If your aim is to improve your immunity to an infectious disease, the only alternative to vaccination that fulfills the same purpose is to catch the disease, which is definitely not safer. If you are so afraid of FDA corruption in favour of pharma companies (or of needles) that you choose to avoid improving your immunity altogether, you're still at risk of catching the disease anyway, which is clearly less safe than any purported risk of getting vaccinated (that is, unless you make huge changes in your lifestyle to avoid human contact).
Your ending statement could hardly be further from the truth. There's no evidence that these groups of people are related.
There are people that state they'd rather drive than fly on a Max.
The worst that can happen is a statistically much higher likelihood of dying. On the other hand, if you don't take the vaccine, the worst that happens is Pfizer doesn't get your money.
Also, y'know, the whole increased risk of serious illness due to a lack of immune protection that would be granted by the vaccine.
Whoops. They are the same.
If we'd seen more thalidomide babies, or if people were being harmed en masse by vaccines perhaps things would be more comparable. But they're not so they're not. Besides, the FAA is explicitly tasked with promoting the business interests of American companies while also promoting safety. That's quite different than the FDA, and a more reasonable comparison would be between the FDA and NTSB.
Also, what are your thoughts on the EASA and why they haven't banned the Max?
I find it hilarious how many people who mock people who "don't trust the experts" and "do their own research" suddenly engage in the same thing when it comes to other domains. Make no mistake: anti-Maxxers are kinfolk to anti-vaxxers, even if you don't want to admit it.