I am not convinced all the scientists in the world are in some grand conspiracy to hide risks. Think of it this way, Merck and Lilly compete, don't their scientists have an incentive to rat out the other side? That doesn't include the data analysts who work for the various governments checking results. Nor university researchers not employed by pharma.
I took a drug that never should have made it to market, Vioxx for arthritis in my knees. I know things can and do happen. Merck covered up the data in the initial approval. But independent investigators did research and found problems, but for reasons unknown the FDA did not act. You can read about it at
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048286.
Over the course of the five-and-a-half-year saga, many epidemiologic studies confirmed and amplified the concern about the risk of myocardial infarction and serious cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib.
3 These studies considered large populations, up to 1.4 million patients, tracking the use of various nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications or coxibs to determine the risk of adverse events.
I just reject a massive conspiracy to hide flaws, and there are independent agents checking. Mistakes do happen, they happen in everything. But if $ is the primary motivator why would pharma want to cure conditions, it is pretty obvious treating them is far more profitable. That's my point, if making money is the only goal, why don't we have drugs to help people with polio instead of a vaccine to prevent it. 3-$80 vaccinations aren't nearly as profitable as $80 a month for life.
As to COVID vaccine, funny thing is that was developed by Trump. He heavily touted his work in pushing aside regulations.
I'm not saying COVID is foolproof, but the science seems good. They inject mRNA to produce a little bit of a spike protein. The body's immune system finds that and catalogs it as a threat. Right off-hand, I don't see disaster. mRNA is already in our bodies. Many viruses we encounter already have spike proteins. It isn't like we are injecting something that has never been in our body to replicate something else that has never been in our body.
Maybe there is something our best minds never thought of. It does happen. Even knowing some of his team could not completely rule out the bomb would ignite the atmosphere, Oppenheimer had the bomb detonated. We build nuclear power plants (and should build more) even though we don't know everything that can go wrong.
I recall anti-seatbelt people saying, "If you are heading off a cliff, a seatbelt will keep you from leaping out and thus kill you." True, but the risk of that is so minuscule compared to dying in a normal collision that it is easily worth the risk.
Kennedy is akin to the anti-nuclear movement, pointing out risks that are exceedingly small knowing people do not judge risks well. If there are concerns the watchdogs aren't watching, is relaxing government oversight the answer? I've said before, I have no problems telling employees in the FDA they cannot work for pharma for 5 years AFTER leaving the FDA or they pay a $5 million penalty. If we are concerned they are siding with pharma to get a future job, why not do something like that?