> dubious mRNA treatments with unknown compounding risks for unknown numbers of people
If that was the case, after 100s of millions of doses given out shouldn’t these have surfaced in sufficient numbers?
Sorry about your condition, but there’s nothing there that suggests it is related to the mRNA formulation; you could just as easily experienced the same with a viral vector formulation or even without any booster (long covid, if that’s what you had, is not without relapses)
Development corners were not cut, that’s the point of the mRNA formulation, it is incredibly faster than conventional methods to create a brand new product. I assume what you meant was the regulatory requirements for safety, which yes were accelerated and reduced because of the emergency use case. Two years ago. Those trials are tests on large populations , phase 3 being the largest then phase 4 a post-marketing surveillance period [0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research
What "corners" were "cut"? And if your answer is "they were rushed", don't bother replying.
After a real infection you develop anti-bodies. Why then get the vaccine which would be less good protection and have risks?
The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Five months following a covid infection in which I had 4-6 weeks of neurological deficit, I received the bivalent mRNA booster, which seemed to somehow reactivate the neurological issues for a few days or a week. Doctors told me this is not uncommon.
These are not "safe" in the same way we mean that MSG or acetaminophen are "safe".
Corners were necessarily cut in the trials of these during development to accelerate time to market. They saved lives, the gamble paid off. But the trial protocols are in place for a reason and we do not fully understand these drugs as yet.