We are talking about developments with regular scientific processes attached. So studies from phase 1 to phase 4. Line we did with Sars-CoV-2 but probably not

We are talking about developments with regular scientific processes attached. So studies from phase 1 to phase 4. Line we did with Sars-CoV-2 but probably not with as many resources to be able to do these in quite such rapid succession. And like with any former, non mRNA vaccine (and any other drug as well) these studies will be used to determine whether or not to go into the next phase. Modern medicine has some of the most secure practices, processes and methods to determine whether or not a treatment/vaccine can be securely administered. Surely in the end (especially in most non pandemic cases) we have the individual decision to use a treatment/vaccine or take the risk of being infected /using another treatment. And as said - this is OK. As long as the reasons for not using an intervention are based on facts and not on lies and myths. Or on an irrational fear of 'big pharma'. I can understand fear. I needed to actually read the studies regarding the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines myself. I needed to compare them to studies for other vaccines. I needed to understand the science first to counter my fear of 'wow that is quite fast - I am not sure this is secure'. But using my brain I was able to evaluate the risks associated with the vaccine and the risks associated with contracting Covid. And from there it was a nobrainer to get vaccinated and boostered. I would do the same for the respective risk profiles for other vaccines/infections.