| > Yes, appeals to authority aren't much use in the present climate. So, that's why he needs to offer convincing evidence. It sounds like he offers none (I haven't read it, just relying on the summary above). My point was more that a physicist may be an authority on the technology itself, but would not necessarily be an authority on the affects it has on a biological system. That's why it has to be a multi-discipliniary approach rather than people being immediately dismissed for not being physicists.
Why would you think that a physicist would be more of an authority on causes of human disease than an epidemiologist? > The claim that these are new innovations that "biological scientists can't keep up" is just obviously false on its face so what is he talking about? Ok his wording is pretty over the top here, but he literally points to a study which suggests as much. > I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer It was actually the IARC working group for evaluating carcinogenic risks to humans. He was merely referencing their study and findings.
And actually, once again, they're not saying that 5G causes cancer. They're saying that the evidence from their specific study suggests it might, but it's not conclusive, and that further studies are required to get better evidence either way. Look I'm not saying that the evidence suggests 5G is harmful, I'm just taking issue with some of the specific dismissals presented above as I think they selectively cut out parts of the quotes that actually change their meaning somewhat. |
If you want to get the views of biologists on the effects of EM on the body, then great! You'd want to talk to microbiologists about that. Physicists can probably also be informative, but epidemiologists can only look at graphs like the one I linked to previously. They're more or less data scientists, posing as disease experts, but what they're doing when you drill in is what anyone who knows R and a bit of stats could do.
The IARC finding seems to be phrased very ambiguously. I would read it as saying "we have no evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which is true but not really helpful for moving the debate forward, as at some point absence of evidence does need to be taken as evidence of absence or else you'd be stuck in the precautionary principle of not doing anything forever.