> By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, You are mentioning your skepticism without any evidence or any va

> By simply mentioning skepticism in pharmaceutical companies' claims that vaccines are safe, You are mentioning your skepticism without any evidence or any valid reason to question the existing mountain of evidence in favor of their safety and efficacy. This makes it very hard to take your claims of sincerity seriously. Yours is a ploy that is often used to call into question established facts. For example, the oil industry loves to prop up puppets who, in bad faith, "just ask questions" of the type: "How do we know that fossil fuels really contribute to global warming? Did you know that carbon dioxide is actually really good for plants? Don't you want the weather to be a little bit warmer? Why are you believing all of the anti-oil propaganda created by big-budget climate scientists?" All of these points are easily debunked, of course, and the fact that the speaker pretends to not already know their answers is evidence that their questions are not sincere, but rather an attempt to spread misinformation. As the other poster has already said: if you have a sincere question about vaccines, great. But in practice, the questions you're asking have already been answered. The only plausible explanation for your continued pretenses of skepticism is that you have some other agenda.