Re: DFS & SWEET JOE BIDEN.

On 5/27/24 7:12 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2024-05-27 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:

On 5/26/24 11:13 AM, Relf wrote:

DFS:

covid vaccine IDIOTS claim it was "the jab".
>
And there are a lot of vaccine idiots around, including several on this
newsgroup.  I see a lot of them in comment sections all across the
Internet.  All of them are very willfully ignorant.

>
Every day, the "IDIOT" epitaph becomes more apropos of you, DFS.
>
Only the FDA can provide VACCINE SAFETY DATA & they HIDE it;

>
>
Just what is the FDA allegedly "hiding", Relf?
>
Be specific.
>
And also be specific in providing documentation that shows that this was a change done just for CoVid which differs from the past practice of protecting the privacy of research volunteers, because "hiding" some information has been standard practice for decades.
>
For example, do not claim that they're keeping the identity of each volunteer participant confidential, because that's been standard practice since the 1970s.
>
The research data is provided in what's known as "de-identified".
>
But even this has changed within the past decade (before 2019), because its been found that "big data" data mining is able to "Re-Identify" if individual datapoints are provided.  That's why data is now published in aggregate, not individualized but anonymous (e.g. de-identified).
>
IIRC, the change was prompted by the Governor of Massachusetts who IIRC made some crass comment about how current health data protections were already overkill.  Some researchers proved him wrong by Re-Identifying him in the health records to show that said medical records were in fact, not adequately protected.  Here's the cite:
>
"The 'Re-Identification' of Governor William Weld's Medical Information: A Critical Re-Examination of Health Data Identification Risks and Privacy Protections, Then and Now"
(July 2012)
>
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2076397
>
FYI, the general "best practices" is to hold the PII/PHI in confidence for 75 years before it is released to the public.  This is because most consents are from adults (age 18+), since 18+75 = 93 years, as ~95% dying by age 95.
>
For some populations (eg, children) longer durations can get used; there's also been discussions to increase 75 years to a higher value because of trends of improving longevity (as per Actuarial tables).

 In other words, "don't believe your lying eyes and ears, folks."
 

Nope.  All you're doing is showing that you don't have a clue.
This branch of science has had legal protections for decades to protect the privacy of those people who have _volunteered_ to be in a study.
If you've ever had any new drug or medical procedure over the past ~50 years, you've been a beneficiary.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki>
So if you don't want to be a hypocrite, then stop accepting use of any new drugs or medical procedures.  Oh, and stop driving any car designed later than ~1975 too ... because crash data research.  Good luck.
-hh