Even something pie in the sky like that is still a fraction of 55 years! And really, even a single reasonably educated staffer couldn't develop at least the outline in say, one year? A whole year? Let's say that project is huge and takes TEN YEARS just to develop the procedures and stuff. Ok enough of that.,setting aside debunking the problem or coming up with new solutions to the problem, switching gears to "what would make it not a problem?" like in a perfect world, if you could have anything etc: No matter what parts of this problem you want to look at, this "500 pages per month" BS still just does not add up, even if you pretend you're stupid and just accept the stated difficulties as actually being the problem.
It sounds like what should happen is, the data should be supplied with the identifiers seperated by the original submitter. Like a standard that everyone follows where when you write the reports in the first place, everyone is subject A who works at employer X and lives in county Z, and the legend is in a seperate part of the document which is trivial to withhold. Put both the job of segregating the data and the liability for doing it correctly on the submitter when they are creating the data in the first place. Then the FDA or other similar body only has to do a reasonable minimal due dilligence to realease the anonymised data. If there are mistakes, make that the applicant's responsibility.Ĭherry picking two specific things I want to reply about.
0 kommentar(er)
