Published: February 21, 2022
By: Steve Watson
RELATED:
The CDC’s response when questioned about their withholding of Covid data and lack of transparency is essentially “we don’t trust you to be able to understand the truth.”
— Nicole Saphier, MD (@NBSaphierMD) February 20, 2022
The condescension is palpable. The wheels are finally coming off. https://t.co/74ScUienhs
“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”
Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”
…the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
— Salil Mehta (@salilstatistics) February 20, 2022
CDC wants us to follow the science, or at least the limited science they choose to release.
— Nicholas DiNubile MD (@drnickUSA) February 20, 2022
Follow the Science
became-->
Follow the Science Fiction
became-->
Follow the Political Science
became-->
Follow THIS, not THAT… Science
became-->
JUST FOLLOW pic.twitter.com/QBkchMlOnR
This is the attitude of many organizations/individuals who have access to data. They don’t want anyone else interpreting the data. They need to be the ones who put the spin on the data to build a narrative which may not represent the whole truth.
— CatLvr5303 (@CatLvr5303) February 20, 2022
This means it blows up their narrative, otherwise they would shove it down our throats... the truth is obvious.
— Floplag (@floplag) February 20, 2022
CNN's @kaitlancollins: "It sounds like this decision had just as much to do with business as it did the science."@CDCDirector Dr. Rochelle Walensky: "It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate." pic.twitter.com/Ek3X3S7Q9S
— The Recount (@therecount) December 29, 2021
The CDC director just said over 75% of “covid deaths” occurred in people with at least four comorbidities. Since Biden can’t shut down covid, suddenly all this data is getting shared publicly. pic.twitter.com/NKvproy3lx
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 10, 2022
Informed ConsentThe right to informed consent is composed of two parts: first, the right to be informed of potential harm to one’s property (one’s body) caused by a hired agent, and second, the right to autonomy. It was not until the 19th century that physicians began to advocate that a patient should be given an adequate amount of information to understand his or her state of health.[5] After landmark decisions by judges in the 20th century, especially in the 1970s with Canterbury v. Spence, Cobb v. Grant, and Wilkinson v. Vesey, in 1981 the American Medical Association recognized for the first time informed consent as "a basic social policy" necessary to preserve patient autonomy even at the expense of a healthcare provider’s desire for beneficence.The roots of informed consent stem from the social contract theorists of the 1600s and 1700s mentioned previously. Under this social construct, patients own their bodies (their “property”). Medical therapies may have a genuine possibility of damaging that property. Thus, patients have the right to decide independently what risks and costs to incur regarding their bodies. The null assumption by physicians for most of the history of Western medicine has been that the patient is interested in whatever plan the medical professional thinks is best. In contrast, the null assumption under the moral philosophy of autonomy is that the physician has no way of knowing what patients want and must enable patients to decide for themselves whenever the patient has the mental capacity to do so. American courts have established that a risk of harm as low as 1% must be explained to the patient before submitting the patient to any therapy if that harm entails death or a life-altering complication, such as paralysis (Canterbury v. Spence).In the United States, the right to informed consent is protected to some degree by legislation at both the state and federal levels. 42 CFR § 482.13 states that the "patient or his or her representative (as allowed under State law) has the right to make informed decisions regarding his or her care. The patient's rights include being informed of his or her health status, being involved in care planning and treatment..." Nearly all states have statutes that provide more detail than the US Congress with respect to the specifics of informed consent rights in their particular jurisdictions. Nevertheless, in large part, because of the vagueness of informed consent rights specified by executive branches of government, the judicial branch of government is usually the branch that enforces informed consent rights as part of tort claims brought by patients against healthcare providers.The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.
No comments:
Post a Comment