Agreed. It's some variation of an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy (there may be a different logical fallacy that fits better), where the truthfulness of what you say is somehow thought to be influenced by whether or not you've had the vaccine. Even though those 2 things are completely unrelated.

Unfortunately, if he fails to say that he risks getting downvoted, flagged, or labeled as a conspiracy theorist.

This is not limited to the medical field, I was once downvoted on an HN comment until I edited it to state that I wasn't supporting Trump, because people were reading it that way.

> until I edited it to state that I wasn't supporting Trump

It's funny you mentioned this because my original comment was something along the lines of:

"""

2016-2020: "I hate Trump, but..."

2021: "I got the vaccine, but..."

"""

But I erased that and wrote my comment above because I thought it had a lower chance of being downvoted.

Yes this dynamic is caused by people reflexively downvoting and flagging posts which suggest facts or ideas that do not match their own opinion and cause them cognitive dissonance. Prefacing comments with vaccination status is how people have started mitigating those ad hominem fueled reactions.

Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't have to occasionally preface comments with "I don't actually believe the Illuminati are using mind control lasers on us, but...", but if we live in a world where people who actually believe that tend to say things that sound like what we're about to say, is it really an unreasonable disclaimer?

He could have simply said I believe the vaccine work and is safe bug .. pharma have predatory contract.

I think his goal was to make it clear that he was not an anti-science or conspirationist himself.