I try to not let my values interfere with my evaluation of what's going on in the world. Whether or not I succeed is open to other people's opinions.
The model I have for my own opinions runs on a continuum from suspicion to belief and then on to confidence, conviction, and certainty. With all the 'fake news' from various sources, I am only Certain of things I have personally observed or where there is a solid model of physical phenomena. In the latter instance, I am 'certain', for example, that 'the sun will come up tomorrow' even though I have yet to observe it.
With respect to mRNA biology, I am a (damn good) computer programmer. In COMPUTER programming, where it is humanly possible to KNOW EXACTLY what the CODE is going to do, lots of programmers (most in my experience) fuck up and the programs do stuff they're not supposed to do. mRNA is cellular PROTEIN programming. Unlike computer programming, I am 'convinced' (the level just below certainty) that human science does NOT know exactly what the code is going to do. And like computer programming, mRNA programming is subject to human error. Also like computer programming, the ignorance about what the mRNA protein 'code' is going to do raises a possibilty (and probability?) that the code will do 'bad stuff' that was not intended. As a biological process, it can take years before the bad stuff manifests. Can you say tertiary syphilis? Thalidomide? Cigarette smoke?
So I personally don't trust mRNA. As described above that distrust flows not only from my opinions but also from my professional (and educational) background. The use of mRNA vaccines to deal with COVID-19 was highly political and the controversy related to the (Democrat) regime which was running the US for most of the pandemic. Opinions like mine were suppressed and ridiculed. That is why the OP news item, attributed to a (purported) Subject Matter Expert, criticizing mRNA is of interest to me.
