Como se coaduna com o facto

14:49 Aug 9, 2014 

that the quoted text is an excerpt from an ICF and the subsequent text is a comment from an EC on the quoted excerpt. The comment appears to be warning that the ICF does not make it really clear that data will be kept confidential, since another section of the ICF mentions that coded data will be sent.
Although this seems to be illogical at first sight, my reasoning here is that since data are coded, they could be uncoded, and hence identified. That is why the EC considers data identifiable.
ECs in general prefer data is patient data are said to be unidentified rather than coded.

08:30 Aug 9, 2014 

Sorry, I fail to see your logic here. For me there is no doubt whatsoever. The text says that because the data are coded, these are confidential and should be inputted and transmitted.

22:28 Aug 8, 2014 

This is a comment on an ethics committee, as mentioned by Jeanne.
The user mentions that, according to previous comments, data sent using the relevant system may be identifiable. Then, in the next line he says "this is consistent with the... data being coded", and that doesn't make sense. It does make sense, however, if he/she is questioning: "How can this be consistent wih the affirmation that the data is coded?".
It sounds like this person is questioning the coding and protection of the confidentiality of the data.

21:17 Aug 8, 2014 

of this comment be a question mark instead of a period?
"Based on the above-mentioned facts, it seems to be possible to transmit identifiable data. How is this consistent with the fact mentioned elsewhere that the data is coded?"

Teresa's suggestion is excellent, but I wonder if this should be a question.