The Plural of Anecdote Is Misinformation

>> Ultimately, anecdotes are an unreliable way to determine potential benefits and harms with respect to health claims.

Really? So if some medical treatment is what potentially caused me harm, but big pharma doesn't want to do a study on it or didn't do it yet, and the doctors claim with utmost certaininty that the harm came from somewhere else always then I'm 100% wrong?

What happens when hundreds of people start reporting the same thing? Is that still anecdotal evidence because each individual N=1 is treated as independent, since they are not part of the medical establishment but Joe Average?

Is the fact that glyphosate is causing issues to humans anecdotal? It was for a long time, because those smart man of science kept dismissing it.

Now we know that glyphosate is potentially harmful to human gut bacteria since it acts as an antibiotic due to distrupting the Shikimate pathway in human gut bacteria. The long standing theory, by the "experts with studies" was that glyphosate cannot harm humans since humans don't have the Shikimate pathway. Alas, our gut bacteria do.

Despite all the ancedotal reports by people in the USA, who could not eat wheat-products in the USA due to having some strong reaction against them, but magicaly, when going to Europe, they were able to eat them.

How many decades of anecdotes and how many ruined lifes were needed to finaly convince the "smart men in science" that perhaps everything we know about glyhosate safety was actually wrong, despite having studies claiming it was safe?

Thanks god that more and more people see people like the author of this article as idiots, parts of the intelligista community. Midwit meme is the appropriate reponse to people like him.

It's only when the amount of anecdotes become overwhelming large that the "experts" are finally kicked in the face and forced to ackowledge their mistakes.

Not that it makes them any humbler. When the next time the same situation happens the story will repeat itself.