Didn't they say the same for asbestos, and were we not all expected to come into line with there opinions? And what about cigarettes? Didnt even the surgeon general pronounce them as safe.

What I find disturbing here is how so called 'intelligent thinkers' not only dismiss legitimate safety concerns. But ridicule those who dare to question whether or not these scientist can be trusted. The less one knows about this subject the more legitimate the concerns become as they cannot be understood. The argument then comes down to the trust of a few people. being not a history student dosn't disqualify me from knowing the track record of mankind when it comes to business. (and this endeavour is as much business as science)

And what about the young kids who grew up under the threat of all out nuclear war who layed in bed at night fearfull all their brother, sisters, parents and family would be wiped out any day?

Perhaps it is you who does not understand the heart and motives of men.

The problem is there's no reason why anyone involved in this project should care less about my sons or daughters or neighbors, so maybe they want rock solid guarantees based on known science that this cannot possibly go wrong- investigated and supervised by independents who have no vested interest in a successful outcome.

And if someone says here take this injection there is only 1 in 10000 chance you will be a vegetable then I have every right to say "hangon give me some facts and reassurances here before I decide to do this"

instead of being intelligent by knowing everything, how about tempering your intelligence by gaining wisdom in the motives of your fellow man, and the respect that his life is not for you to place on the chopping block