Fair enough questions.
These doctors with concerns typically are bringing forth observations or suppositions without real data. Data that can be verified and reproduced in the form of a study. This is why their concerns for the most part have not been accepted by the broader medical community. Many have conflicts of interest that are overt that also discount those positions. It has nothing to do with if I agree with them or not.
Any reasonable study conducted with any reasonable amount of scientific application would be fine. Define the methods. Define the sample. Define how you obtained the data and if and how it supports the claims made. But you don't see that. You invariably see public displays meant to further sales of supplements, secret health books, and assertions to try to establish some credibility and not reproducible data. Who does it doesn't particularly matter. Why is important as is applicability to the broader population.
This question was asked of me almost a year ago...
SPIKE PROTEIN SYNDROME: WebMD Covid vaccine complaint board plastered with horrific descriptions of sustained critical injuries from toxic clot shots 09/16/2021 / By S.D. Wells / Comments Nearly every single natural health advocate knows that you don’t look on WebMD for answers to...
www.timebomb2000.com
There (post 36) I noted:
There were issues associated with increased rates of myocarditis in younger males. Then I noted that the vaccine could also be less effective against new strains--as it was with BA.5. I saw remdesivir be less effective (MY subjective observations) but that was also shown to be the case with studies. I pointed out that things like IVM and NAC at that time didn't have clinical data for support--I would say that now there is reasonable indication for NAC as providing some benefit.