The tribunal states that one of his infractions was publishing a letter he received telling him to stop dissenting. > Also why would a conspiracy forbid people

The tribunal states that one of his infractions was publishing a letter he received telling him to stop dissenting. > Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it? The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.