That was exactly one of the key worries expressed by Robert W Malone(quite relevant expert to say the least), who is not even anti-vaxx, but argued that people should have informed consent over their health, but the censors thought othervise.
Wake up.
1. This is an article proving that people still have a voice.
2. The article shows a tiny fraction of those who got vaccines are experiencing major adverse side effects that are not yet explained.
3. If you told someone that there was a 1 in 100,000 chance this could make their life worse they rationally would still take the vaccine. The only people this affects are the irrational.
Should people have informed consent? Yes. Does that mean you have to outline in excruciating detail every single rare chance that there is the remotest possibility of happening to them? Maybe, but I'd argue humans are terrible with statistics and worse with action: it's better for everyone and for each individual to know there are infinitesimal risks and huge, immediate benefits.
Which is exactly what has been said. Long covid from vaccines is a new tiny risk that needs to be studied. But if you don't want long covid the best way to avoid it is still to take a vaccine. It's not a choice here: it's just mathematically provable.
I could give you background info on me (age, health, covid status etc) but you said you could prove it for all possible hn commenters so I'd keep my privacy.