I got the vaccine so I personally don't believe that we're trying to kill and/or subjugate all of humanity right now. But this strikes me as odd: >The differen

I got the vaccine so I personally don't believe that we're trying to kill and/or subjugate all of humanity right now. But this strikes me as odd: >The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. If you had designed the vaccine, produced all the inputs of the manufacturing process and the machines yourself, and then produced the vaccines which you then checked with machines to analyze the result and then analyzed it yourself, and then took that vial and injected it yourself with your own syringe and your own disinfectant, then you would "know" what you were injected with. My point is not to distrust the vaccines, or that any one person can realistically do this. "Trusting the science" and "trusting the vaccines" is in essence still trusting all other humans in that chain of events that led to the vaccine in your arm to have done their job properly, at least to the best of their abilities. Some people are now ready to trust the government on this more than others. I think there was a study once in mould or some other simple organism, I sadly can't find it. They found that even these simple lifeforms have the tendency to have outliers in behavior. When a high number, say 95%, of it goes towards a food source 5% will avoid it. This survival mechanism might kill the 5% more often than not, but if the opposite happens, the food is bad and kills the 95%, there is a reservoir of living cells that can spread. On a long enough timeline, as the article shows, trust will be broken. From an evolutionary perspective then it's good to have some outliers. The reasoning they use doesn't matter, survival is what matters.