I don't believe you are insane - or maybe not totally :)

With the example you cite on how Pfizer has behaved in the past and the limitations they put on providing the vaccines for free to poor countries just to maximize their profit, mistrust towards big pharma is totally warranted!

Regarding the vaccine itself and the science behind though I personally believe its safe and sound.

It was not actually big pharma who developed the technology (mRNA), but a small company in Germany that was initially working on a process to combat cancer. I believe that the scientists behind are "honorable" in their quest: https://www.ted.com/talks/ugur...

A lot of components go into the industrial manufacture of the vaccine. The german company did not have the resources/facilities for the manufacture at the scale needed.

Thus they partnered with Pfizer. Maybe a more reputable company would have been better ...

We have seen issue with vaccine manufacture and lack of QA in the past. And in your examples I find Pfizer trying to escape liability from manufacturing errors pretty tasteless.

Then fix your QA process - But it would appear that some companies instead of just spending a bit more on QA just focus on bottom line (Boeing??) ...

Error can always happen, but if you have good QA processes the risk of an error making it to the consumer should be minimized and if something "escapes" and hurts patients there should be some recourse - "pain and suffering". If it happened because the company was willful negligence in the QA process it should be the end (yes the end - as in dissolution and assets should be sold to the highest bidder) of the company.

But we should not conflate mistrust of big pharma with the science behind.

Generally why should we take vaccines?

I did find this one giving good insight: https://www.ted.com/talks/mich... - its 10 year old, but more valid then ever now and touches "conspiracy theories" and "anti-vaxers" (at least the speaker has strong positions here - if you agree that is up to you).

Microsoft is using their entire monopoly power over the Windows operating system and the fact that many companies use Office365 in the Cloud to get companies to shift to Azure.

Not only are they trying to throw in free licenses and steep discounts (only to later, maybe over the course of a year to tighten the screws again and "discount" turns into "more cost") for Windows/Office that no other cloud provider can match, but at the same time they constantly tighten the Windows License rules either limiting a company what licenses they can bring (BYOL) to their preferred cloud provider or directly limiting the cloud provider what Windows license and, more importantly, how they can "re-sell" as part of their offering.

IMHO (and as a minimum, short of breaking MS up), Windows/Office should be licensed under RAND like terms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing) as its often done for hardware standards to make sure the playing field is even between a number of competing providers.

Looking through the details ...

There are two Companies with the same name doing almost the same business!

there is a South African Company called: Ethos Capital - https://ethoscapital.mu/ which has existed since 1984 and has Peter Hayward-Butt as CEO
and
there is a Other company called: Ethos Capital LLC - https://ethoscapital.com/ which only recently was created (2019) and has Erik Brooks as CEO

it is the LATTER one that is the company that wanted the .ORG domains. Wonder if they did this confusion number on purpose, so when people google the name they find the first company which may lend more credibility?

Wonder what the first company thinks about its name being reused and potentially being confused getting bad press?