ICO Responds

RE: EA/2022/0424; Michael Speth vs Information Commissioner

I received the response from UK’s Information Commissioner (ICO). You can download the official response in full here. But I will go through their response and provide rebuttals where appropriate below.

National Security

The ICO and HSA have claimed that providing cell culture and genome sequencing control records risks the United Kingdom’s national security.

The ICO first writes the following:

1. There is no definition of national security.

So national security can really mean anything they want it to mean. But they list the following factors in their original response:

1. Disclosure of information would constitute very detailed technical information, transferring know how, which would directly contravene an explicit request from the World Health Organization (WHO) to Public Health England (PHE now UKHSA) in 2020 not to release or make widely available the details of culture amplification of SARS-CoV-2;

2. Disclosure of this would be the detailing of exact methodology utilised in virus amplification for a designated high hazard virus, requiring containment Level and could pose a threat to national and global biosecurity if provided to an unascertained or unvetted member of the public or agents with ill intent;

3. Disclosure of this information would provide a significant “know how” capability that could in some circumstances be considered a biosecurity threat;

4. Disclosure of this information would provide records of laboratory data to third parties and very specifically any records that may relate to identifiable patient information, which virus isolation records do;

I will get back to these points in a moment. But first they make the following statements regarding the grounds of my appeal:

i) The Commissioner erred in concluding that the exemption under s.24(1) was engaged – ground 1;

ii) The Commissioner erred in concluding that Section 12 is engaged if the ICO has received the requested information from the UKHSA – ground 2.

Ground 1 - National Security Exemption

For Ground 1, they write:

It is clear from the Appellant’s GOA that he does not accept that viruses such as SARS-COV-2 exist and that therefore his argument is that disclosing the requested information to the world would raise no national security issues as suggested.

Viruses have never been scientifically proven to exist using the scientific method. So of course there are no such things as viruses and imaginary entities cannot cause harm or do harm and certainly pose no risk to national security.

They go on and write:

Whilst the Commissioner recognises that there may be some in the scientific community who may question the existence of viruses, it is not in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner or the Tribunal in this appeal to decide upon this issue.

So the commissioner will just assume viruses exist without any scientific evidence?

This is in fact the place that I will challenge the existence because in order to use national security as an excuse, the HSA and ICO will need to prove the existence of SARS-COV-2 using the scientific method. Poisoning and starving cell cultures to produce cell culture death is not scientific proof. I am specifically asking for the control information which invalidates their entire cell culture and genome sequencing experiments in the first place.

They next challenge other FOIA responses that I have received about the control information:

The Appellant firstly argues that he has “received official responses for “viral” cell cultures and genome sequences from several organisations around the world all providing the information requested without citing any issues with national security”

However, whilst other organisations in different countries with different freedom of information regimes may have chosen to voluntarily provide some of the requested information to the Appellant, this does not mean that the exemption under section 24(1) FOIA was inappropriately applied by the UKHSA in this case.

So just because the USA CDC or NZ ESR have responded to my control FOIA’s without using National Security as an excuse, doesn’t mean the UKHSA can’t try and use it.

Point 1

The Appellant in effect argues that the Commissioner erred in giving weight to the request from WHO in 2020 not to release or make widely available the details of culture amplification of SARS-CoV 2 given that the WHO “cannot dictate a sovereign nation’s policy, especially regarding national security”.

They respond to point 1 with the following:

Whilst it is correct that the UKHSA would not be compelled to comply with the request from WHO, it is nevertheless reasonable for the UKHSA to follow advice from WHO on this matter and as such the Commissioner would submit that he was correct to give weight to such a request when considering whether withholding the requested information would safeguard national security.

The ICO’s response got me thinking. Not only did ESR provide their protocols for their experiments, but the vast majority of papers published about SARS-COV-2 list their methods. This prompted me to submit the following original articles on SARS-COV-2 all of which published their cell culture and genome sequencing techniques (conveniently leaving out the control experiments because if they did valid controls, they would invalidate their experiments). Here is a list of the papers I submitted:

• A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019

• A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

• Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea

• Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19

• Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health

• Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

Why is it reasonable to receive any advise and act on the advise from a private organisation that is funded by private banks who have a vested interest in selling products literally making billions based on the virus hoax?

Point 2

“The control information will show that viruses are not required to produce cytopathic effect and computer generated genomes. The control information cannot be used to create replicate competent disease causing particles because never in the history of science has anyone ever proven that replicate competent disease causing particles exist”.

They do not directly address my point 2 here and instead:

Again, the Commissioner repeats the point he makes above, namely that he maintains that it was reasonable in this case to give weight to the views of the UKHSA as to the likely effect of disclosure of the requested information on national security.

Point 3

“Superstition underpins the belief that cell cultures and genome sequencing is a biosecurity threat and instead relies on their religious belief system to make such a claim. There is no scientific proof that humans can cause other humans to become ill by passing viruses, bacteria, or any other imaginary [sic] particle the allopaths invent between them”.

I don’t understand the [sic] reference. Have I mispelled a word? The ICO again does not provide a response to my specific point:

The Commissioner repeats the arguments made above.

Point 4

The Appellant argues that releasing a patent involving virology or genome sequencing cannot be a threat to national security.

I must have misread their initial response and thought they used patents as a defence. I could not find that statement so I was incorrect in writing point 4.

ICO wrote:

The Appellant does not follow this argument. The information requested did not include patents.

ICO is correct in this statement.

But I ended up addressing their point 4’s by writing:

any individual’s private information could easily be redacted in order to protect personal private information

ICO responded:

Depending upon the number of redactions to personal data required to be made (which may render the request vexatious under s.14 FOIA), the Commissioner would nonetheless maintain that the exemption under s.24(1) is engaged for the reasons given above and in the DN with respect to the un-redacted information.

I have no idea how asking to remove personal data would render my request vexatious? For instance, removing the name of the patient the sample was taken from is extremely common in virology papers. The papers simply list the sample as ‘patient 1’ or ‘patient 2’. Anyone know how asking to redact such information could in any shape or form resemble a vexatious claim?

Ground 2 - Cost Exemption

I wrote there is a contradiction regarding their cost exemption,

the ICO claims to have received the information I requested (10)” though “ICO also claims that HSA claimed section 12 applies (the cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit)(9)”. The Appellant argues that “if the ICO has provided the information that I have requested to ICO, then [sic] section 12 is not applicable because they readily provided the information to ICO

ICO responded with the following:

The UKHSA has provided the Commissioner with the answers to the specific questions that the complainant posed in the request” (emphasis added).

I could not find anywhere that I asked ‘questions’. I will need to raise this in court. But this is still a contradiction.

The ICO makes this consolidation:

In the event that UKHSA are joined to the appeal as a party – see further the Commissioner’s request for a direction below – the UKHSA can provide the Tribunal with more detail as to the nature of the searches carried out for the requested information and a more detailed estimate of the time it would take to locate, retrieve and extract the information. Once this further detail has been provided by UKHSA, the Commissioner reserves the right to make further submissions on the application of section 12 FOIA.

The ICO are not pursuing section 12 as this stage as their primary excuse is section 24 ‘national security’. ICO states that if section 24 is rejected by the court, that they would pursue section 12.

HSA Directed to Join the Appeal

The Commissioner notes that the Tribunal, pursuant to paragraph 3 of the directions dated 10 January 2023, directed that the UKHSA “should notify the tribunal whether they apply to become a respondent within 14 days of the date on which the documents are sent to them in accordance with the direction above. If so, the case shall be returned for further judicial direction”.

The ICO has directed the HSA to join the appeal. They have given the HSA 14 days to respond but,

that it would be appropriate in this particular case for the Tribunal to issue a direction that UKHSA be joined as a party to this appeal for the following reasons:-

The reasons they list are below

1. The importance of the requested information to the health of the population;

2. The request seeks complex scientific information which the UKHSA would be better placed to assist the Tribunal with;

3. UKHSA would be better placed to assist the Tribunal and provide witness evidence, if required, as to the likely effect of disclosure on national security;

4. UKHSA will be able to provide the Tribunal with details of the searches carried out for the requested information and a more detailed estimate of the time it would take to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information.

I agree with the ICO for their above reasons. ICO is not a science organisation and they simply do not have the knowledge of alleged viruses to properly respond to the information I have provided disproving virology. The HSA is the most suitable party to respond and I would cherish the opportunity to discuss national security with the HSA especially because I would demand that the HSA admit that they do not have scientific proof using the scientific method for the existence of SARS-COV-2.

My hope is that we can get the court to agree that virology is a belief system not based on the scientific method. But at the very least, it will go on record in court that it is the case regardless if the HSA agrees or not.

ICO Conclusion

The final statement by the ICO is extremely strange.

For the reasons given above, the Commissioner invites the Tribunal to dismiss the Appeal.

It is like in the middle of a movie, a signs goes up and says, “that’s all folks”. There is enough admission from ICO itself that we need a hearing to discuss the finer points especially since they have not provided any tangible evidence suggesting that national security is somehow effected.

Richard Bailey from the ICO wrote this in the email he attached the ICO’s official response:

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt.

I don’t know law but I am speculating that if I respond to the email saying I ‘acknowledge receipt’ that somehow I would be agreeing with his conclusion to dismiss which I reject. Please post your thoughts about how I should address their official response in the comments?