Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws.
Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.
Wow, this sounds fucking awful.
So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick.
Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."
You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?
You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article.
"the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws."
It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.
You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right?
And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying
So Corrik doesnt understand the rule change hes adamantly defending.
lmao Classic. ---
Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado