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.