Alright. And BTW. I retract "weird" bc I don't think nostr:npub1x458tl7h9xcxa66vr4a8pg0h2qz96pnhwnfpcra0le9090uk5t5qw7armt is wrong for questioning.
Now if you ask whether they are "safe and effective", or either or, I struggle to see how most are either unsafe or ineffective.
Where's the risk of say, a tetanus shot?
As with everything injected or consumed, the risks depend on the risk profile of individual ingredients.
Formulations contain adjuvants, so from a risk perspective you can only increase it, because they are toxins.
Thetanus injection in DTaP can have Thiomersal which is mercury, or aluminum - depending on SKU. 
I understand. But it seems the primary argument boils down to whether the medical apparatus can be trusted for various datasets. For example, perhaps mercury is an adjuvant but wouldn't the medical community only use it if it's risk was so low.
nostr:npub18s59mqct7se3xkhxr3epkagvuydwtvhpsacj67shrta8eknynegqttz5c3 has addressed “safe” I’ll submit this re “effective “
I love this chart, most people have not seen it. I've had a chat which started benign about risk taking and heuristics and the guy wanted to destroy my arguments suddenly with vaccines. I said the risks are not worth it. Being drunk, I described the dropping incidence of diseases and he assumed it's thanks to vaccines. It is thanks to something else, but not the vaccine profit machine.
An additional side to the story is profit. I highly recommend watching this Mises Media production the history of US medical establishment.
