over lunch at Demon Dining Facility, Smith presented the history of the Spanish Flu at Fort Riley, as well as background on the installation and living conditions of Soldiers at that time. With a smirk, Smith told the scientists that patient zero was an Army cook named Albert Gitchell.
“They thought it mutated from pigs and then infected some Soldiers, some draftees, from Pascal County, Kansas, and they came here to train at Fort Riley and then the first recorded flu case here was a cook of all people,” he said…’.
Mustn’t let the cat out of the bag, even 100 years later. The narrative must be adhered to.