[removed]
> It may be worth acknowledging the fact that certain conspiracies – like Watergate – have occurred in the past, but they were supported by incontrovertible evidence rather than rumour and supposition.
Even if they turn out to be true, those were all conspiracy theories before there was sufficient evidence for it. And you would have been a conspiracy theorist had you believed any of them without sufficient evidence.
Being a conspiracy theorist is not about whether your theories are true or not. It's about what kind of evidence you use to support your theories.
Without evidence there’s no proof that something is true. But without evidence on the contrary there’s no proof it isn’t true either.
You are arguing that the conspiracy theory label is unjustified. But if the proof for your theory is primarily based on absence of proof to the contrary, then it would rightfully be labelled a conspiracy theory.
Even if a conspiracy theory turns out to be true that does not make the label unjustified.
Also "vaccines cause autism". There was well documented fiasco around swine flu vaccine (pandemrix) that seems to have given narcolepsy to some people, but more often than not bringing that up labels you as an anti-vaxer and noone wants to listen. It's ironic that article speaks about "thought-terminating cliches" where some conspiracy theories are used as such to cover actual issues.
My point here is that most issues are subtle: I'm happy I was given polio vaccine when I was a child, but I don't trust pharma that much and I'd rather not take anything that didn't go through years of testing and I think big pharma's bad reputation is well-earned.
But if you want to base medical decisions on an ill fitting analogy because it sounds catchy, then go ahead.
As for your article, the phase 3 trials for COVID vaccines can’t be cherry picked because they were registered before hand with preselected success criteria, and they have been intensely followed by the media.