If the phenomenon of which there seems to be so much fear existed, you would probably have already experienced mass deaths in your life so far, you would have been a surviving witness to such an event.
Isn't the question justified, what could have also favoured the survival of the human species, outside of applied medicine?
Have you asked yourself the question, when did the mass-abolition by so-called vaccines begin and what made it popular? What has been forgotten is that the virus theory is an unproven theory even according to the most prestigious institutions like the Max Planck Institute. You'd have to take my word for it that I've read the paper and repeated its conclusion here. Otherwise, further conversation is probably rather useless.
Science lives from doubt, that is its strength. Where doubt is suppressed in favour of other interests, methods of application are established that date back a hundred or more years and have been seemingly practised unquestioned ever since - at least in orthodox medicine.
Instead of referring to this long tradition as a scientist and understanding the so-called Koch's postulates as established and applied without actually implementing them in one's own scientific enterprise, I consider it unscientific. I am not talking about the isolation of a virus, but about all the steps proposed at that time in the research of so-called viruses. "Isolation" is only the first step. Further steps would be needed to substantiate the theory of how transmission occurs. I will spare the details, otherwise the answer would be too long.
But let us accept as a moot point that the currently available scientific sources, however much they contradict each other, can both be understood as legitimate. If you want to be fair as a scientist, you give the other scientist room to examine your own theory and identify weaknesses that lead to further lively dialogue.
Where can we as viewers experience such a dialogue?
I freely admit that I am on the side of those scientists who relativise the lethality and the danger of this phenomenon. From a more detached perspective, I would think that where we do experience relativisation of the event, the argument about "who is right?" seems a luxury if only because otherwise we would be fighting for sheer survival. I think that is not the case. Given that vaccination has only been going on since the beginning of the year, and that all of last year people were not dying like flies without vaccination, I think that is a legitimate thing to say.
As I understand you, you take the opposite position. This is a dilemma. Based on this, what remains? How do you want to solve it? How do you want to establish fairness between one side and the other?
How much are you driven by the desire for everyone to be vaccinated and what do you think should happen if the resistance to such treatment remains? Do you allow those who do not hold your view the freedom of choice, including remaining in their usual places of work and social circles?