5 ms·

> EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that “whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were

> EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that “whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.”3 Worth noting

throwaway4good 6y ago
Did they (ema) publish exactly what was doctored?
isitdopamine 6y ago
Anyone would say that a leak is doctored... Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity. The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored. There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  > they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored. So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? Cool > There’s pretty damning information in there No, there isn't, unless you're buying manipulated information and believe in 5G vaccines. The data presented sounds like a regulator doing its job and not rubberstamping every decision (cough cough 737Max)
  - itchyjunk 6y ago
    The question wasn't if they were victims or not though. They are. The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine. You might not have seen anything useful in what was presented but it doesn't mean someone else can't. Comparing it to "5G vaccines" to discredit the parents point isn't the right way to challenge their interpretation.
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      > The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine. Are you going to question every "data leak" and smear campaign that comes from questionable sources (I think this leak was first published on Rutor - not the first time Russia does something like that)? > it doesn't mean someone else can't True, that's what the article addresses. And as you see it's making technical questions not implying they're hiding something.
  - isitdopamine 6y ago
    > So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? No, but if they do claim it has been manipulated, then it would be nice to show proof. > 5G vaccines No idea what you are talking about, sorry.
lhnz 6y ago
The article by the BMJ is responding to the leak as if the information within it is believed to be correct. Is the EMA suggesting that this isn't the case or are they just telling us that it was editorialised by whoever disseminated it? Doctored is the word you'd use if the contents have been changed in order to deceive people. However this could be an attempt at damage control if they want people to dispute the veracity of the leak. Edit: Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation. What is this, some kind of cult in which nobody dare question?
fuoqi 6y ago
They can easily show discrepancies by publishing everything without hiding the important information. But for some reason they don't. AFAIK they even haven't bothered to specifically indicate which parts exactly are not authentic.
srj 6y ago
I find this part highly suspicious and it calls into question the motives of the "leaker" and wisdom of publishing this article. If someone wanted to discredit the vaccine finding some internal document around a process failure (even a temporary one), doctoring parts of it to make it more dramatic, and finding someone who will write about it is a good way to go about it. By the time the correction is published for the doctored material, or the matter is contextualized, the fear will have already spread.
the-dude 6y ago
Sounds like journalism to me.
generalizations 6y ago
It looks like none of the data was actually altered. What actual difference does an additional screenshot make, or the renaming of a file, or the reshuffling of user files? If the data was valid before those changes, those kinds of changes aren't going to invalidate it.

throwaway4good 6y ago

Did they (ema) publish exactly what was doctored?

isitdopamine 6y ago

Anyone would say that a leak is doctored... Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity. The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored. There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.

raverbashing 6y ago
> they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored. So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? Cool > There’s pretty damning information in there No, there isn't, unless you're buying manipulated information and believe in 5G vaccines. The data presented sounds like a regulator doing its job and not rubberstamping every decision (cough cough 737Max)
- itchyjunk 6y ago
  The question wasn't if they were victims or not though. They are. The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine. You might not have seen anything useful in what was presented but it doesn't mean someone else can't. Comparing it to "5G vaccines" to discredit the parents point isn't the right way to challenge their interpretation.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    > The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine. Are you going to question every "data leak" and smear campaign that comes from questionable sources (I think this leak was first published on Rutor - not the first time Russia does something like that)? > it doesn't mean someone else can't True, that's what the article addresses. And as you see it's making technical questions not implying they're hiding something.
- isitdopamine 6y ago
  > So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? No, but if they do claim it has been manipulated, then it would be nice to show proof. > 5G vaccines No idea what you are talking about, sorry.

lhnz 6y ago

The article by the BMJ is responding to the leak as if the information within it is believed to be correct. Is the EMA suggesting that this isn't the case or are they just telling us that it was editorialised by whoever disseminated it? Doctored is the word you'd use if the contents have been changed in order to deceive people. However this could be an attempt at damage control if they want people to dispute the veracity of the leak. Edit: Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation.

logicchains 6y ago
>Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation. What is this, some kind of cult in which nobody dare question?

fuoqi 6y ago

They can easily show discrepancies by publishing everything without hiding the important information. But for some reason they don't. AFAIK they even haven't bothered to specifically indicate which parts exactly are not authentic.

srj 6y ago

I find this part highly suspicious and it calls into question the motives of the "leaker" and wisdom of publishing this article. If someone wanted to discredit the vaccine finding some internal document around a process failure (even a temporary one), doctoring parts of it to make it more dramatic, and finding someone who will write about it is a good way to go about it. By the time the correction is published for the doctored material, or the matter is contextualized, the fear will have already spread.

the-dude 6y ago

Sounds like journalism to me.

generalizations 6y ago

It looks like none of the data was actually altered. What actual difference does an additional screenshot make, or the renaming of a file, or the reshuffling of user files? If the data was valid before those changes, those kinds of changes aren't going to invalidate it.