Regarding those efficacy studies you tout, you may be aware of a recent study in Israel, which found that the Pfizer "vaccine" is only 39% effective at preventing infections. If this study is accurate, then how scientific is it to refer to jab recipients as "immunized" in any real sense, or to refer to the jab itself as a "vaccine"? (Blunting the effects of COVID 19--or reducing hospitalization--is not the same thing as immunizing someone to it.)
Would it not be brainwashing (i.e. indoctrination in the absence of informed consent) for the authorities to lead prospective jab recipients to believe they are about to "immunized", when in fact there is a 61% chance that no such thing is about to happen? Wouldn't that be an insidious form of the very "government control" you claim to loathe?
As for worship of "the science", which is currently de rigeur in this current fear-driven climate, science is nothing more than a discipline for investigating material reality. Science can be done competently, or it can be done incompetently, just as it can also be done for the right reasons, or for the wrong reasons. If research starts with a question for the purpose of finding an objective answer, then it can be considered scientific. If research is initiated for the purpose of arriving at a predefined answer rather than the unvarnished truth, then it is nothing more than advocacy (political or commercial), and does not deserve to be called "science".
I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself if "the science" behind the testing and approval of the "vaccines" was informed by actual science or political/commercial advocacy.
Follow the money...
https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-markethttps://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-revenue/
