I have consistently been linking to references in the scientific/medical literature, as well as references to other sources, such as the FDA's pages concerning the vaccine approvals.
You don't seem to get it.
What part of "thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions" don't you get?
That was an after-the-fact observation.
You seem to think that quoting the peer-reviewed literature is dispositive of argument.
But it isn't, because scientific rigor has been replaced by Marxist or Orwellian censorship: everything not from an approved source, or anything even if from a once-approved source, becomes "misinformation" or "disinformation" once it deviates from the party line
There is no such thing as a fact-checker: there are only countless George Winstons, like yourself, anxious to stomp out any trace of crimethink.
Or have you forgotten it was Hillary Clinton who called for a "fact check" in her Presidential campaign debate with Trump?
The problem is that your bombast and rhetoric goes far beyond what the structures of science actually say, or call for. Such as
So, your distrust of "Big Pharma" scientists basically means that you distrust any scientist who does research.
So materials science, analytical chemistry, metallurgy, and physics aren't science.
Dingbat.
Such as
There is, therefore, no reason to take seriously anyone who makes claims that contradict the current knowledge about medical science.
Medicine isn't a science.
Science requires reproducibility under controlled conditions. And when dealing with medicines, you have all kinds of uncontrolled variables. Which you attempt to get around by large sample sizes.
or
You see, when scientists have established that something is harmful to health, there is a strong likelihood that you actually know or know of people who have died from that thing.
You mean like Ansel Keys? Or statins for cardiovascular health?
Dingbat.
Or of course there's always the infallible Lord Fauci: