I am sure it was not your intention but dismissing (what appears to be) factual information with references, as a conspiracy, is a common strategy of autocratic states when dealing with information that generates a lot of difficult questions. Is there a particular part of the text that you found innacurate?
The key is probably to allow for people to share encrypted data with the author/contributor? Although to me it feels that github is not exactly the best medium for anonymous info leaks.
Maybe it's just the fact that this theory perfectly aligns with the current west-based propaganda effort that seeks to demonise China? Dismissing information as a conspiracy is a common strategy of autocratic states, as is seeding the internet with lies that align with their own interests.
An extremely good point, we are all at risk of being vehicles of information wars.
However, information spinners still need to spread info based on reality or partial truth in order to be effective in their spinning.
To me the current volume of evidence for a 'lab accident/negligence' theory versus the volume of evidence for a 'wet market' theory sticks out like a sore thumb even if we account for information war effects.
The key is probably to allow for people to share encrypted data with the author/contributor? Although to me it feels that github is not exactly the best medium for anonymous info leaks.