To rebuild public trust in vaccines, we should require an annually updated git-style log that documents every ingredient in each vaccine, clearly showing what has changed year to year and allowing full transparency back to the very beginning. This should be accessible to the patient before accepting the vaccine. Additionally, combined vaccine cocktails should be discontinued, each vaccine ought to be offered individually so that people can make informed decisions about each one separately.
I'm not opposed to transparency or detailed diffs, but are individuals really able to make informed decisions about this? I work in the pharma industry and know plenty about drugs but I feel like I'd want an expert to make decisions and recommendations.
Informed consent is the cornerstone of modern medicine, and when its no longer given because information is withheld evil things happen.
I've worked in pharma too, and I'd rather have the final say regardless of what some expert may say. Experts today are often wrong more often than they are right in the things that matter because they have this blindness to them where they often favor looking at things in isolation instead of the full context seeking knowledge/truth. It is a rare person that bucks this trend, inquisitive objective methodical without pre-concieved notion, and I've met some of them but they are so incredibly rare (1 in 1M).
The Tuskegee trials were run by experts, would you rather have those specific experts decide what amounts to a short life and descent into madness for you just so they can collect data? They won't be telling you that they've infected you with syphilis.
When you seek medical help:
"Nothing is wrong with you, you just have bad blood."
The point is, there is a lot of history that is extremely unpleasant, in some cases unbelievable, but the fact that it happened is not in dispute, and that fact shaped why we do the things the way we do today and why its important to keep doing them a certain way.
Many states up to the 80s iirc publicly ran and had eugenics-style programs that sterilized the mentally ill and indigenous women surgically without their consent.
The certification for that was simply the say so of an expert, and anyone (as a victim) could easily meet those requirements with a false diagnosis from the same or another cooperative person.
There were many innocent people sterilized permanently, and there were many more that simply went missing.
If this has happened in the past, what makes you think this isn't happening under the cover of the more recently round ups of undesired individuals (for deportation).
Its important to have a firm understanding of the reality of these things.
You'd have to first properly define 'vaccine' objectively.
Opposition occurs because of negative outcomes, and adverse risks where existing establishment incentivizes deception.
Taking the opposite of your argument, is there any level of transparency possible where you would accept a vaccine for a disease that won't kill you, where taking that vaccine may sterilize you, or debilitate you. Is opposition the point? Opposition to what exactly?
