Biggest concern here http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/24/drug-makers-patient-records-database … is that pharma/i4health seem to plan to hold own copies of aggregated data, as on slide 6..
-
-
Replying to @bengoldacre
… as on slide 6 of this: (slide 6) http://www.hscic.gov.uk/media/12353/stakeholder-forum-10-07-13-8enabling-the-life-sciences-industry-to-make-effective-use-of-nhs-data/pdf/Stakeholder_Forum_10-07-13-8_-_Enabling_the_Life_Sciences_Industry_to_Make_Effective_Use_of_NHS_Data.pdf … and other discussions of i4health business model. Let me explain why that is bad.
2 replies 6 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bengoldacre
… One way to protect you from reidentification is to release extracts of data with only certain fields, or only a subset of the 60m pop'n
2 replies 4 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bengoldacre
(… depending on the number of patients' data needed to answer the particular research question being applied on)
1 reply 3 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bengoldacre
… We have been told by e.g.
@tkelsey1 it would be a crime to aggregate datasets, but this seems to be what i4health is proposing to do5 replies 7 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bengoldacre
@bengoldacre don't know i4health but they wouldn't get care.data. Fundamental principle always minimum amount of data required3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
.@tkelsey1 @bengoldacre Until the rules change again you mean Tim? That's not something even you can claim to have control over, is it?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.