provoost on Nostr: I took several courses in cell biology back in uni, so at least I know the basics of ...

I took several courses in cell biology back in uni, so at least I know the basics of (m)RNA and virus replication. I also followed TWiV for several years during the pandemic, and for a while even a German language podcast with Christian Drosten.

I also kept fairly close track of Dutch statistics (and had at least some knowledge of their strengths and short comings). Read various policy documents and followed technical briefings to parliament.

I participated in an early mRNA vaccine trial. I got the placebo, with side-effects! I also listened to the first FDA approval hearing to see if anyone there raised serious concerns. I read some of the stuff Pfizer submitted back then as well.

Nothing there set off any alarm bells. But it's like reviewing assembly code: I don't think I'd spot a well crafted exploit. But it surely didn't look like rushed junk science. It was fast in large part because serious money was thrown at the problem, where vaccines before were generally not that interesting to big pharma.

But note that my bar was pretty low: I was looking for evidence to contradict my prior that the vaccine is less dangerous than an infection. It's what I needed to know in order to stop avoiding people.

Perhaps if they had found statistically insignificant efficacy combined with severe side effects, I would have been more worried. Because I agree with you that there was some degree of mass hysteria that *could* have pushed a very dangerous vaccine through.

So I consider myself much better informed than e.g. someone listening to Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein, but obviously less informed than a virologist, immunologist, epidemiologist, economist, etc (none of these experts have a full picture either - which they sometimes forgot).

So I feel somewhat confident stating that, without further information, an mRNA vaccine should be orders of magnitude less harmful than a real virus. And that when conflicting information comes in about bad side effects, the first thing I would recommend is to reconsider how harmful you think the virus is. If that leads to an absurd conclusion (100% mortality) then I would assume there's something wrong with the study of side effects.

In general I don't think one should "do your own research". Only if you're willing to put serious time into it, and have some skill in navigating scientific literature. Even TWiV is ultimately pop science and can only help you so far. It's especially unwise to follow contrarian research unless you really know how to evaluate it. Mainstream science* has issues, but most people who contradict it are wrong. There's no cheat code there. Sometimes simply ignoring an area of science can be fine. But with a pandemic you're kind of forced to take action one way or another. That's one reason why I did "do my own research"

* = hard sciences anyway