every time someone tries to explain something, most of them make efforts to divert the topic and do everything possible not to talk about it, as soon as you talk about something and suddenly someone starts to share their experiences or try to make him right without understanding. what was being talked about.
The people who say "but the data says" and ignore the enormous amount of ambiguity and bias in *recording that data,* and the core fact that all studies and all science begins with anecdotal data and personal experience, have completely reversed the logic of science.
If you ignore direct experience that occurs with immediate temporal connection in literally 1000s of people, and then shortly thereafter in an order of magnitude more, you've not merely made a joke out of science, you've let the perception of "medical authority" override your common sense.
https://blossom.primal.net/3f438b8130095ac6676c5af33014b45ff2aab65b6da550a99320805d35cf0e34.mp4
Discussion
I'm not sure I understand your context for this scenario or your point. But from what i can tell from it, this doesn't sound like its on the same page as the point I am trying to make above.
My point is that all "studies" boil down to the study and structural analysis of anecdotal evidence. And it is explicitly a trend and common occurrences in unstructured anecdotal evidence that is *the beginning* of all scientific inquiry and lays the foundation for investigating things. When bad, of half-assed science, or broad retrospectives which are extremely unreliable and blend millions of uncontrolled factors, is used to refuse to investigate clear correlations, one should look for a conflict of interest or incentive for why an obvious potential risk is being dismissed and avoided beyond all common sense.