> Let me give you a different example. Let's say there's a study that shows a weak link between a vaccine and autism. If it were published, it would be amplifie

> Let me give you a different example. Let's say there's a study that shows a weak link between a vaccine and autism. If it were published, it would be amplified far out of proportion Except if the paper had been effectively published then deleted, wouldn't it do the opposite? That won't be an incentive to duplicate or prove it wrong by other scientists, but those who'd use it to support their conspiracy theories would be even more convinced they were right all along because "Look, they censored the paper. Clearly they are trying to hide the truth. That shows we've been right all along".