eau de sauvage wrote on 04/17/20 at 00:41:59:

"... will invariably just say 'lies', or 'biased' as a general answer ..."

A lesson learned from the UL, DFI, FDS, Socialists !
When they, yell, Racist/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc,
at every opportunity !

"Entity 1, tells entity 2, exactly how to put wording  in a, ‘code’."


 I'd like clarification on this.  Coding classifies content into a program so when the content is reviewed it can be found faster.  Like in old libraries when they used Dewey Decimal.  You used the DD system to find a book, but that system did not "tell" the author what had to be inside that book.  It only classified the book into sections, like fiction, or reference.




Entity 3, uses information from entity 1’s, code,
which are the direct it result of entities 1 instructions,
to entity 2.

 Entity 3 can access the information in the patient chart, that has been put into a specific category by Entity 2 by following the instructions of Entity 1.  



What would be the reason, entity 1, would tell entity 2,
to code a certain way,
knowing full well entity 3, would use information,
from entity 1 ?"

 Entity 1 does not input information so Entity 3 would not get information from Entity 1, they would get information from Entity 2.  Its so the information is standardized, and one can look up "Patient History" by accessing CPT Code 1220F in that Entities system.  

 So Patient X is extracted from a vehicle by Emergency Services 01 with life threatening injuries and take Patient X to Entity 3 because Entity 3 is closest.  Entity 3 accesses Patient X's medical file and has to convert the System A information that was input by Entity 2 previously to System B so they can begin looking for things like medications, chronic conditions, etc.

 The time it takes for Entity 3 to convert Entity 2's System A information to System B can take time that could otherwise be used to treat Patient X and potentially save their life.


 So to apply this to the topic of this thread: If Entity 1 disclosed publicly that Code 1220F means to their organization "depression screened", are they lying?

As long as i Tell you the numbers I'm giving you are useless, inflated and littered with counted AS
DEATH FROM CORONAVIRUS,
while I Know some of them Had the antibodies, but were asymptomatic of CV, then, hey, now I'm not lying.
Just admit you're lying, then lie,  
See?
All good.

I called you a liar?
I don't think so.

 What about this:

 Trump knows that "the media" misconstrues, lies, fake news, misuses his statements regularly to mislead the public.

 Millions of people believe what they see from "the media".

 Is Trump a liar, if he says things that the media misrepresents to the public?

 He knows this happens, he coined "fake news", but he continues to post in Twitter.  Lets say he tells the world on TV, and the White House releases a day previous that he will be making a series of Twitter posts that may not be entirely accurate, are for his own use, and may change over time as he gets more information.

 Is he a liar by proxy because he is aware that "the media" will spin what he posts, and people are ignorant?

"Who is demAnding the Bullshit cases included in the totals? CNN? Fox?
NIH? CDC?"

 No totals have been released using that data.  See that's the problem, people are using garbage news so they think the CDC has released totals with the data they requested.  That ignorance doesn't make the CDC disclosure a lie.


"You want to pretend that since they are accumulating data they Say they will revise WHILE INCLUDING KNOWN TO NOT BE DEATHS FROM CV,
It's DOCUMENTED,,"

 You obviously didn't read the documentation.  The CDC want's a large data pool, and they are disclosing that.  The disclosure is not a lie.

   
 That's the same as saying that if Trump discloses something and the media spins it, and people believe it because they are ignorant, Trump is lying.

WebsterMark wrote on 04/17/20 at 05:46:55:


That's a rather interesting take, because of how the truth is about as opposite as it's possible to get. The people who are firmly in the crosshairs of my writing are the very academics themselves because I have developed a completely new body of work that undermines the entire field of academics whose subject matter is (and believe me I hate using this word because it sounds made up) sexology. And because 'sexology' is a soft science and because people are so frightened of the subject matter, it allow the so called self styled 'sexologists', the room to spout utter garbage without any serious peer review other than by equally vacant academics in this field. So you got that one wrong.

P&L, is that a profit and loss statement? If so you got that wrong too because money is not my motivation, my work is about knowledge, I even pay to have no advertising on my wordpress site, and I pay even more for my completely separate site where I have total control, just in case I piss off enough academics on wordpress.

I came across this video this morning on the beeb, https://www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/sexual-revolutions?vpid=p089qcr1 and it is chock full of the sort of nonsense that I will be deconstructing. My works is entirely original, paradigm shifting ground breaking and has taken 32 years to build, so once again you could not be more incorrect to think that I need the inputs, electronic or otherwise of so called academics in this field.

My work is for the next generation of teens growing up in a world where the only information they get about human sex and relationships is handed down not by adults but by overgrown children. Physically they are adults but emotionally they are children.

Here is the sort of dangerous academic rubbish that I'm talking about and that I will be deconstructing. https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/4/469/2613943