LogFAQs > #900281098

HashtagSEP posted...

Like, it's right here

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.

It's saying the changes are made to restrict any peer-reviewed public health studies that include private patient medical records.

I thought it was saying they just had to not use the patient records.

However, the key line I was missing was that they are not allowed to use studies with private "underlying data".

I actually just pulled up Reuters to read it from a more unbiased source because the ap source sounds like an environmental activist wrote it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-science/u-s-environment-agency-proposes-limits-to-science-used-in-rulemaking-idUSKBN1HV2DJ

I have not finished reading it yet.

Edit: Okay. I can see both sides.

Basically, if you are all about transparency, you should be for the change.

If you are all about government oversight, you should be against it.

If you are all about companies and their ability to compete, you should be for it.

If you trust being potentially pre-emptive with the environment or health, you should be against it.

So a few moving parts there. It comes down to what you weigh more.

I trust the government, and I also believe companies should be able to compete, thus not hamstrung on studies they are unable to counter with studies of their own due to not having access to the materials.

I guess that makes me indifferent on it.
---

LoL ID = imajericho
XBL GT = Corrik