Sure, if that's the belief that's actually driving decisions. It certainly isn't the way I approach things. I eagerly sought a vaccine (my appointment was 10:20

Sure, if that's the belief that's actually driving decisions. It certainly isn't the way I approach things. I eagerly sought a vaccine (my appointment was 10:20am on the first day I was eligible) because the safety and efficacy was demonstrated by data from trials conducted with a high level of scientific rigor, plus observational studies from places that had gotten there early. It was thrilling to see the early data out of Israel that showed such a strong vaccine effect from their age-stratified rollout. And to further support my point, I wouldn't recommend anyone get CureVac - from the data we have now, that looks like a dud, even though it is an mRNA vaccine with some similarities to the others. My guess is that that there is a deeper underlying question: should we trust the scientists and institutions who do these trials. And on that my personal belief is that yes we should, but we should also be skeptical and hold them accountable. They make mistakes - the recent aducanumab decision looks like a big one - so I am definitely not arguing we should uncritically accept everything they do and say. But when they do it right, as has happened with vaccines in the US, we should celebrate, not undermine, that. I do appreciate that trust in people and institutions is a personal thing and there are reasons for it to vary.