I said mostly using RNA, but it is right to point that out. @maxjam points out some scientists are concerned about the spike protein.
As for safety checks, you are quite right to ask for evidence and I will keep looking at this because perhaps I have been mislead here. However, the article you posted says this :
"Although the vaccines have completed the necessary steps of each trial, the health and economic impact of COVID-19 has meant the process has been sped up"
So what does that actually mean? You can't speed up longer term follow up. To me, it says we didn't wait for the long term data but don't worry we are still collecting it.
Then there is the adverse events reporting. Tess Lawrie wrote about her concerns. I was worried that initial reports of these were quickly being shot down in the media.
I will go back to things I've listened to and read and consider this more carefully. I'm open to being wrong, which is why we should always debate with people we disagree with! I will be honest about my own bias, I don't trust authority because of my own personal experiences and history shows that power corrupts. The evidence of corruption in our governments is overwhelming, so much so we have become numb to it, like with Trump.
Academia is a flawed system. Big businesses have too much power to influence everything in our lives etc etc.
So I have my biases as do we all. Its been good actually to air some of this stuff because it doesn't feel that socially safe to do that. Which is another thing some of us are worried about.