[semimojo]

And you return the favor with this?

No disrespect but this started when I said I hadn't seen credible evidence of an increase in soccer cardiac deaths.

Your post was about hesitancy or unwillingness to investigate anomalous findings, but I'm still not convinced there really are such findings.

You seem to take It as a given that there's been a spike in all cause mortality that needs to be investigated. I haven't seen that spike beyond the additional Covid deaths.

My question wasn't rhetorical.

[Political Junkie Too]

My post began with the question of what was the bar towards credible evidence.

I then laid out a path from anecdotal evidence to clinical trial.

I then asked why we're still at the point of anecdotal evidence two years later, and why that seems to be root cause of continued bifurcation of the debate.

You say "I'm still not convinced there really are such [anomalous] findings."

I would add the deaths of school-age children (teen-age boys), the deaths of college athletes, and yes, the deaths of recently vaccinated people to the list of [anomalous] findings.

I will put words into your mouth, since you won't.

We don't know that the heart-related deaths of teens is anomalous; we don't know that the deaths of pop-culture people is anomalous; we don't know that the deaths of top-form athletes is anomalous. But we won't look deeper to find out for sure because we're not convinced there really are such findings [we want the ambiguity for denial].

You don't seem to support the quest for more information, because you don't seem to see any smoke to suggest that we should be looking for a fire.

-PJ