Why would someone

No.

Here is a fact:

In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it1.

Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to “treat RNA as a drug”. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism.

Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines given to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Global sales of these are expected to top US$50 billion in 2021 alone

Let's be clear about one thing. I support my assertions that mRNA technology is not new with verifiable facts. Your posts, by contrast, are bald, unsupported assertions that run counter to these facts.

If there are any readers out there with their wits about them, they will see the difference.

 

"Obviously not effective" looks to me like hyperbole. The mRNA vaccines have proven to be over 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 and a higher percentage (though not 100%, obviously) in preventing people from becoming seriously ill with it. If a vaccine that's been shown to be 95% effective is given to 100 million people, that would mean it would not be effective for 5 million. Tossing the mRNA products as "obviously not effective" kind of ignores the 95%.

 

It's hogwash to say it prevents people becoming seriously ill. They don't know what would have happened without the vaccine. That's government drivel. And how do they know it is 95% effective? I went a year and a half without getting the virus without a vaccine.

 

The testing that lead to emergency approvals included tens of thousands of subjects, some given the vaccine and some given a placebo. Then the COVID-19 infection rates for each group were compared. If there wee 19 infections of placebo recipients for each infection in the vaccinated group, that's a 95% efficacy.
And my first post noted that prevention of serious disease was not 100%. Research and medicine aren't perfect, by far, but dismissing a vaccine because it's a bit less than 100% effective seems odd, IMO.