If this was written by an undergrad, Pete, you couldn't in all honesty give it a pass mark. There’s no evidence to support your contention that Richard Dearlove is a “crackpot conspiracy theorist”. Immature name-calling doesn't make it so. It's unscientific, i'm sure will agree.

However, if your goal was to create a fog of irrationality to cover up the origins of Covid and spread CCP disinformation, i'll give you A for effort. Though the Guardian deserves part of the credit as the mainstream mega-platform promoting you.

I have this home-spun (non-expert, i admit, but bear with me) theory:

‘When a person resorts to name-calling - they have an insecurity about that topic.’

For example a homophobe might be insecure about their own sexuality, or a racist about their personal value as a human. Often, the language used in emotive outbursts is revealing, as with your "fears that dissolve logic and reason” tirade.

Logic is your insecurity. You see it as the enemy. Logically, the investigation would include what was going on at the labs. Logically, you would not be part of the investigation due to your conflict of interest.

Hence your fixation on labeling anyone who asks a logical question as a conspiracy theorist.

Using my theory, that irrational reaction tells me you're covering something up. Judging by the volume of your media output, i'd say Something Big.