[tshaddox]

It also very quickly engages in what I call "conspiracy theory epistemology," which is when the fact that someone disagrees with you, especially if that someone is ostensibly an expert or in a position of authority is presented as evidence that you're correct (because clearly they're part of the cover-up!), and the more such people who disagree with you the more obvious that makes it that you're correct (because everyone is in on it!).

This isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies or that any claims that a conspiracy exists is "conspiracy theory epistemology." The problem is this particular mode of epistemology where a claim is presented and then significant time is spent focusing on how the mere fact that experts disagree is somehow evidence of the coverup. The reason it's bad epistemology is that it can be used indiscriminately in defense of literally any claims of conspiracy.