[citation needed]

5% seems a bit high, but we are nearly there.

https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publicat...

I think they're reading too much into it.

How are they determining "this cancer was caused by the CT scan" versus "this cancer was caused by the cancer we were originally looking for that was there all along"?

Radiation doesn’t label the cancers it causes.

Other than comparing population groups, what method do we have?

Well, you could work backwards and look at your assumptions.

Why is "We think this person has cancer so we gave them a CT scan and look! Now they've got cancer! It must be because of the CT scan!" the conclusion to jump to?

Please just read this article - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... It's funny that you instantly assumed that authors are stupid and did not think about this obvious pitfall. It's extra funny that you also accuse them of jumping to conclusion without actually reading the article.

I've read it. It's so comically unscientific.

What's unscientific in that?