Criticisms of “The Body Keeps the Score”

citing a paper that says it found “no evidence” of something always seems weak to me in terms of refuting something, I also found no evidence by doing nothing, how do I know the thing you checked or the context in which it was checked is any better than my doing nothing?

not finding something doesn’t seem any more or less convincing…

I think it's called "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ?

I claim I am god. Pretty much everyone who knows me suggested there’s no evidence of me being god. Would you say not finding that I’m god doesn’t seem any more or less convincing?

It is, though. What it is not, is proof of absence.

> [H]ow do I know the thing you checked or the context in which it was checked is any better than my doing nothing?

Open the paper and look for it's methodology.