My question is why do you assume that the default conclusion to be “and therefore the vaccine is worse than the disease” instead of “and therefore we should focus on the safety of vaccines recommended for literally billions of people worldwide”.

I will give you that, I don’t think it is wrong to ask questions about health safety, that being said, I don’t think people understand what things like MRNa have done to speed up the medicine industry. Or what it will do going forward.

We are going to see cures for cancers using this method.

So do the populace have a point? Of course. Safety should be the backbone of science.

Does that mean the vaccine is unsafe because we can produce it faster? Not at all. That is progress. it means humans are getting better at fighting these kind of diseases.

Because it isn’t relevant to the claim. Would you consider it reasonable to (mind the dated reference, it’s an easy example) go under a tweet about the 737 max being grounded to tell everyone that car accidents are more prevalent?

It might be a footnote, but it is relevant to the science observer who is trying to take your safety question seriously. That means looking at all facts, even the ones that are deemed “pointless” or “Inappropriate” by most people.

Information is how we understand conclusions. And when information is hidden the conclusion has a chance of being wrong.

Which is not fair to you or me who just want to know the truth. Even if it is an ugly truth.