Scant data about serious adverse effects makes it harder to answer scientific and legal questions

The quick version is easy to repeat; the useful version takes longer. Scant data about serious adverse effects makes it harder to answer scientific and legal questions. What follows separates what is established from what is promising, and marks the places where the evidence is still thin.

The evidence base is uneven by design. Some questions attract large trials and detailed reporting; others rely on small studies, registry data or the experience of clinicians. That imbalance does not make the weaker evidence useless, but it does mean that confident summaries should be read with care, especially when they travel beyond the population that was studied.

The reasonable conclusion is not that the question is settled, but that the next round of decisions will depend on details already visible: who is included, who pays, and how quickly problems are reported. Readers should watch those details rather than the loudest claim. It is worth keeping the distinction between a promising signal and a proven result, because the gap between the two is where most disappointment lives.