Perhaps you missed it but it order to grant whistleblower status the IG MUST determine the allegation IS credible. I'm not claiming that the case is over, or that the allegations have been proven true (that stage has not been reached yet) but the parrots claiming she has been proven false are just blowing smoke without any supportable foundation therefore.
I think you're suffering from problems with definitions here.
Credible means that reasonable grounds for believing something is true have been offered.
The IG need only determine that grounds for warranting an investigation are present, not whether grounds for believing her are present. That's the whole point of an investigation. In this case, the bar is that a complaint is made in the proper manner where,
if true, would meet the statutory requirements for a violation on behalf of the FDOH for whistleblower protection. I am assuming also that the status would not be granted if the complaints weren't immediately falsifiable. That is different than meeting some standard of evidence to actually generate the investigation (e.g. production of emails, supporting affidavit). Although I haven't looked into it myself, I feel justified in trusting
@woolfe9998 in him saying that no such evidence is required here. He is after all in my judgment a lawyer with a significant track record on this forum of presenting reliable information and being accountable to it. I am generally familiar that certain phrases, like "reasonable cause" have through the courts been established to have very specific meaning under the law even where a lay person might otherwise reasonably take those words to mean something different. Yet, since this is a matter of application of law, it means only what the court says it does.
Proving a claim is false is very much not the same thing as finding that it lacks credibility or that the source of the claim themselves is generally not credible. To my awareness, neither
@woolfe9998 nor myself have ever declared that we have evidence that her claims (broadly) are false. We merely have presented the reasoning for why we find her accounts and her person generally not credible, and we have not seen any evidence to support her claims directly.
That opinion, of course, does not mean her claims are necessarily false. Unless they can be explicitly falsified, they are significant enough to warrant investigation with qualifying protection should they be substantiated. It is only that this finding lends nothing to the question of whether the claims themselves are actually true.
The likelihood from these complaints is that they won't either be able to be substantiated or explicitly falsified. This will probably not sway the needle for anyone who has a will to believe or disbelieve her. But that will is meaningless. We should only
act upon her claims where they can be reasonably substantiated.