>Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned.
Do you know what regulatory capture is and why I specifically brought it up? The FDA is staffed with former pfizer employees. Their chairman is a former Pfizer CEO. The relationship is incestuous and and further perverts incentives. This is not unique to the FDA, it is common in regulatory agencies, which is why the phenomenon has a name.
>And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google
I don't think you understand that the data is coming almost exclusively from the companies that benefit from positive data and agencies with political pressure to release positive data. You do not understand the strong perverse incentives that are aligned in favor of positive vaccine sentiment and you are not sufficiently skeptical. And when publishing anything critical of vaccine safety or efficacy is risky, there effectively are no competitive researchers. No one wants to risk being labeled as an "antivaxxer".
The whole stack is strongly biased in favor of the vaccines because of unchecked financial and political pressure.
>My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever.
The only data that is available is high level summary/aggregations, published by the same orgs that stand to benefit from favorable results. The underlying raw data is not available.
And your link is part of the problem. If you want to convince people to take the mRNA vaccines, you could start by not conflating hesitancy about this new technology with general vaccine hesitancy, that's just dishonest.