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.
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)
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.
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.
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.