There are but 90+% of these records aren't fraudulent. The interpretation of the data isn't even technically fraudulent. They rely on the ignorance of the audience and a few tricks of implication to make the audience reach a fraudulent conclusion that they can then claim they never told the audience. The media then amplifies that message and they are completely protected from any kind of libel or lying or anyting like that.
I didn't say "stating Kungflu as cause of death for a gunshot victim isn't technically fraudulent". I said 90% of the records weren't fraudulent. Even though there are laws against medical records fraud, those laws would not apply to the majority of cases examined. Those laws would apply to only a few, such as the gunshot victim, if it could be proved that there was intent to defraud the state.
And as I told you when you DM'ed me, I'm not referencing the records that aren't fraudulent. LMAO, so after sending me TEN increasingly weird DM's like a freak and getting shut down, now you come back here for an ELEVENTH response. Dude/lady, you've got some screws loose.
Aren't there laws against knowingly falsifying public health records?
There are but 90+% of these records aren't fraudulent. The interpretation of the data isn't even technically fraudulent. They rely on the ignorance of the audience and a few tricks of implication to make the audience reach a fraudulent conclusion that they can then claim they never told the audience. The media then amplifies that message and they are completely protected from any kind of libel or lying or anyting like that.
Stating Kungflu as cause of death for a gunshot victim isn't technically fraudulent?
I didn't say "stating Kungflu as cause of death for a gunshot victim isn't technically fraudulent". I said 90% of the records weren't fraudulent. Even though there are laws against medical records fraud, those laws would not apply to the majority of cases examined. Those laws would apply to only a few, such as the gunshot victim, if it could be proved that there was intent to defraud the state.
And as I told you when you DM'ed me, I'm not referencing the records that aren't fraudulent. LMAO, so after sending me TEN increasingly weird DM's like a freak and getting shut down, now you come back here for an ELEVENTH response. Dude/lady, you've got some screws loose.