> Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the sam

> Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the same religious/tribal objections be held, for example, if the disease to be prevented was cancer vs a virus of unknown origin? Would it still be viewed by so many as a political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But where did the cancer come from?" etc.)? So this misses the full Covid-19 vaccine critique and provides a disturbing slant instead of the proposed hazards. The specific critique is that the protein chosen in C19 vaccines is in fact dangerous in its own right. mRNA as a mechanism of delivering a protein to the body is anything but an empirical debate -- the tech works, and works decently well for risk profiles who have no other option. The philosophical / duty of care debate is whether or not the risks associated with mRNA therapies / vaccines are worth the inherent risks. Equating Covid 19 for the common person as the same as cancer for the common person doesn't appear to balance. If C19 had cancer mortality rates, this pandemic would look drastically different -- with far few people in the room.