You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I don't look into what I am talking about before I make statements about it (c.f "All you have to do is the research."). Generally, I'm quite cautious about making definitive statements before collecting adequate evidence. For instance, you previously wrote--to which I did not reply--that "Your nonsense about the Covid vaccine is just that: nonsense."
I didn't reply because you were correct, however. I didn't reply because it was largely irrelevant. But this is getting tiresome: you ought to be able to tell whether or not I am informed by reading what I say, but since you tend to interpret it uncharitably, you are apparently missing it.
So, let's take a diversion to the clinical outcomes of Covid and Covid vaccination, and into the epidemiology of Covid, specificially, the extent to which either vaccines or previous infection can achieve sterilizing immunity (as a proxy for infectiousness to others). I will provide a citation for everything I say, but that I have picked one citation should not be interpreted as meaning that this is the only source--it's either one that I think is good, or one that was convenient to find if I didn't have a specific paper in mind.
POTS is one of the possible symptoms of long Covid: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33740207/
POTS can also be induced by vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30372565/
Covid is generally a slightly bigger risk factor: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36530759/
If, for example, you have someone who presents with POTS after Covid infection, AND they have a recurrence after the vaccine is available and they take it, what do you think the sensible advice is? Take the second dose anyway? No! Only if the severity with Covid was greater; you want to keep the patient safe. So there is a good clinical reason, in a scenario like this, to avoid additional vaccination.
This does not elevate one's risk for spreading Covid. The long-term protection from catching Covid is considerably better from having had Covid than from having been vaccinated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8908850/
If you've caught Covid once and had one dose of the vaccine, you're better protected than if you're "fully vaccinated" but haven't caught Covid (i.e. two doses of vaccine, no Covid infection).
If you're a place that generally wants to keep Covid out, and you have a policy, is it "following the science" to say that you can only enter if you are "fully vaccinated" but not if, for instance, you have had one infection plus one vaccine? Of course not!
The "be fully vaccinated" policy is just out of date with respect to the science (and was always out of date with respect to the expectation). Yes, being fully vaccinated is easy to check, but there are other ways to have ended up with equivalent or superior immunity. And if it were always the case that you could just take another dose anyway, it'd be fine to ask for everyone to do that, but as I illustrated above, that's not always advisable.
The point was perfectly well justified, and maybe it was a bad example to use because I guess not everyone (even people who tout multiple Ph.D.s in the life sciences) is particularly up to date on these things. But you're misinterpreting my excess of knowledge as a lack of knowledge. A bit more attentiveness to the content, and a bit more charity, are in order.
I'm not just "stepping back and looking at the big picture" because one can do even better if you look at the big picture AND the small picture--understand the overall trend (vaccinations save lives), but when you need to, pay attention to details, like when people actually have poor outcomes and whether that should mean that they can't enter their child's daycare (for instance).
Furthermore, I'm not listening to JD Hood. I have a halfway decent idea of how to do a literature search (which, by the way, isn't what I would call "research" unless I am acting as a journalist, or I actually do a formal meta-analysis). Anyway, the problem with the 97% number is that I know of at least seven studies that superficially appear to contradict it (five appear in Bustos et al. 2021, the inference from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey result on detransitioning is a sixth, and I mention a seventh below), and although a number of those are older, the newer ones are significantly different from the recent papers that report very low (<1%) regret rates. Furthermore, there are multiple cases where serious potential regret can be inferred as a consequence of surgery even if it isn't reported in a patient survey, some of which can be partially ameliorated by more comprehensive health care practices, like saving gametes in cases of gonadectomy (see, for instance, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22128292/). Additionally, it's not entirely clear that a hyperfocus on low regret levels is even the appropriate standard for quality care, with major possible errors in various directions, including surgical interventions being used in a context where one would assume a strong regret-reducing social pressure ("we all agreed I'd be so relieved and I really wanted this and...it's...it's better, yes it's better!"), potential psychological damage from conveying excessive concern about possible regret ("if this is a mistake you'll want to die"), unwarranted hesitancy in severe but not 100% certain cases (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34666278/), and so on.
So, anyway, you can keep saying 97%. But I wouldn't advise it. I don't think it's robustly supportable (here's a recent paper with a 10% hormone therapy regret rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8775415/), the methodology is rarely good enough to measure small numbers like 1-3% given that regret and dropout are liable to be correlated, it obscures variability that when addressed can lead to powerful arguments against the kinds of concerns people express to justify making trans-supporting health care illegal, and it's not totally clear regret is an ideal metric anyway.
And I do think that things like this are important enough to have quite a bit of discussion about it, because I think the overall cultural landscape is built out of little things like this, which done one way gradually lead more people into being thoughtful and having more productive conversations, and done another are more likely to lead to dug-in camps that can't even communicate with each other.
Anyway, thank you for taking so much time on this. Hopefully someone else will read the exchange and be enlightened by those experiences and knowledge that you have shared. But you really ought to be a little more tentative in your conclusions about other people's understanding of areas. Just because they disagree with you it doesn't follow that they aren't decently well-informed or don't see the big picture or are disagreeing because they disagree on the big picture instead of the-specific-thing-you-said. If they say random garbage ("vaccines curdle the blood!"), well, then, yes, they probably don't understand much. Otherwise, the difference might be due to different premises or different communication styles, among other things.