So, by that logic, you see 100 people walk off a cliff and plummet to their death on a rocky shoreline, but you can't conclusively put up a warning sign/safety barrier because a clinical trial hasn't been conducted? The narrative has been altered. Studies are performed to eliminate unknown variables to isolate definitive cause. If in doubt, you halt all testing until clinical studies are performed to find out why adverse events are taking place. You place a sign warning people to not approach the cliff. You place a safety barrier and observe the location for why the cliff is prone to people falling off of it. You perform tests to detemine why this cliff is so dangerous. You do not ignore the fact that people are falling off of it because no studies have been performed.
Scott.... asking a question he should have asked a long time ago. Poor guys brain has been scrambled by the drugs and the jab.
Is that your anecdotal experience?
Where is the peer-reviewed white paper showing that anecdotes "prove nothing"?
So, by that logic, you see 100 people walk off a cliff and plummet to their death on a rocky shoreline, but you can't conclusively put up a warning sign/safety barrier because a clinical trial hasn't been conducted? The narrative has been altered. Studies are performed to eliminate unknown variables to isolate definitive cause. If in doubt, you halt all testing until clinical studies are performed to find out why adverse events are taking place. You place a sign warning people to not approach the cliff. You place a safety barrier and observe the location for why the cliff is prone to people falling off of it. You perform tests to detemine why this cliff is so dangerous. You do not ignore the fact that people are falling off of it because no studies have been performed.