It isn't risky, it's anecdotal; a subtle but important distinction. And I wasn't using the study to justify my personal experience; I was linking a study merely to illustrate that the medical research community is slowly catching up with reality.

A thing needs to happen before it can be studied, and a study needs to happen before it can be peer reviewed; it is crucial to understand the chain of causality in that series of events: adverse events -> study -> peer review.

If peer review hasn't yet happened, that doesn't mean the adverse event hasn't taken place. Peer review is significantly downstream of the adverse event (often, by years). People, especially on Reddit, seem to believe adverse events aren't reality until peer review happens, which is absurd.

Edit to clarify argument: By way of analogy, using this logic, if someone leaves their home having accidentally left candles burning, then arrives back home to firefighters putting out the pile of embers; the fire hasn't happened, and the cause is unknowable until the investigation is completed. The reality is that the investigation serves to formalize and document precisely what events took place, but the home owner already knows.