>>11604747>My point word differently is that evidence currently missing from the realm of public knowledge does not mean that it does not exist.Then why are you talking about an absence of evidence instead of evidence that exists?
>The (alleged) lack of evidence for 5G causing cancer does not mean it does not cause cancer.Yes, it means that it's less likely to cause cancer than if there was evidence.
>People claiming we've had the technology around long enough to be unquestionably certain of its existence or not are jumping the gun by several decades.I'm not taking about unquestionably certain, I'm talking about empirical evidence and probability.
>corporations (of which also help foster the "academic integrity" of the studies many claim don't show evidence of cancer, wonder why...)Source?
>There is no need to force the 5G technology onto the public. We can take our time studying it before release.Why should it be treated differently than any other wireless technology?
