It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
ok lets tone the rhetoric down just a little bit.
Obviously, the "recipe" for the fracking fluid is proprietary information. This is information, that if it were to be made public, would put the company at an economic disadvantage.
Just as obviously, if a person suspects this symptoms may be related to fracking fluid, a doctor would need to know the exact "recipe" to properly diagnose the patient.
What this law does is order the company to release the recipe to a doctor upon request but places the doctor responsible for not revealing the exact recipe.
There is NOTHING that stops the doctor from telling a patient that he has symptoms that appear to be related to exposure to fracking fluid and recommending treatment options. (or from telling the patient that his symptoms cannot be possibly caused by the fracking fluid used by a local company).
We really don't need the melodrama here.
Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.
Tired of Control Freaks
The confidentiality clause is designed to prevent proprietary information from reaching the general public. A doctor informing patients, Miskin said, does not constitute public disclosure as outlined in the bill.
Read more: community.nasdaq.com...
Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
Completely correct. DENY ignorance, don't play into it. Sometimes, this actually requires research.
The confidentiality clause is designed to prevent proprietary information from reaching the general public. A doctor informing patients, Miskin said, does not constitute public disclosure as outlined in the bill.
Read more: community.nasdaq.com...
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.
Tired of Control Freaks
Originally posted by safetyblack
It amazes me how people can read things and insert their own meaning into them. The law clearly states that the doctor may use the information in respect to dealing with the medical emergency. The only place it states that informing the patient is not part of dealing with the medical emergency is what has been added by people with low reading comprehension. Part of dealing with the medical emergency is explaining what it is and what happened to the patient. It prevents disclosure to the public and people not related to the medical emergency. Further once the patient knows what it is they are not bound by this law. This is a paper tiger designed to scare people. It has succeeded.
sbedit on 28-3-2012 by safetyblack because: changed "he" to "they"
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by safetyblack
If I cannot sue or press charges against my aggressors, I have no recourse, except for the more 'primitive' and drastic options.
it feels good to still have them.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Centralia
Originally posted by Huggiesunrise
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.
Tired of Control Freaks
If theres a line in there that says my healthcare professional cant tell me its killer fig newtons thats got me sick theres something definately wrong here.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.
Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
Completely correct. DENY ignorance, don't play into it. Sometimes, this actually requires research.
The confidentiality clause is designed to prevent proprietary information from reaching the general public. A doctor informing patients, Miskin said, does not constitute public disclosure as outlined in the bill.
Read more: community.nasdaq.com...
Originally posted by Gridrebel
Sometimes, this actually requires research.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.
No it is nothing like Fig Newtons - a complete list of ingredients will not lead to the ability to reverse engineer
anything. Ratio and processing is just as key... What are you defending??? I hope they frack your
water supply up so you can experience some growth in your cognition.
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by nixie_nox
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Centralia
I couldn't recall the significance of the name, so I had to look it up.
Centralia, Pennsylvania
Yup. Now I understand your point more clearly.