You should link to the actual study, not to a yellow press blog post. If you do that you then need to explain what a 'loser' is, because that's a subjective tru

You should link to the actual study, not to a yellow press blog post. If you do that you then need to explain what a 'loser' is, because that's a subjective truth. Of the top of my head I can name three big conspiracies that played before our eyes and were only later uncovered to the public: * weapons and mass destruction and invasion on Iraq * mass surveillance and data collection program by the US government * Project MKUltra Not to mention countless of conspiracies in European football that enabled individuals to get rich by rigging matches. A theory itself is nothing wrong, otherwise you could say that most science is nonsense. There are theories that have been proven incorrect and are completely crazy to believe in; flat Earth or fake Moon landing for example. Those theories you could say are most likely to be believed by intellectually lowered population, but you need to be careful with generalising. If you simply say 'conspiracy theories' and don't discuss at length which types of conspiracy theories you're referring to, you are labelling everyone who posses critical thinking faculties as a 'loser'. We need to be scientifically rigid when looking for correlation and drawing conclusions, otherwise we are merely expressing our opinion under the label of science misleading the reader as a result. That's bad science.