More and more BIPOC researchers are trying to reveal how research and science can be beneficial for the BIPOC community when white supremacy, bigotry, bias and hate have been ameliorated from mainstream practices, and when there are more safeguards put in place for ethical research practices.

That said, it's only with research and science that medications, treatments, therapies, and vaccines/preventative efforts can be helpful for all persons, including the autoimmune, the disabled, the BIPOC community, the aging, and more.

Research and science are not ableist in the sense that they do sometimes do research on special populations, including the BIPOC community, ones with severe allergies, ones with autoimmune disorders, the obese, the aging, etc. But I can see how bias that enters into research can be ableist, such as when they look at white male participants to denote what constitutes heart attack symptoms, as opposed to seeing the differences between men and women, males and females, those who are transgender, those who are part of the BIPOC community, etc.

Yes, there have been historical traumas and continuous traumas related to hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, nationalism, and more in terms of experiments involving research and science. Your fears and concerns are valid. However, there are many safeguards in place to detect when vaccines are not working, such as preventing death by screening 15 to 30 minutes after vaccines are administered, having VAERS and other establishments in place to record those findings, etc. They still lack the basic questions about people's preexisting conditions for VAERS, as well as their SES, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc., because those factor into healthcare since migrants from other countries also have their share of issues when treatments and prevention in other countries vastly differ from the USA. But these aren't reasons to think in all-or-nothing terms when considering healthcare, prevention, and vaccines. There are many safe vaccines for the immunocompromised, the disabled, and the BIPOC community. The rarer your illnesses are, the more care you need. It's par for the course for disabled persons, and particularly for those who have experienced historical and current medical traumas, such as the Black communities within the USA. For those who are Black and from another country, however, they have another layer of concerns to ensure continuity of care in the USA. There is more needed for these communities, but it takes research and science to provide adequate healthcare.

If your religion, however, is based on historical traumas and thus does not wish to engage in any medical treatment at all, including those that involve vaccines, that's a different story. There are a few religions that don't seek any medical care, but that's the caveat - they will not clog up hospitals as part of the unvaccinated because they don't seek medical treatment or vaccines. That's the main exception widely approved. Unfortunately, only few places allow for philosophical and/or historical traumas to be part of that excusable vaccine mandate. And, there are also those with true medical concerns, such as those who have allergic reactions that cause shortness of breath or death. Intolerance, however, involves rashes and other abnormal but allowable reactions to medications and vaccines, which don't involve death or respiratory dysfunction. That's the main difference between "intolerance" and "allergy" in medical and scientific terms. But perhaps that might be expanded upon in the future to include rashes as being considered an "allergy."

I have an intolerance to peanuts, meaning that I break out. But I can still eat them in small amounts because I'm not allergic; I don't stop breathing or have severe inflammation to the point where I could die - that's what "allergy" is defined as, for the most part. I don't know if most people realize that when they say that they are "allergic" to gluten; many are intolerant, like those with lactose intolerance, but not allergic.

When it comes to vaccines, I think medical doctors are trying to explain in their science- and evidence-based (research-based) language how vaccines are appropriate for the "intolerant," even if they are not okay for the "allergic." Additionally, they are also explaining how there are more safeguards today that help prevent bias in terms of diagnoses, treatments, and vaccines/prevention. That said, there are many doctors who, if you're ill with Covid-19, will assert their bias in emergency rooms and ICUs, whereby they don't treat the BIPOC community as well as they would treat the white unvaccinated ICU patients. In that case, it would be more protective for the BIPOC community to prevent severe disease from COVID-19 by getting the vaccine than not. It's not like they have separate vaccines for BIPOC and white people, though anyone could potentially tamper with the vaccines if security is not in place to safeguard vaccine storage and administration and their administrators putting needles in arms and schedulers as well, and from the shipment and warehouse to the delivery drivers and those receiving the vaccinations and then storing them. I can see how that would be a concern, but it is still safer than playing roulette with your life and taking the chance of being medically discriminated against in the ICU or ER - which is far more likely than the vaccines.

So, if your doctor says that you can take the vaccine, that would be the best route to take, especially if you get a second and third opinion stating the same. You might just be intolerant, as opposed to allergic.

If there are alternative vaccines you'd rather take, you could risk traveling to another country to take one of their AstraZeneca vaccines, but such countries probably require non-citizens to be fully vaccinated with the initial jab(s) plus a booster in order to enter their country anyway. Sadly, the free traveling for alternative medicines is not as available as pre-pandemic days anymore (unless you have lots of money and a private jet).

It's not supposed to be how others can convince you or persuade you into getting the vaccine; the responsibility isn't on them; it's truly on you as to whether to get the vaccine or not. If you choose not to for historical trauma fears, for philosophical reasons, for political reasons, and/or for religious reasons, you are responsible for making that decision.

I get the arguments you present, but I've seen too many people die a preventable death because of their choices. The locus of responsibility and locus of control is entirely in your hands.