Am I the only one here who is skeptical that the MRNA shots have a positive risk-reward tradeoff for healthy people?

My job is to rush out complicated things, and biology is much more complex than even hardware. I know how fallible experts are. I know what hysteria and pressure driven deadlines do to build quality. And I know that you can't really test long term effects of biological products without long term human trials.

I think everyone here knows these things too, but most have a tribal political reaction to trust these shots because you dislike the people questioning them.

Do you have the same reservations for the other 99.9% of drugs that haven't gone through "long term human clinical trials?" How long would a trial need to be to assuage your concerns? How large would it need to be?

Because even the one "significant" adverse effect we see with COVID vaccines (myo- or pericarditis in young men) is so uncommon that it would've required trials several orders of magnitude larger than the largest trials ever conducted to detect.

I personally don't mind people asking questions of them, that's the whole point of science!

What's frustrating is when people ask questions that 1) are easily answered by the reams of publicly available literature on the topic [and are truly difficult to answer in 240 character snippets], and 2) they never even thought to ask of the various other compounds they're ingesting which are generally far less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.

It's almost like it's not an organic and earnest curiosity...

Anyway to your direct question: no obviously you're not the only one. But according to all available data the calculus very strongly contradicts your intuitions. We make decisions with incomplete data every day and we don't generally call "filling in the blanks with whatever I need to in order to reach a contrary conclusion" a form of wisdom.

mRNA vaccine research has been going on for decades. It's not something new and rushed.