Medical Forum / General / General / July 2004
80% of 100,000 nosocomial deaths are cause by nosocomial infectious diseases, but there's more.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
yelxol - 19 Jul 2004 18:29 GMT There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is cross-infecting millions of patients every year with deadly pathogens
and this is not the log line for a new movie.
There may not be a broad-based, well-organized campaign, but over the last 3 years the public has been led to believe that most, if not all, of the 100,000 annual nosocomial deaths reported in the much publicized Institute of Medicine (IOM) study are simply caused by mistakes. Hence, the libelous sting of public culpability has been substantially reduced
for now.
The truth is, less than 20% of these deaths can logically be attributable to mistakes because according to the CDC 80% of nosocomial deaths are caused by hospital-contracted infectious diseases.
In 1999, when the IOM first released the study, this CDC data was a part of the news articles. But, when the nosocomial death rate is mentioned today, the 80,000 annual deaths are forgotten, and the dozen or more physician-authored books ignore the subject of infection altogether. Death from infection is indeed the huge, libelous, pink elephant in the middle of the room.
So why would there be efforts focused on making us forget these victims, or, as it were, what is the purpose of all the smoke and mirrors?
The answer: Most patient-to-patient nosocomial/iatrogenic infections are preventable, caused primarily by the conscious, predetermined use of non-sterile devices and/or non-sterile techniques. The take home message' here is that these 80,000 annual deaths caused by hospital stays are not medical mistakes'.
An important consideration: When large percentages of a continually advancing annual mortality rate are ascribed to cross-infection of deadly pathogens, it is beyond the realm of logic to presuppose that any significant number of those deaths result from mistakes or errors.
There must be open discussion and public awareness of these facts before the medical profession will stop the use of community glove boxes', non-sterile invasive instruments and other so called cost saving' electives.
It is for this reason Fatal Probe* was written, a report of a 6-year review of over 400 medical studies and interviews with doctors, nurses, medical equipment manufacturers, federal agencies and patients.
Fatal Probe also uncovers the fact that the infectious disease death rate associated with the 33.5 million patients of highly regulated hospitals is greatly overshadowed by the extrapolated death rate of the patients who make 880 million visits to totally unregulated private medical providers
by a factor or 27:1.
As is detailed in the report, because of the highly invasive nature of 110 million gynecological exams, a great majority of the patients cross-infected in private facilities are women. Locksley estimates that 3.3 million women are contracting iatrogenic infectious diseases every year, with 132,000 of them dying horrible, protracted deaths, which are normally associated with infectious disease mortalities.
* Available at Amazon.com
David Wright - 20 Jul 2004 03:46 GMT >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is >cross-infecting millions of patients every year with deadly pathogens? >and this is not the log line for a new movie. There is simply no other way to say it: This "loxley" character is a major loon who has no idea how to interpret the small amount of information he's acquired.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
yelxol - 21 Jul 2004 02:40 GMT > >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American > >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- David Wright FATAL PROBE: BLURBS / COMMENTS
As a physician, I find this work an empowering lesson. Mr. Locksley has done extensive research. None of his work is based on " hearsay". Also, to his credit, he has addressed medical issues such as HPV infections for which much medical information is known but not properly disseminated or applied. Mr. Locksley's research and presentation has empowered me to ask more questions and be ever more aware of my obligations to my patients. Dr. Mary Soha <<<>>> As a medical professional, I fully expected to rank Will Locksley as another great conspiracy theorist. Instead, I consider him to be a man asking all of the right questions at an auspicious time in medical history. While I will continue to critically examine and review his theories on a professional level, I cannot help but feel that in Fatal Probe Locksley has created a perfectly logical common sense movement that has the potential to change the way physicians and nurses practice medicine. I am also optimistic that patients, educated in the area of safe medical procedures, will change the face of doctor-patient relationships, medical equipment development and testing and patient care forever. Kate St. Amour, BookReview.com <<<>>> Having been a judge for several years and listening to many doctors and their "victims" in my court, I can sympathize with both sides. I have seen first-hand the way healthcare professionals "circle the wagons" to protect themselves and each other when confronted with wrong-doing. I have seen how even the most respected attorneys tiptoe around their "intellectual equals" (doctors) when going against them in court. It appears that every similar profession develops a "code of silence" to protect one another. Being involved with the Susan B.Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, I have a deep interest in women's health issues and am very glad to see more attention being paid to such matters. Very professional job. Well researched and a very worthwhile topic. Judge Mike Adams <<<>>> Fatal Probe presents vital medical information to the American public that has been withheld by the medical profession. Bill Boshears, National Radio Talk Show Host <<<>>> The fact that non-sterile instruments are still used in invasive exams is a shocking revelation. Mr. Locksley's book should be required reading for physicians, nurses, administrators and all others involved in the health care field. Bill Steensland, Clear Channel Radio <<<>>> Well presented, and it certainly did the job if you were trying to alarm me. Something I would take for granted is not being done. Amazing.Great job in using examples. You did your research and opened my eyes. Michael Ludwin <<<>>> Amazing! Hard hitting, brilliant, life saving truth. Very insightful and quite scary. You've opened the jar lid. Karina J. Belkin <<<>>> This will certainly open eyes and minds. I know you think you have a difficult task getting the masses to believe there is a problem. I do not agree. I think the information is very realistic. Carol Gaynor <<<>>> I always find that a person's ideas come across so much better when backed by credible research, and you have done an excellent job of that. Extremely informative, and also technically no errors that I can see. Talies Landau <<<>>> Very good, thorough work
you have researched your topic and followed your findings with excerpts from articles and various experts. Five stars for the overall presentation and knowledge. Solid work. I knew where you were going with the chapter title: 'What's So Special About Women? And you backed it up with their differences that make women overly susceptible to infection. Greg W. Bonnette <<<>>> This is probably one of the most horrific reports I have every read. I'm absolutely shocked. It seems that no one is looking out for patients anymore. Catherine Carter <<<>>> You have hit upon a subject of interest to us all, Mr. Locksley. It is surprising with all we read about lawsuits against anyone remotely associated with medicine that such things could still go on. You have given us an in-depth view of the whole story from beginning through to the present. It is hard to fathom that the sort of thing you describe could happen today. Thank you for making this known. Norbanus
This is horrifyingly enlightening! The plastic gloves, the instruments in the tray Next time I go in for an exam, I'm going to feel like I'm walking in a minefield--and I'll be right! Thank you for your research! RazberryBullet <<<>>> I admire greatly your taking a stand to investigate this and share it with the world. In particular, as a woman who has just gone through a fairly frightening and emotionally draining experience a few weeks ago that ended with a D & C, and much examining in the last few weeks it is concerning. I find it shocking that scopes are being used on women that cannot be cleaned properly. I would like more information on this. This sounds like a great expose for 60 minutes. Please keep up the good work Zelphiablue <<<>>> Let's skip the usual critic of the writing style and blah, blah; it's well written in any regards. But this is unimaginable and horrific. The descriptions, although very vivid and visual were necessary for this to be powerful enough to deliver this message. I could not even feel empathy because I am still in shock. I would be interested in a follow-up as to whether any malpractice lawsuits were filed and if any of these 'nice' doctors lost their licenses to practice. I cannot, nor could I perceive that anything like this could ever happen considering all the medical advances we have made. Simply put, this made me sick to the core of my being and very angry; I am sure that is the response you were after from your readers. Well-done. Sara Miller <<<>>> I applaud you with a standing ovation. We put our lives into the hands of some very unprofessional doctors and this is frightening and atrocious. Fantastic writing. KB <<<>>> Let's skip the usual critic of the writing style and blah, blah; it's well written in any regards. But this is unimaginable and horrific. The descriptions, although very vivid and if any of these 'nice' doctors lost their licenses to practice. I cannot, nor could I perceive that anything like this could ever happen considering all the medical advances we have made. Simply put, this made me sick to the core of my being and very angry; I am sure that is the response you were after from your readers. Well-done work. SM <<<>>> Very interesting. As a practitioner in the field of behavioral medicine, I've actually seen a lot of the things that you mention and really never questioned them. Debbie's story was horrific. Interesting, thought-provoking and scary piece. Thanks for writing it. sjat <<<>>> A work of much needed information. Although you do have much medical jargon you have to use understandably, this is written in such a way that it is easy to follow along and understand what point you are making. You must do constant research all the time. Skatermom <<<>>> This is literally beyond me. I feel quite ill. I am so shocked, all I can do is sit here feeling helpless, nauseated and angry. Obviously, your book is imperative. This is the most shocking account I have ever read that didn't involve murder, torture or war. Your point is very clearly made. This is great information, and a lot of it! Very well researched - it is obvious that an extreme amount of work went into it. Thanks for the read! Grandall <<<>>> Is this published yet? Man, you could make a heap of money out of this book. I was particularly struck by your argument: "No study exists that demonstrates HPV remains dormant in the human body for decades! The fundamental mechanics necessary for such a study extend the imagination beyond the limits of credulity, with the major dilemma in managing such a project being the re-infection component, a completely unmanageable control factor for human subjects. In addition, it would be necessary to closely track the control group for twenty years or more, unless an extrapolation technique were implemented based on the results of fewer years. However, such assumptions would not render reliable, peer-review data." The type of research your alternative hypothesis would suggest is reasonably straightforward, and certainly the domain of any good Medical School Department of Public Health (my wife is a Master's Degree candidate at the Department of Public Health in the Christchurch School of Medicine, and I am part-way through a PhD in Medicine there as well). Simple, retrospective case note studies that a Med Student could conduct if funded by an appropriate grant. Your hypothesis would suggest that older women who are not having regular smear tests should have a lower incidence of HPV all else being equal. Any indication that is the case? Although you would then need to control for socio-economic behaviours that might lead to the same observation but for different reasons (ie women who are less inclined to have regular checkups might also be less likeley to have engaged in sexual promiscuity when young). But it would certainly be worth a look. Bryn S
I found the sheer volume of information a little hard going, but definitely worth the effort. Its a frightening picture you paint. I note that your information is based in the US - can I assume that the same standards apply in Australia? I'd be interested in hearing your research if it extends this far. Thanks. CD <<<>>> I have to give you five stars for the sheer magnitude of writing you have done here and for the detailed research you must have done to compile such a report. I will say that the information is a bit heavy for the average reader and I wonder who the target audience is for this piece. It almost reads like it should be material to go into a medical journal type of publication, which may well be what you have intentions of doing. Very informative. Victoreahh <<<>>> What you say is true. The walls of a womans vagina is an eco-system unto itself. Are you a Doctor? You write a concise, informative synopsis. Good stuff. Dylan Wiles <<<>>> This is a frightening book for the fact that it is real. The facts, figures and reports are very well laid out. This gives rise to the belief that doctors that can play God, start believing they are God and are therefore infallible. Also, their medical unit they work for, be it a hospital, clinic or whatever, does not want to foot the bill for these "Misfortunes and unfortunate oversights" We need hospitals, doctors, nurses etc, but we also need them to be looking after us, not themselves! Excellent work. Straayker <<<>>> You have a powerful story here for women/men to take charge of their own bodies. It is a shame that some doctors automatically label women as hypochondriacs. Thanks for a remarkable book. Permelia <<<>>> Debbie's story was ' gut wrenching ' to put it mildly. You speak of asking doctors specific questions and wanting to be answered not in Medspeak, but in layman's terms. But so many doctors just do not want to come 'down' to our level. Solid writing and you definitely made your point. Sarah Moore <<<>>> This is eye-opening. Empowering! It really peeves me that I had no idea before reading this, and I would suspect the majority of women today are not aware of this. This is totally wrong! How in the world with how fast diseases are spread today is this subject treated so carelessly by professional?! Thank you so much for writing this book, you're doing a great service! PW <<<>>> Overall, this book speaks in volumes telling women that they don't have to accept the risk. You have provided us with the horror stories and told us what we can do about it. Good job. CC <<<>>> FASCINATING!!! Chilling. Frightening. Horrible facts written so well. Brilliantly composed and documented. You have a way with words. It is amazing, how well you can educate the public. God bless you, Mr. Locksley. Your writing style is so inviting. I appreciate your lovely ending. Your level of compassion makes you one incredible soul. Thank you so much! You are certainly a pillar of light! We are absolutely ignorant and I speak for the majority. I send you much light on your important journey, as you will need it. People will always argue and persecute the truth before accepting it. I just hope it is not too late. KJB <<<>>> This was a very enlightening book. I normally don't read stuff like this but this kept me interested from start to finish. It was well-written and quite compelling. Bravo for producing such an informative read! SG <<<>>> For you to go into so much info about this is really brave, especially if this is true. I found it horrific what happened to Debbie. A similar experience happened to me. I commend you on a well written controversial book and wish you the best for the future. BB
David Wright - 21 Jul 2004 03:09 GMT >> >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American >> >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >FATAL PROBE: BLURBS / COMMENTS I really don't care how many self-congratulatory blurbs you pick up. You still don't know what you're talking about and your numbers are misused.
But you have a nice day.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
yelxol - 21 Jul 2004 21:03 GMT > >> >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American > >> >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -- David Wright Interesting.
The two dozen plus blurbs / comments / reviews posted were written by doctors, nurses, judges, lawyers, reviewers... who are unknown to me (except for one passing acquaintance) who have read the book. So "self-congratulatory" doesn't quite fit here.
However, you have not even read the book.
... and since you have not read it, how can you state that the "numbers are misused"? Which numbers and how are they misused? Please be specific.
Is it the subject header? "80% of 100,000 nosocomial deaths are caused by nosocomial infectious diseases"
Will Locksley
David Wright - 22 Jul 2004 04:40 GMT >> >> >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American >> >> >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >(except for one passing acquaintance) who have read the book. So >"self-congratulatory" doesn't quite fit here. I suppose that's true, assuming they're real and not something you wrote yourself in your spare time.
>However, you have not even read the book. Why bother? I've read the crap you post here. I have severe doubts that a guy who was, until recently, unaware of the difference between iatrogenic and nosocomial infections is really onto a major scandal.
See, you may think you erupted here de novo, but I remember you really well from your earlier incarnations as "spyridon," "The Vindicator," and so on. I remember your crusade about how the Mayo Clinic had ruined your life, I remember your crusade about infections being spread by gynecologists.
>... and since you have not read it, how can you state that the >"numbers are misused"? Which numbers and how are they misused? Please >be specific. Why should I? You've never even established that you know what fraction of those nosocomial infections are caused by what pathogens. If you do know, you're not telling us. Why should I, or anyone else, take you seriously?
>Is it the subject header? >"80% of 100,000 nosocomial deaths are caused by nosocomial infectious >diseases" The question is not really whether that's true, but whether it can be used to infer anything whatever about what goes on in doctors' offices nationwide. Have you even bothered to factor in the number of nosocomial infections transmitted from patients to themselves? I doubt it. You didn't seem to be aware of the problem at all.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
yelxol - 22 Jul 2004 18:48 GMT > >> >> >There is simply no other way to say it: The attention of the American > >> >> >public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I suppose that's true, assuming they're real and not something you > wrote yourself in your spare time. Why don't you contact a few of them. It should not be that difficult. And if it is a major point, I will even assist you in locating some of them... and a few others. For example, BookReview.com is just a click' away. I just received another rather glowing comment from a nuclear physicist... but I suppose he is just a loon also, right, probably doesn't understand the process of logic/reason.
> >However, you have not even read the book. > > Why bother? I've read the crap you post here. I have severe doubts > that a guy who was, until recently, unaware of the difference between > iatrogenic and nosocomial infections is really onto a major scandal. You guys must really be desperate? As a matter of fact I do know the difference. However, you or your people/assistants use one post in which I inadvertently switched the words and... But,,, that's politics, so to speak. Right, David? You guys are obviously just trying too hard. Hmmmmm. Why is that?
> See, you may think you erupted here de novo, but I remember you really > well from your earlier incarnations as "spyridon," "The Vindicator," > and so on. I remember your crusade about how the Mayo Clinic had > ruined your life, I remember your crusade about infections being > spread by gynecologists. As I said: You guys are getting a bit desperate. What do you really do for a real job, David? Why the intense interest in defending the entire medical profession? AND Why do YOU feel there is a need to defend the entire medical profession?
> >... and since you have not read it, how can you state that the > >"numbers are misused"? Which numbers and how are they misused? Please [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you do know, you're not telling us. Why should I, or anyone else, > take you seriously? Brilliant answer. Right. Why should you? With your prejudice, you probably wouldn't grasp the words anyway.
By the way, if a person DIES from a nosocomial OR iatrogenic infection, what difference does it make WHICH pathogen is involved? They are still dead.
and not JUST dead, as from one of the "MEDICAL ERRORS" described in all of the physician-authored books now on the shelves. Infectious diseases are that kind' to their victims. It takes a while, doesn't it? And in the meantime, a few other people (husband, wife, children, et al) become unlucky' victims. So it is not just ONE victim we are talking about, is it? But
don't read the book.
> >Is it the subject header? > >"80% of 100,000 nosocomial deaths are caused by nosocomial infectious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doubt it. You didn't seem to be aware of the problem at all. > -- David Wright How can you doubt anything? You have no idea of what I have factored in. After all
you haven't read the book, have you?
You pose the question as to (or seem to doubt) whether there is (or can be) any reciprocal relationship between the care received by the annual 33.5 million U.S. hospital patients and the patients who make the 880 million annual visits to U.S. private doctors offices and clinics.
We can begin with the fact that U.S. hospitals are tightly regulated and most if not all comply with oversight entities (JCAHO, et al), have in-house departments especially staffed to fight/prevent cross-infection, can spread out the cost of expensive sterilization equipment/machines (autoclaves, sheathed endoscopic devices, etc.)
on and on and on.
Compare this to private doctors' offices and private clinics. They are totally unregulated and there are no oversight entities. That applies to Dr. Smith's office in Anytown, USA, all the way up to the huge behemoth you mentioned above, the Mayo Clinic. They can do pretty much whatever they want to do. They establish their own "standard of care".
So, if you wish, we can begin with this comparison: The question of regulation and oversight.
My I believe, commonsense - contention is that an entity that must adhere to regulation and oversight will inherently present a safer environment. Do you disagree with this?
By the way: I sincerely believe that your posts are proof or an example of the truth of the statement made in the original post: "The attention of the American public is being diverted from the fact that the medical profession is cross-infecting millions of patients every year with deadly pathogens."
Will Locksley Author, Fatal Probe Available at Amazon.com
|
|
|