I didn't really want to get into it because I don't think these questions are being asked in good faith, but there are genuine concerns that real-life scientists are appropriately raising.

For example, I believe the concern Malone had with mRNA vaccines is that they aren't limited to the shoulder and do, in fact, spread throughout the body. There is evidence the spike protein crosses the blood-brain barrier and no evidence provided from the manufacturers of what that means. What that potentially means is that decades from now certain people might develop MS-type symptoms if the myelin sheath of their CNS experiences an ADE-like response. It's an appropriate academic discussion and most of the research doctors I've spoken to personally, reviewed their protocols on the IRB I serve, or read their peer-reviewed papers, do not support *not* getting vaccinated. Their position is a theoretical risk exists, it merits study, and that doesn't mean the vaccines are unsafe relative to the risk of COVID. That position, however, should be balanced against understanding the differential risk presented to various demographics.

One of the ways to ensure the mRNA stays relatively where it's supposed to is for health pros to aspirate the needle. It's best-practice on intra-muscular anyway but most health pros give so many injections they tend to wing it. If you survey EMTs, for example, they seem far more likely to indicate they both know and follow that protocol...at least that's been my anecdotal experience. The health pros who administered my COVID shots (and those of my spouse), however, had no freaking clue what I was even asking them. After I explained to a freaking nurse how to aspirate a needle she jabbed me and blurted out, "no blood" without actually aspirating the damn needle. The 1 in a million chance of the vaccine flowing through my blood and up into my veins isn't a hill I'm willing to die though nor does it mean I advised my spouse to not get it. Well, technically she went first and texted me to avoid her nurse but I got the same response from the one I went up to. If you remember the doctor who died shortly after his vaccine in the very early days and a few (rare) athletes who are experiencing long-covid weren't so lucky. AFAIK, the official guidelines merely recommend but don't require needle aspiration. Kinda tough when they're not even trained in what that means or how to do it.

A second, more clear concern, is not the mRNA itself but rather the lipid delivery mechanism. That lipid delivery packet is, to date, proprietary. You'll often hear mRNA was well-researched for over 20 years. What you don't tend to hear with that is the caveat that it was a treatment intended for cancer patients. As late as 2018 the CEO of Moderna had to announce to the shareholders they still hadn't figured out how to limit liver damage from their packet delivery and were on the verge of shutting the research down. That liver damage is the primary reason they weren't able to gain approval for human subjects (another fact that's often glossed over). Their toxic tech culture was also driving away their top scientists.

In any case, I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy here. What I'm pointing out is that in an emergency situation the risk of potential liver damage is not even remotely comparable to the risk of a global pandemic. That said, it's also fair to point out the risk of liver damage to a cancer patient looking at certain death in a matter of years is a completely different calculation than an otherwise healthy 20-40 year old who is more likely to not even be symptomatic from COVID.

Now, these concerns aren't so big a deal when you're talking about one or two shots. They do become more of an issue when you're planning on yearly (or even more frequently) injections. The problem here is that any valid concerns raised, even by scientists, is being relegated to crazy anti-vaccination sentiment. It's a legitimate concern, however, to point out some of these vaccines were only tested with limited use and not in the context of someone receiving hundreds of them over the course of their life.

If you want to discuss polio, or a more mundane vaccine like tetanus, then you need to acknowledge we don't indiscriminately give them out regularly. We test adults to see their titer levels before administrating them. In the case of tetanus (and malaria), we don't even prophylactically them at all. They're "safe" in the sense that the alternative is worse, not safe in the sense of injecting something innocuous as saline. Similarly, there are tangible and non uncommon risks with things as mundane as birth control. That doesn't mean people don't take it, but they're advised of the risks and also advised the risk of unplanned/unguided pregnancies is far greater. In the case of COVID, however, it's become so political we can't even have genuine discussions weighing, or even researching, risk to benefit.

The grand irony is all the bellyaching over following the science but relatively few of the people arguing that are reading the scientific literature or are scientists themselves. In science we tend to test things rather than shutting discourse down...that's the scientific method. Going with the best of what you got in a global emergency is pragmatism, not science. And that's ok, it was necessary. But we're out of those woods now and there's no legitimate scientific reason to just refuse to test the various theoretical concerns that can be legitimately raised agains this relatively new technology. Furthermore, it's even more strange to shame people who might opt for a more traditional delivery method that have since become available. There is zero justification for declaring anyone opposed to mRNA delivery specifically as a wackadoo.