(9apu of 11)
Statement: You can't argue with clinical proof.
My Comments on the whole statement: As the title of this message indicates, most of this statement has already been discussed.
“Proof” suggests some kind of experiment, a study. Since a large portion of experiments is experiential, clinical proof is largely anecdotal. However, as we know, anecdotal information from non-clinicians is sought out and used and trusted, but in other instances, it is considered unreliable and unscientific.
We arrive at the same conclusion as before. You can and should argue with clinical proof. Secondly we should do so because even clinical proof argues with clinical proof.
See UC#2067 which explains that anecdotal information from the general public is defamed when the government and their institutional cronies want to control the narrative. Classic doublespeak and pimpsqueak.