I don't want to argue with your arguments, especially since they are so familiar that arguing with them is like arguing whether matter is ethereal or corpuscular.
I just wanted to defend a little the objectivity of my comment by revealing that it was not based on the illusion of safety guaranteed by vaccines, but on personal struggles with infection and, accordingly, personal experience and evaluation of the consequences and their severity. I am not denying the usefulness of vaccines, only their unwise use.
In any case, nobody immunised you against measles and rubella with regularity every few months.
Vaccine technologies are also slightly different, the nice RNA-based ones don't actually find such unanimous support among professionals, it's just that those who had a view that didn't match the official one (e.g. that it's not very appropriate to vaccinate during an epidemic) were strongly advised to shut up.
I wonder if you have heard about the risks of autoimmune side effects from these RNA vaccines, a very unpleasant thing indeed. And yet, without counting the risks, this medical experiment was carried out globally, with the risk that the possible consequences could also be global.
In any case, the truth is not characterised by being concentrated at the extremes; as practice has shown, it prefers to be in the relatively shock-free middle ground.
