[twofornone]

>but not with the many safe, effective vaccines and medications we all benefit from throughout our lives.

Because mRNA is a novel technology and that people obliviously make this argument is a testament to the effectiveness of the "safe and effective" propaganda.

>Have you always felt this way about the medical profession? Have you any specific reasons to doubt the medical profession and it’s institutions, across many nations and accreditation agencies, now in particular?

There were numerous reasons to be skeptical before covid - regulatory capture and the replication crisis in particular. Suddenly bringing these up gets you branded an anti-vaxxer. Wr shouldn't be blindly trusting our modern institution, it has strayed increasingly far from clean science over the years, now you have influences from industry and unrelated politics, in addition to the pressures that come with sticking close enough to orthodoxy to maintain a career and receive funding for grants.

When I was younger I also had much more trust in our institutions, but with age and experience I have grown to recognize how imperfect they are, and none of those imperfections disappeared when the president decided he wanted a new vaccine yesterday; in fact many of those problems were enormously amplified.

[simonh]

Novel medical technologies are developed all the time. Every year new life saving treatments and drugs come out that transform the lives of people all over the world. Medical technology is still very much on the vertical part of the technological development S-curve, and development and testing methodologies have been improved and refined over many decades of experience, in many countries around the world working together to develop best practices and cross-check each other's work.

Why are you particularly concerned about these ones? Are there any others of the many, many new medical technologies coming out for which you have the same concern, or is it all of them?

[twofornone]

>Why are you particularly concerned about these ones?

I'm particularly concerned about this one because the critical safety evaluation process was accelerated by a factor of 5-10 and the clinical safety data is not available for third party review, however it was used to justify propaganda that has influenced (biased) all subsequent research. Just like software, the marginal gains of throwing money at a problem eventually approach zero, some things just take time, especially when you're evaluating biological side effects which may develop slowly.

I'm particularly concerned about this one because it hijacks your cellular machinery to manufacture a sudden megadose of an inflammatory protein (not a complete virus) which results in short term (at least) autoimmune behavior.

I'm particularly concerned about this one because it was effectively mandated for hundreds of millions of people with an obviously incomplete cost/benefit analysis and anyone who asks if maybe the benefit is overestimated and the cost is underestimated is immediately branded an anti-vaxxer/right wing conspiracy nut.

>Novel medical technologies are developed all the time. Every year new life saving treatments and drugs come out that transform the lives of people all over the world.

And how many of the candidates that make it to clinical trials never make it to market, or worse, are withdrawn after measurable harm? Now throw in the accelerated (rushed) safety analysis and systemic pro covid vaccine bias and it would be foolish not to be at least a little skeptical.

>and development and testing methodologies have been improved and refined over many decades of experience, in many countries around the world working together to develop best practices and cross-check each other's work.

And those testing methodologies still take time because of the nature of biology, you can't just snap your fingers and make adverse events happen more quickly. All those best practices and cross checking go out the window once a rigid sociopolitical orthodoxy solidifies around certain subjects, and suddenly few researchers are willing to risk careers for simply asking the wrong questions.

Nothing about the mRNA vaccine development process has been "normal", and these are emphatically not typical vaccines, this technology is unprecedented and its effects on the body are complex and difficult to study.

[simonh]

> the clinical safety data is not available for third party review

That’s best practice, due to the problem that access to data from past trials can bias the planning and design of new trials. It’s SOP from hard win practical experience over many decades.