The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the
notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that
at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
consequences.
My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he
may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how
scientific progress is achieved.
This is a gross mischaracterization, and I would go so far to say patently incorrect.
Assert a general hypothesis of "Does X increase the chance of Y to occur?", and a sufficient amount of science is done.
Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know enough."
However, let's say that 95% of the science says the hypothesis is false, and 5% says it is true. We DO know enough in this case to state with reasonable certainty that X does not increase the chance of Y. The description then is "Although we cannot absolutely rule it out, we so far find no evidence that X causes Y." Then, we go back and do more science based on what we have learned so far, and learn some more.
One doctor, who THINKS he MIGHT have identified something to the contrary does not instantly disqualify the thousands of studies that have already been completed on the topic. His findings go into the pile with all the other findings, and they get properly evaluated. An easy analogy : If you have a 50 gallon drum of blue paint, and you toss in a drop of yellow, the entire thing doesn't turn green.