Just a few years ago, the media was in a frenzy of "fact checking" discrediting doctors and people (including the President Of The United States) who were taking HCQ as treatment for CoViD-19.
The same frenzy of "fact checking" occurred for stories about the point of origin for the virus. People and scientists were ridiculed and mocked for claiming it may have come from a lab in China, which is now the best theory.
The paper cites lots of obviously fake news, but the two (contemporaneously significant and true) stories I cited above were credible, and some group or groups seemed to not want them circulated. THAT is the conspiracy theory that should be investigated. Was it just an honest mistake, or was there something more sinister, such as collusion between NIH and pharmaceutical companies?
Here's another conspiracy theory; perhaps the purpose of this paper to discourage people from sharing controversial news items and just believe what the government/media tells them, regardless of legitimate doubt?
Here's a link to a recent HN post about skepticism in science, which used to be considered a good and normal thing. I wonder if Carl Sagan were still alive today, whether he might be labeled as "climate skeptic", or heretic by those in "authority."
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S205229752...)
Just a few years ago, the media was in a frenzy of "fact checking" discrediting doctors and people (including the President Of The United States) who were taking HCQ as treatment for CoViD-19.
The same frenzy of "fact checking" occurred for stories about the point of origin for the virus. People and scientists were ridiculed and mocked for claiming it may have come from a lab in China, which is now the best theory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/18498/
The paper cites lots of obviously fake news, but the two (contemporaneously significant and true) stories I cited above were credible, and some group or groups seemed to not want them circulated. THAT is the conspiracy theory that should be investigated. Was it just an honest mistake, or was there something more sinister, such as collusion between NIH and pharmaceutical companies?
Here's another conspiracy theory; perhaps the purpose of this paper to discourage people from sharing controversial news items and just believe what the government/media tells them, regardless of legitimate doubt?
Here's a link to a recent HN post about skepticism in science, which used to be considered a good and normal thing. I wonder if Carl Sagan were still alive today, whether he might be labeled as "climate skeptic", or heretic by those in "authority."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38060912