I'm not going to explain how clinical trials work and why you should trust that process. Again, bad situations do not invalidate all work being done in a field.
Are we talking about the same process which allowed companies for decades to hide trials which where not in their favor? Or until recently where not obliged to publish the trial results? Not to forget, many trials are not reproducible either.
Compared to the "hard" sciences, medicine has not very high standards. And trials are completely profit-motivated, that's a bad incentive. These trials are conducted by the same companies who had no qualms to sell highly addictive stuff to people. Why should I trust that the data they publish is the data they collected?
Unfortunately it's impossible to have this conversation when the person is saying "I'm following the science but I won't explain the science to you". You may as well run into a brick wall
No. The onus is on you to explain why experts who have devoted their entire lives to groundbreaking vaccine research are wrong. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.
None of those criticisms apply to these vaccine studies. There are many issues that can arise in trials, of course. But the current batch of 3-phase mRNA-based vaccine trials have all been intensely scrutinized at every turn. I think it will be difficult for you to argue otherwise, but feel free to enlighten us about the data corruption conspiracy if you have some evidence.
They didn't pick up the reactions people with allergies have in the "intense scrutiny". What have they tested it for? What sort of scrutiny did this vaccine come under?
Compared to the "hard" sciences, medicine has not very high standards. And trials are completely profit-motivated, that's a bad incentive. These trials are conducted by the same companies who had no qualms to sell highly addictive stuff to people. Why should I trust that the data they publish is the data they collected?