Simple innumeracy is your problem here. Do you buy lottery tickets? There is three times more risk of dying in the car on the way to the shop to buy the ticket than to successfully pick the winning numbers.

A "non-zero risk" is not the same as a significant risk. There is a non-zero risk that you will be hit by a random meteorite the next time you walk along the street, but this doesn't translate into a measurable risk. There is a much larger non-zero risk that the radioactive transceiver you hold against your ear for hours will cause a brain tumour, but that seems to have avoided your paranoia.

Now that got me curious, any non youtube links on that one ?

yep , wonder if its energy can get to the brain

Nah, I have no evidence. :)

I was merely making a comparative risk assessment. I recall a study many years ago that found a particular brand of mineral water was carcinogenic and was removed from sale. A person would have had to drink two litres of it a day, every day, for twenty years to have a fraction of a percent chance of increased risk to develop cancer. That was enough to pull the product.

To worry about an inoculation that is being scrutinized by literally every health authority is wasted effort. (Worry about countries with opaque testing regimes, like Russia's Sputnik 5 that was released before stage 3 trials were conducted —— much less completed —— or anything from China.)

Case in point, the Queensland University developed a vaccine that implemented a protein from the HIV molecule to attack the Wuhan 'flu. It was a very clever strategy (and it would have been customizable to many other viruses) but, owing to a whimsical decision to use the protein without much modification, it triggered a false positive in subsequent HIV tests for the subjects who took it. (Note, it was a false positive, in no way did the testees suffer in any way, they were completely unharmed and had no ill effects.) But, because of the risk of creating negative publicity, the university team decided to discontinue the project, despite it being successful and spending many $millions.

As @DarrkPhoenix noted, it is completely against any company's interest to deliberately or accidentally allow a faulty vaccine to be released. To argue otherwise is to completely misrepresent the three phases of medical testing: first that it does no harm, second that it has some efficacy, and third that it actually helps against whatever it was designed to help. At any stage the product can fail and must be abandoned. The company would probably be bankrupt within months.