There aren't any vaccines I can think of that made it past clinical trials and were a net negative. There are possibly some cases where they were a net negative for a subgroup of the population or where a batch was contaminated, but I don't think that counts as overall "bad".

Either you're using a different definition of bad, or you've got some information I don't have, or you're wrong.

>that made it past clinical trials

What do you mean by this? Perhaps, that some of them are bad and thus shouldn't be used by the general population?

No, he meant that we don't use vaccines that are bad.

>some of them are bad and thus shouldn't be used by the general population

>No, he meant that we don't use vaccines that are bad.

By "he", you mean me?

I don't understand your point. Vaccines that don't make it past clinical trails are not used. So there are no vaccines that were used that were net negative bad. Does it make it clear?

What I meant was that the general population can't use those vaccines anyway, unless they do the synthesis on their own or get into a clinical trial, so it's disingenuous to talk about them in the context of public safety.

Making a claim about the safety of pre-approval vaccines is misleading because it's claiming one uncontroversial true thing ("some vaccines in development are found to be net negative in trials and do not progress further") that sounds superficially similar to a scary untrue thing ("getting vaccinated by your doctor with an approved vaccine may be net negative across the population") and hoping everyone else will confuse the two.

In this case "some vaccines are bad" was clearly intended to be an ambiguous statement, otherwise it would have been more detailed about which exact vaccines were bad.