This is a good article.

One of the dumbest things we've seen not just from science media but from media in general is this phrase "no evidence"

I have a rock here, and I claim that this rock will cause you to become a millionaire if you hold it.

So you start a double-blind study to prove it or disprove it.

Guess what? If your sample size is large enough, someone is going to become a millionaire by pure dumb luck. Whether you like it or not, that's evidence. It's poor evidence, it's overwhemingly contradicted by more, better evidence, but guess what? There is evidence that holding the rock will cause you to become a millionaire!

It seems pedantic, but when people say there's zero evidence for something, and exactly one evidence shows up, then that claim that there's zero evidence is automatically refuted! Even if it's something that everyone agrees is false.