Hacker News Reader

Why was the evidence covered up for so long? What changed to have it come to the light? It's reasonable to reevaluate with new information, it's also worth questioning why there's new information

View on HN

Agreed, but that wasn't what OP asked. It just seemed like an odd question given the headline explains that the reason this is being discussed is because there is new evidence available.

New evidence doesn't answer their question, why is their new evidence coming out to discredit this study now?

Q. "Why is there a push to discredit this study, seemingly all of a sudden?"

A. New evidence is available as stated clearly in the headline.

New evidence is the way the study is suddenly being discredited, it is not an answer to why it is happening.

Little more, we're basically disagreeing on what the question asked was. How cynical do you have to be to assume the question asker didn't even read the headline?

The article explains that. Previously it was hearsay, now raw audio and video evidence is available.

That isn't an explanation. It's not like the video and audio evidence was just recently made, why was it withheld and what changed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com