The problem with anecdote, whichever way you cut it, particularly in a charged debate like this, is that they get picked up and snowball just like the election being stolen. People believe them, even if there is no data. Now we can’t wait until the data is in in every circumstance particularly in a public health crisis. So it’s appropriate to try and inform, listen to the stories, and do the studies, and also recognise that when you try and give some new medication to billions of people there’s bound to be some blowback. But how much? To what degree? And are we communicating the issues in a truthful, timely and non-alarmist manner?