> They go trough completely different and extremely rigorous testing process where everything is documented carefully, documents are examined and double checked.

Rigorous testing is all well and good, but we do know how many errors crop up in scientific papers, right? A lot.

The gold standard of testing is double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies and this is only done sometimes for vaccines, as far as I aware.

I believe there are certain circumstances such as no safe and effective already existing vaccine, or where there's a certain kind of benefit to the injected population, where vaccines are generally allowed to go through this double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies (the gold standard of testing) and certain circumstances where they do not go through such rigorous testing.

I believe this ethic stems from Jonas Salk's decision during the development of the Polio vaccine where the ethical call was made to not do double-blind, placebo controlled testing due to the desire to prevent damage to human lives that could be prevented by not using a placebo.

I invite fact-checking on everything stated.