Yes, we should talk about the system and incentives of the revolving-doors between massive corporations and government bodies meant to govern those corporations. With the cash/status/power incentives attached.

You don't need an explicit intentional criminal conspiracy when a "conspiracy of common interests" can produce similar results.

I don't believe conspiracy necessarily has to be for a goal that is against majority support. I.e. someone may conspire against a minority. Conspiracy is by virtue of not disclosing actions or their goals. I.e. the subjects of the study would definitely see it as a conspiracy against them.

The relevant argument here would be the extent to which this approach to scientific experimentation was normal at that point in time and how it compares to current protocols. I.e. whether CDC aligns with scientific research protocols and therefore the focus would be on whether these protocols are strong enough to warrant broad access to data without consent.

Acknowledged, I mostly don't want to talk past others who are hung up on conspiracies (pro or against). Much more fruitful is definitely the analysis of strategies and games and actors. Their power or influence and their motivations.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.