There is a burning question on my mind that would make for quite a good and interesting Skeptics post. Well, in my opinion at least. But there are two problems with it: 1. it will trigger a highly emotional response with very predictable but unproductive results (and yes it's indeed Covid related as well) 2. the real weakness is that I would like to restrict the eidence to "as of now/today".

The observation I made is that there is this one claim that is derived from a few theories, related observations, and with innate plausibility. But as far as I researched it, real empirical evidence for it is either lacking or in fact a surprising opposite, contrary to expectations.

That claim is very widespread and believed, thus notable. Real evidence may soon come in that perhaps will render obsolete all of the evidence I collected so far. Statistical flukes and just bad data.

Causal explanations for the counter effect are also present, but as I said here myself, all that is in a chaotic emrgent disease situation, still. It's just not good practice to rely on pre-prints and OR is still not allowed here.

So, is there prior art on Skeptics that sets a hard time limit for the eligible evidence to be included into answers?