This enabled these unacceptably dangerous medical devices to be tested on masses of live people, so that the creators could learn how to achieve the desired effects from their jabs.

As a scientist, you can't learn anything concretely useful from this matter, from my limited point of view.

To find out how effective and what degree of mild to severe to fatal a medical agent is, you need a long-term observation of selected test subjects who undergo the observation as such (under the condition "still running"). To my knowledge, this has not been done or I have no knowledge that thousands of people have made themselves available as steady test subjects for long-term observations. IF that is the case (imaginable) then scientists cannot refer to present time but would only be able to make conclusions in a future to come.

How I see it, it is not possible to draw good conclusions from a population generally exposed to one substance. No reliable conclusions can be drawn if I, as a researcher, do not collect data that meets scientific standard. I suspect that there is no such reliable data collection - I don't know anyone who would have said that they would knowingly take part in a long-term study. Now, that is not something, I can make a bet on.

But the general public is not involved in this, it cannot be otherwise, is what I think. Only selected groups who consented being test persons. Which raises the question if people who were very much against what happened during that era, would have even be willing to put themselves in as test subjects for long term studies as the "non jabbed". ... I don't know, of course.

Even where patients have consulted their GPs or other doctors about side effects, it has been reported doctors have refused to document the injection as the cause of the side effects. Others who have had injections have also not gone to their doctors and reported the effects to them, it seems to me. They were told that they would have side effects and so they expected them.

Only really severe cases of near death or actual death would probably be documented. But even that is not certain. Since putting "death by injection" as the main cause for death, seemed to be somewhat dangerous to doctors and pathologists, I think.

Since there are constant contradictions in this affair and a reliable study did not take place before the mass administration of the substance, in which two groups were compared in a blind test procedure representing a period of five or eight or more years, the question is justified: How is it even possible to make statements about the effects of a substance if there is no real basis on which to do so?

Especially since the test group of non-jabbed people must not only not have received a Covid ‘vaccination’, but not any vaccination at all? Since other ‘vaccinations’ could already have an influence on a person's health constitution.

This leaves me with the question:
How can

the creators learn how to achieve the desired effects
?

I generally distrust video sources.

On the psychological level, it may be even more difficult to tell for the future how people will behave. Since a persons outlook on the affair most likely was/ is changing. Those who followed the measurements might not follow them again. And those who did not, might do so. Maybe, more people, after having the 2020 and following years as experience might now be more able to sniff it out when things begin to smell foul. ... Well, all speculative.

How I see it, it is that you will never have ALL people to be on one side. Statistics are extremely difficult to put together.