I do not think so. I understand perfectly what Occam's razor deals with but it is often misused on complex situations like this one. Occam's razor applies only when different hypothesis explain said phenomenon equally satisfactory, the simpler one tends to be true or assumed to be true until new evidence is uncovered. You're making the assumption that there is no evidence to implicate CIA. But to the contrary to your belief, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that. There is track record in history of CIA doing the same thing in Venezuela. There are recent reports of admitted covert ops by U.S. in Iran. There is alleged evidence of CIA funding of opposition groups in Iran. There are red flags everywhere, including huge bias of US media and statements of US officials. In the light of that evidence, the CIA involvement becomes the simpler version. You would need to ignore all of that to conclude that its involvement isn't possible. On the other hand you have just one unreliable testimony of a doctor who strangely testified it was Basiji as I understand it ... how does he know that? You have to consider the case of Neda in context. Who would benefit most by her death? Certainly not pro-government forces. And in the light of the above evidence and strange circumstances of her death ... the CIA involvement becomes the most probable explanation. Yes, that's what I'm getting at ... if you want the most educated opinion you have to be actively looking for the evidence. Not waiting for it to suddenly fall into your lap. To use the analogy of flat Earth, you would have to listen to people claiming it's round and perform the experiments they suggest or consider the data they've arrived at instead of claiming ignorance and "Occam's razor". There is nothing bad on being wrong. When you discover you've been wrong It should be celebrated ... it means you just learnt something new Peace.