[spauldo]

There is a diverse set of opinions on this site. We don't all think the same.

Also, there's a distinction you're overlooking. Not trusting big pharma isn't the same thing as not trusting medicine. Big pharma will happily sell us drugs that work - it's the most profitable thing they do. You just can't trust them blindly, which is why regulation is important.

In the case of vaccines, they've proven effective over a very long time and the arguments against them are suspect at best. Questioning a new vaccine is healthy suspicion, questioning vaccines as a class of drugs requires a heavy burden of proof.

[eggsboenk]

Healthy suspicion for the mRNA vaccines was not really accepted, was it?

[kulahan]

So, the time to bring up concerns about an appropriately built fire exit is not while you are actively evacuating from the fire. Arguing that there may be dangerous long-term effects for a vaccine makes no sense when the alternative is the spread of a highly contagious and deadly disease. Nobody (who's thinking) gives a shit. The first concern is the disease. Now that we've gotten past covid, discussing whether or not we should use it elsewhere makes plenty of sense.

But of course, mRNA vaccines were being developed long before COVID, so I assume you raised you concerns at that time, and not in the middle of an emergency when nobody has time to explain to every third dumbass that we're going for the lesser harm here - meaning "not dead right now".

[spauldo]

Assuming you're talking about the COVID vaccines, I don't know if I ever saw any healthy suspicion. The signal to noise ratio dropped to zero because it was a political football.

It's a good thing I'm not dictator, 'cause I'd have every news anchor and talking head that spread confusion during that time lined up against the wall and shot.