The definition of "intrinsically safe" doesn't even sound like a consistent bar. Nearly every aspect of living involves risks, even if that risk is of falling and hitting one's head.
Or if the side-effect subset is random.
* Injection site pain * Fatigue * Headache * Muscle pain * Chills * Joint pain * Fever
The effects are too mild and short term to pose an interesting research question, I would think.
For the more sever side effect of swollen lymph nodes, it has not been investigated, though that might provide enough immune system insight to be an interesting question to pursue.
The only other adverse event, Bell's Palsy, is currently indistinguishable from the background rate of occurrence, so I would doubt that anybody is investigating that.
There's a big methodological problem too: you can either get an extreme reaction to COVID-19, or you can have side effects from the vaccine, but a person going through one would poison the results of the other. So to come up with some sort of experiment, you'd need some sort or prognostic based on biomarkers that was strong and convincing enough to think it was related to what you're predicting, which we definitely don't have yet. Then you'd need to cross tab between effects. Potentially possible, but it relies on a pretty big discovery that would have better uses!
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847694/ [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
Maybe all ten children killed in the Cutter incident had pre-existing conditions. Most people have a pre-existing condition of some sort or another. It was an effort to inoculate generally, so that's why I used the death rate of COVID in the general population as a comparison.
> Only 10 in 200,000 died from a vaccine
This doesn't negate the fact that vaccines can be dangerous. This just happens to be the number for that particular vaccine.
> 10 in 200,000 deaths is better than 1 in 100
The 10 could have been fine without the vaccine. Who knows, it's just speculation; maybe they had pre-existing conditions, maybe they did not. But comparing numbers like this knowing that the 10 in 200,000 are drawn from a different population from the 1 in 100 is being disingenuous.
The people getting the Polio vaccine (children) were the general population of people at highest risk of death by polio. The same is true for the Covid vaccine, at least for the next few months. Both are mass vaccination campaigns.
As you mentioned, vaccines are not safe because they are vaccines. They're safe because of the exhaustive testing trails. A majority of the forced vaccines have been tested for many decades, those are fine (speaking from a USA perspective). The problem we face now, the anti-vax idiots muddied the waters of actual problems of some vaccines. It's hard to determine what's true and what's just stupid. This is why it's important not to overblow anything. It makes it harder to weed out true, legit problems that can be legitimately fixed.
(In the western world. Russia's Sputnik approval did skip steps. Which has probably saved a bunch of lives there, but it was riskier than ours).
To address those two points in particular:
The trials for these FDA-approved vaccines were not "rushed". They included all the usual phases for their usual durations. That's why we only get the vaccines now (even though developing them took far less than a month). What made the trials faster is that they started preparing the next stage while the previous one was still ongoing - which is not normally done, so as to not waste money in case problems are found.
As for the duration of testing: As mentioned, the set of stages before approval was not reduced. Vaccines are indeed monitored after being cleared for use, but having to wait decades would not make sense. I understand that this is different for other vaccines that are "forced", but you admit yourself that this is not true for all of them in the first place.