Lab Leak: The conspiracy theory is shaping up to look like real possibility

[Ronson]

National security is one of the nine exemptions under the FOIA.

Source: https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA. Congress established nine exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of information to protect against certain harms, such as an invasion of personal privacy, or harm to law enforcement investigations. The FOIA authorizes agencies to withhold information when they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of these nine exemptions.

The nine exemptions are described below.

• Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
• Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
• Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
• Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
• Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:
  1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
  2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege
  3. Attorney-Client Privilege
• Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
• Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
  • 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
  • 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
  • 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
  • 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
  • 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
  • 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
• Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.
• Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

© Copyright Original Source

Which brings me back to my question. None of these should apply to the DHHS. It isn't a national security agency, it isn't law enforcement, there should be no trade or financial considerations, and public servants working for a public agency have no personal privacy to consider while conducting public business.

[Mountain Man]

I know conspiracy theorists have made up their minds that all legitimate scientists are part of a global cabal to lie to us.

Not all of them, but there are certainly those in key positions who use the veneer of scientific authority to push a (typically liberal) political agenda. The "Climategate" email scandal exposed the man behind the curtain years ago.

[Backup]

The "Climategate" email scandal exposed the man behind the curtain years ago.

no

familiarize yourself with the facts of this story beyond the denialist propaganda.

[seanD]

Not all of them, but there are certainly those in key positions who use the veneer of scientific authority to push a (typically liberal) political agenda. The "Climategate" email scandal exposed the man behind the curtain years ago.

Just the ones that control the government funding, like Daszak and Fauci, and scientific publications like The Lancet. Maybe... I don't know... half a dozen, if that? Does that constitute "a cabal"? Perhaps.

[Mountain Man]

Just the ones that control the government funding, like Daszak and Fauci, and scientific publications like The Lancet. Maybe... I don't know... half a dozen, if that? Does that constitute "a cabal"? Perhaps.

What is commonly ignored by those who dismiss it as a conspiracy theory is how few people are really need to pull it off.

[Gondwanaland]

I know conspiracy theorists have made up their minds that all legitimate scientists are part of a global cabal to lie to us.

No, just people with brains who watch scientists bow and scrape to their political masters this last year and a half.

[Gondwanaland]

That doesn't mean the researcher would need the government's permission to request the deletion.

You sweet summer child.

And people who have been involved in such searches in the past don't seem to think this is so unusual.

False. The very fact that they can't is what has pushed more and more people to finally break with the establishment and consider the lab leak option that libtards spent a year claiming was a conspiracy theory.

[Stoic]

Which brings me back to my question. None of these should apply to the DHHS. It isn't a national security agency, it isn't law enforcement, there should be no trade or financial considerations, and public servants working for a public agency have no personal privacy to consider while conducting public business.

DHHS employees could work on matters of national security, and could work with law enforcement. And perhaps public servants should have no expectation of privacy, but they might communicate with someone or discuss someone who does have an expectation of privacy.

In addition, there might be information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law, or privileged communications within or between agencies.

[Stoic]

You sweet summer child.

Way to duck the argument.

YOUR article listed a number of reasons that a researcher might legitimately want to request that data be deleted. The fact that the researcher is Chinese does not invalidate those reasons.

False. The very fact that they can't is what has pushed more and more people to finally break with the establishment and consider the lab leak option that libtards spent a year claiming was a conspiracy theory.

Considering it is not quite the same as saying it's a slam dunk.

[rogue06]

If this is proven trustworthy by peer-review, all the honest scientists with update their tentative conclusions based on this new evidence.

It appears that the lab origin model has replaced the wet market origin model as the theory every one is now working from.

[rogue06]

That doesn't mean the researcher would need the government's permission to request the deletion.

What it means is that it is likely the decision was made from above (the government) and he's the one who carried out the orders. And now they can point to him and say he's the one who authorized it.

[Gondwanaland]

Way to duck the argument.

You.... didn't make an argument.

YOUR article listed a number of reasons that a researcher might legitimately want to request that data be deleted. The fact that the researcher is Chinese does not invalidate those reasons.

Correct, the fact the researcher is CHINESE does not invalidate those reasons - nor did I state that it did, you racist.

The fact that the researcher is an employee of the Communist Chinese Party - CCP (which means they are a Party member by necessity), which has also destroyed data in their own country on the early months of the outbreadk (November, December) taking hold in Wuhan, pretty much does invalidate those reasons for anyone with a rational, working, brain containing more than two brain cells.

Considering it is not quite the same as saying it's a slam dunk.

Interesting. I never said anyone, including myself, said 'it's a slam dunk'. Maybe go feed some horses with all that straw there, buddy.

[Gondwanaland]

What it means is that it is likely the decision was made from above (the government) and he's the one who carried out the orders. And now they can point to him and say he's the one who authorized it.

Yep. Such he's such a sweet summer child, so naive, so innocent that he's clueless what the CCP does.

Like, they literally deleted massive amounts of data and ordered doctors in Wuhan to do so, literally 'disappeared' doctors who warned what was coming, but sure, yeah, this was simply an innocent deletion of data of sequences that showed that the virus was not originating in the wet market (the chinese origin storystory at the time), and was done so by a employee that 'just happened' to work for the CCP.

[Stoic]

The fact that the researcher is an employee of the Communist Chinese Party - CCP (which means they are a Party member by necessity), which has also destroyed data in their own country on the early months of the outbreadk (November, December) taking hold in Wuhan, pretty much does invalidate those reasons for anyone with a rational, working, brain containing more than two brain cells.

You are in effect claiming that no one who works for the Chinese government ever makes any decisions unless directed to do so by that government.

Do you hear yourself?

[Stoic]

What it means is that it is likely the decision was made from above (the government) and he's the one who carried out the orders. And now they can point to him and say he's the one who authorized it.

What it means is that it's possible that the decision was made from above, and he's the one who carried out the orders.

Unless you agree with Gondwanaland that there is no chance that he would ever do anything without being directed to.