I agree with most everything you have posted, so please do not take my comments below as anything other than quibbling with the portions I've left in the quote.
[snip] And just to make sure all this is done right, it should probably be done many times over by independent groups of people, from different organizations, with no financial conflicts of interest in the results.
I agree that there have been several studies of the vaccines, but I think they are not completely free from being repeated and/or improved - such as by including older participants matching the population, and being sponsored and run other than by pharma. I'm not saying either point is definitive that the studies are not valuable.
The problem with not trusting "the government, media, or pharmaceutical companies" is that you don't understand who you should trust and you end up going with some anonymous creator of Facebook memes
Agreed
or the former host of Fear Factor and his favorite failed biology teacher.
Rogan isn't a scientist, but he's also not a complete idiot. I suggest listening to his podcast with Dr. Gupta (who is also just one person). [Note - I am not a fanboy. He says some stuff that I vehemently disagree with.] It was interesting to hear the extent to which they agreed on points, and when they disagreed, they did so with points and counter-points with citations to studies. I am not saying either is correct, but listening to some non-gov't sources isn't necessarily bad. I personally think it is consistent with being skeptical.
You don't have to trust any one government when practically every government on Earth (except a few third-world despots) agrees.
I don't disagree with most of the consensus, but the fact that it is held by governments doesn't personally sway me. And if there is a consensus among governments, I personally think it is often driven by the US, and to a lesser extent, the UK. Our government in the US (regardless of administration) is not infallible, and there are plenty of historic examples of scientific consensus that were proven wrong (like 6 weeks of bed rest following an MI). Again, it doesn't mean this consensus is wrong, but people who question the consensus - with valid evidence - should be encouraged to do so.
You don't have to trust any one media outlet when every credible media outlet is getting the main points right.
I don't want to start a MSM vs. Fox debate - I don't put much faith in any of them. And not because of some conspiracy, but for a simpler reason. Every media company is merely a compilation of people, with a motive to make a profit as a commercial entity. And I do not believe that many, or in some cases any, of the people who work at those companies are well-versed enough in the scientific method, or have the time, or support from management, to question much of anything. When pretty much every media outlet confuses correlation and causation ("red wine prevents heart attacks!"), then their statements on anything complicated, to me, are just examples of them repeating what someone else has said. That doesn't mean what they say is wrong, it just means that the fact they are saying something isn't itself evidence that the statements are correct.
You don't have to trust any one pharmaceutical company when three different companies have vaccines approved in the US and they've all been vetted by researchers outside those companies. The mainstream consensus is supported by countless scientific papers from outside the sources you said you distrust.
Yes. But any consensus should be challenged by the scientific method and scientists.
However much you distrust the government, you should put far less trust in the amateurs saying, "Hey, you don't trust the government? Me neither! Trust me instead! And buy these supplements I'm selling, and support my sponsors, and donate to my Patreon!"
Agreed.