Honestly such publication is not something to show on Nature website. Narrative exists since ever, some people have observed some others and discover common pa

Honestly such publication is not something to show on Nature website. Narrative exists since ever, some people have observed some others and discover common patterns to bend those others wills, that's nothing new, the term and the meaning "conspiracy theory" is just a way to label adverse narratives, the official is named "pravda" or "the real truth" or "facts checked contents" etc. What it matter is: - identify patterns that push so many following narrative, not just to abuse/steer them but also to moderate all narratives in public to avoid dangerous paths; - learn to reason, teach to reason. For instance we read about something depicted as really good and something else depicted as really bad. Do we just follow written emotions or we analyze the writing trying to imagine those written thing in reality? Unfortunately essentially no "élites" or "common people" want that, the first just because they need to label adverse narrative, but they do want "common people" trust their own; the seconds just because facing truth and trying to determine is something can be true or false demand effort and might be unpleasant to a point so many prefer follow one who promise the Paradise on Earth in a snap of his/she's fingers than someone who say "we need to face harsh situations and work toward a better future for years". However, people of culture, who happen to gravitate around Science should and MUST be not of the same kind of the above mentioned cohorts...