The premise of the entire article seems to rely on this one fallacy.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in a case like this where the effects are extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) to measure AND there were extraordinary efforts made to suppress all the evidence.
The premise of the entire article seems to rely on this one fallacy.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in a case like this where the effects are extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) to measure AND there were extraordinary efforts made to suppress all the evidence.