As any such "analysis", it is at the very least IRRELEVANT: as any other theories out there, conspiracy theories has to be elevated objectively, by their own merits - by the evidence and argumentation presented by their proponents and opponents - and not subjectively, by any supposed psychological chracteristics of these proponents and opponents.
But worse than being irrelevant, any such analysis is in fact DECEPTIVE, since it tries to replace objectivity (the assessment of the theory and its evidence base) with subjectivity (the assessment of the supposed psychological characterics of the theorists).
In each and any such analysis, the empirical and rational contents of the theory itself are ignored - it is just presented as being wrong-by-definition, as all anti-mainstream conspiracy theories are axiomatically supposed to be by the mainstream.
The ironic facts that much of the mainstream narratives are themselves, in the strict literal sense, conspiracy theories (Russiagate), and that some elite conspiracies are proven true (Iran-Contra), are ignored. The mainstream conspiracy theories, as well as proven elite conspiracies, are never called these names by the mainstream sources, for the simple reason - for the mainstream, the words "conspiracy theory" have lost their literal, objective meaning - "the theory that postulates, and tries to prove, an existence of conspiracy". Instead, it turned in into a subjective perjorative label that may be used to brand and defame any theory, no matter how soundly it is supported empirically, and how validly it argumented rationally, as long as it defies the authority of the power elites and power institutions (this includes academic elites and institutions). In fact, it is not even necessary for such a theory to postulate, and try to prove, a conspiracy in a literal sense; the defiance of authority alone is enough.