I wrote hastily but I said a couple of different things. I meant first that we should not presume to know that the corporate statements are true or false, but a

I wrote hastily but I said a couple of different things. I meant first that we should not presume to know that the corporate statements are true or false, but at the same time err on the side of caution due to the long and well established track record that you refer to. We can't assume they're dangerous or not dangerous, since we can't really know unless we're an expert in that particular domain, but we won't be experts in all domains relevant to our health, so it makes sense to remain neutrally skeptical while being more risk averse here. Then I was saying that this forces us to empathize with the people who think 5G and Wi-Fi are going to kill them due because they don't understand physics. Their claims are too strong, but their risk aversion due to their ignorance isn't and now we can relate. Do you get what I mean?