> a peer reviewed study in a well known scientific journal.
Isn't that a bit naive? Hypothetically, if the conspiracy theories were true, why would an established publisher take the risk to go against a genocidal cabal? It's infinitely easier (and healthier) to align yourself with the winning side.
Isn't that a bit naive? Hypothetically, if the conspiracy theories were true, why would an established publisher take the risk to go against a genocidal cabal? It's infinitely easier (and healthier) to align yourself with the winning side.