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
I'm not sure there's one bar but there a a few things I look for.
Most important is transparency, meaning the underlying data is available for others to verify, and that there's thoughtful rigor involved in compiling it.
It's also important that the people presenting the information have some accountability. That is, there's some consequence if they're wrong, and severe consequences if it's intentional.
I also weigh whether I think the source is operating in good faith or just trying to spin data to support a narrative.
All of these tend to make me lean toward more established, official sources where career professionals, knowledgeable in their field and with their careers at stake provide the information.
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.
Based on what? I keep asking for any evidence the number of these events is unusually high.
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].
Sorry, that's not the way it works. The one making the extraordinary claim has the burden of evidence.
You can't just throw out some unsupported notion and expect people to go spend resources seeing if the notion has any merit. And the part about ambiguity for denial is paranoid conspiracy theory material.
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.
No, people are telling me there's a raging fire but when I ask for even a little smoke they come up empty.
You want me to dispatch the trucks for nothing?