> Is this to imply that some other method exists to study long term harms? Not that I trust? But I think it's important to note that this study has epistemolog

> Is this to imply that some other method exists to study long term harms? Not that I trust? But I think it's important to note that this study has epistemological value within a certain set of axioms and not everyone in the world agrees with those axioms. The reason it's important to say is that, to some degree, I feel like BiteCode_dev could be questioning an underlying axiom of western medicine (i.e. how to think about anecdotal harms we can't find in population studies). The western tradition has an opinion about the question, but none of us have to accept that opinion, but if we don't we should be honest that we disagree with the tradition in general as opposed to finding a flaw in this particular study.