There were side effects that were serious. The vaccines and boosters effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious side effects.

Covid effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious complications.

In the instances where the risk of serious side effect was more likely than the risk of serious complication, at least one of the boosters was more likely to be bad for the patient.

If it is more likely to cause harm, I can understand not wanting to take that version.

My point is it's ok to refuse medicine based on medical evidence.

Agreed. I misremembered what the issue was. It's been a second.

The issue was balancing risk of serious side effect versus risk of serious complication.

I didn't refuse the vaccine. Get the fuck out of here.

E: And all evidence didn't show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid. The primary 2-stage vaccine is a good call.

I did refuse a particular booster because the available data on it showed for my demographic the risks outweighed the potential gains; it was more likely to harm me than help me.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject. Instead of reading studies directly, I used the opinions of doctors quoting studies to inform my opinions. If memory serves, for the first booster, it was more likely that young men would develop serious complications from the vaccine booster than if they developed covid instead. I think they were heart complications.

So if a drug is shown to be more detrimental than helpful, why is it bad to refuse it, or ask for a different drug, or for more investigation?

How do I give medical science a bad name? Do I speak for the field?