This is where we get, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
That can also be abused, but it takes some doing.
Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence, if you would expect evidence to have surfaced by now.
Nobody knows whether 5G will cause cancer. Nobody knew whether 3G and 4G would, either. We ran the experiment on the general public, and with very large N, it seems like not: no rash of cases seems to have appeared. Absent evidence is considered evidence.
But that tells us nothing about 5G. It looks like they are going to run that experiment, too. (Does anybody need 5G? Doesn't seem to matter. One thing we know is you and I will be paying for it, regardless.)
That can also be abused, but it takes some doing.
Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence, if you would expect evidence to have surfaced by now.
Nobody knows whether 5G will cause cancer. Nobody knew whether 3G and 4G would, either. We ran the experiment on the general public, and with very large N, it seems like not: no rash of cases seems to have appeared. Absent evidence is considered evidence.
But that tells us nothing about 5G. It looks like they are going to run that experiment, too. (Does anybody need 5G? Doesn't seem to matter. One thing we know is you and I will be paying for it, regardless.)