but why do that if, as it has been argued, everybody already knew that concussions were so dangerous? I mean, if everybody already knows then there's no plausible deniability, is there? It would be a huge waste of time and money to support an alternate narrative, if the danger of concussions was already common knowledge, right?
The fact is that the dangers of concussions weren't widely known at the time the NFL was suppressing alternate viewpoints. It might have been commonly thought that getting hit in the head could result in longterm damage, like Muhammed Ali, but boxing is a sport without much in the way of safety equipment like the NFL has. It would have been easily dismissed as a comparison at the time.