New NOP report- Rupp/Centro Suspicious Blood test. + Nike interfering with USADA

Not the same wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Sigh... One is an injury, the other a PED.

Give up already. NOP is running a great PED program.

That sentence really makes no sense. Hypothyroidism (real or exaggerated) is not a performance enhancing drug.

The correct sentence is: one is the treatment of an injury which doesn't involve PEDs, and the other is the treatment of an illness that does involve PEDs.

Actually should be refined as: and the other is the treatment of an illness that involves potentially performance enhancing, but not yet proven so, drugs.

There's only one marginal claim to this being a HIPAA violation, which is saying "just this morning", which might imply a specific date. Nothing else meets the criteria of the 18 elements that define protected health information. I review these all the time on the Institutional Review Board I chair. Even the date one is tough to make a case of because it is only referencing a date where someone was in some hospital, not a date of a discrete event like admission, discharge, date of a surgery, etc.

Here are the elements that define PHI:

1. Names;

2. All geographical subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code, if according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: (1) The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.

3. All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older;

4. Phone numbers;

5. Fax numbers;

6. Electronic mail addresses;

7. Social Security numbers;

8. Medical record numbers;

9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;

10. Account numbers;

11. Certificate/license numbers;

12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;

13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;

14. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs);

15. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers;

16. Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;

17. Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and

18. Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code (note this does not mean the unique code assigned by the investigator to code the data)

Not the same wrote:

The correct sentence is: one is the treatment of an injury which doesn't involve PEDs, and the other is the treatment of an illness that does involve PEDs.

Now you are characterizing normal training effect as an illness.

Please give up. Because thyroid treatment for elite athletes on rigorous training schedules (NOP) is PEDs.

Let's not let facts get in the way, dd! Don't you remember what site you're posting on? Besides, this is typical behavior for "medical compliance" people. Think docs are on a power trip? Nothing compared to med compliance. Add that they absolutely HATE doctors, and you've got the picture.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Not the same wrote:

The correct sentence is: one is the treatment of an injury which doesn't involve PEDs, and the other is the treatment of an illness that does involve PEDs.

Now you are characterizing normal training effect as an illness.

Please give up. Because thyroid treatment for elite athletes on rigorous training schedules (NOP) is PEDs.

Maybe, I didn't say it isn't. Read my post and interpret the actual words I said.

"The treatment of an illness that involves PEDs"

I think your confusion is you are reading "PEDs" as some kind of word that means "cheating".

It's an acronym that stands for "performance enhancing drugs". So "treatment of hypothyroidism in elites IS PEDS" makes no sense at all.

Bingo!

Item 15 which leads to item 2

Sigh. No, because for all you know he is posting from a home computer in another zip code, or from his phone while in another city, from a hotel, etc. The IP address has to be linked-- like an electronic survey being filled out that could link the person filling it out to their responses. But nice try.

medical ethics much wrote:

Bingo!

Item 15 which leads to item 2

He posted the patient's computer's IP address?

I think you're confused, here. That is a list of disallowed identifiers of the patient, not identifiers of the physician.