That is completely irrelevant and my guess is about once a day or more, but I don't really care nor would I rely on a self reported questoionnaire.
Are you REALLY serious with this, jaeger? Some guy with initials behind his name sends out a questionnaire and that is called "science" because he has initials? A frigging moron like AOC could send out a form with leading questions and pontificate that the majority of people in the US are really socialists based on her "scientific" study.
Little wonder the public is continually duped if people such as you can just proclaim what science is.
Dude..
First.. you need to think about this before you write again.
How would you design a study on vaccine reactions/side effects?
How would you personally observe..
Headaches
Nausea
Fatigue
Numbness
Tingling
Sore arm
Sore throat
Dry mouth
Body/joint ache
etc?
Please explain in detail how you would observe these symptoms.. without using any self reporting from a person?
Explain in detail.
Of course the use of self reporting is used in science. You could not study vaccine or drug reactions without some form of self reporting.
Or do you claim that symptoms like headaches.. don;t happen.. or fatigue.. or tingling?
If you saw a research study that documented that a side effect of a medication was SEVERE headaches. Would you dismiss it because it relied on SELF REPORT.. and scream.. THATS NOT SCIENCE.!?!?
I would hope not.
No one here.. and certainly not me.. is saying that if anyone with "letters behind their name". designs a survey that that constitutes "science".. and should be immediately believed.
A good study.. will have methods that reduce the chance of bias.. it will account for extraneous variables as much as possible... it will have a control if possible. it will have enough N (enough subjects to be statistically powerful). It will use appropriate statistics. And it will be peer reviewed..
Which means that someone in the same fields or fields.. reviews the study and picks it apart for any flaws in the methods, or statistically analysis.
There is the irony. YOU REFUSE to read the actual studies. thats how you determine if something is good science.. or not. Not demand "but but there needs to be an excerpt".
Anyone that is presenting you information from a scientific view.. using actual science.. will link to the ACTUAL STUDY.. so you can evaluate the quality of science behind that study.
You understand the irony here right? The fact that you refuse to read the actual science presented to you.. but demand excerpts?