Power (a complex consisting of the state, regulatory authorities, experts, pharmaceutical companies, and the media) selectively presents information about harm, and manages how harm is perceived in society as well as how acceptable levels of risk are interpreted. In my current understanding, what medicine calls “safety” consists of at least two distinct but overlapping concepts: “substantive risk” and “epistemic safety.” Substantive risk refers to risk that exists in reality, independently of how people perceive it. Epistemic safety refers to a state in which people believe something to be safe. This perception is supported by information and can therefore change significantly depending on how that information is presented. In invasive medical interventions, substantive risk and epistemic safety inevitably coexist. This is because risk exists in reality, but its social meaning is constructed through information. In other words, claims such as “this is safe,” “the benefits outweigh the risks,” and “rare adverse effects are within an acceptable range” constitute subjective interpretations, and their meanings can vary significantly depending on what is emphasized, what is omitted, what comparisons are made, and what language is used. Therefore, when a divergence emerges between the risk that exists in reality and the perception that it is safe, power shifts its focus from risk itself to the management of its perception. This is because risk cannot be removed, whereas its interpretation can be managed. Through this management, social order including vaccination rates, treatment adherence, and trust in the medical system is maintained. When this divergence persists over time, the cost of maintaining epistemic safety continues to rise, and power moves toward the redefinition, exclusion, and indeterminization of problems. As a result, maintaining the social perception of safety comes to take precedence over protecting individual bodies, and individual bodies become instruments for sustaining that perception. In a society where the cost of speaking the truth exceeds the cost of remaining silent, dramatic change is not expected. However, since epistemic safety is supported by information, it is inherently fragile. The more power strengthens information control, the more a simple question emerges: “Why must information supporting safety be so tightly controlled?” This, in turn, paradoxically reveals the fragility of epistemic safety. Continuing to speak about what power is doing to us will create fractures in how individuals perceive reality and eventually become a catalyst for transforming collective perception itself.