Infectious Hospitals?

On 2004-06-19 23:35:27 -0400, Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> said:

Well, I certainly wouldn't rule out coincidence. However,
any time you visit a place where sick people congregate, the
likelihood that you might pick something up increases
slightly. Wash your hands and keep them away from your face,
and you'll probably be fine.

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went to
discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a vaccination,
and left with tonsillitis. Are these two isolated
incidents, or do you also notice that people often visit a
hospital for one reason, and leave with an unrelated
infection?

Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went to
discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a vaccination,
and left with tonsillitis. Are these two isolated
incidents, or do you also notice that people often visit a
hospital for one reason, and leave with an unrelated
infection?

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S. hospitals
kill about 100,000 patients every year. But the CDC
estimates that more than 80% of them – 80,000 – die from an
infectious disease, which is about 4% of "an estimated 2
million annual infections."

"Brad Edwards" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went to
discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu.

The flu is not very common in the late spring or summer. I
doubt you had the flu. Another illness that you would have
had had you not visited the doctor.

Quoted message said:

My friend had to go to get a vaccination, and left with
tonsillitis.

Right, but did he come in with the germs that cause
tonsillitis?

Quoted message said:

Are these two isolated incidents, or do you also notice
that people often visit a hospital for one reason, and
leave with an unrelated infection?

I worked mostly with sick kids in hospitals and clinics
for about 4 years. In that time, I had one episode of
vomiting diarrhea, maybe 5 mild cases of diarrhea and
several mild colds.

Never a serious illness. Of course, I always got the flu
shot every year.

If you wash your hands and don't touch your face, your
chances of getting sick are pretty small.

Your chances of getting sick from coworkers who are
afraid to miss a day of work, even if they have a fever
of 105 or are pooping every 1/2 hour, family and friends
is far higher.

Jeff

In article <2004061923590916807%nospam@herenet>,

Griffin said:

On 2004-06-19 23:35:27 -0400, Brad Edwards
<[email hidden]> said:

Well, I certainly wouldn't rule out coincidence. However,
any time you visit a place where sick people congregate,
the likelihood that you might pick something up increases
slightly. Wash your hands and keep them away from your
face, and you'll probably be fine.

Besides, you don't pick up a case of the flu in a
couple of hours, it'd have been incubating when you got
to the hospital.

-- 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)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went
to discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a
vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are these two
isolated incidents, or do you also notice that people
often visit a hospital for one reason, and leave with an
unrelated infection?

In article <[email hidden]>,

yelxol said:

Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went
to discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a
vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are these two
isolated incidents, or do you also notice that people
often visit a hospital for one reason, and leave with an
unrelated infection?

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But the
CDC estimates that more than 80% of them – 80,000 – die
from an infectious disease, which is about 4% of "an
estimated 2 million annual infections."

According to articles that analyzed the IOM's estimates,
those estimates are quite dubious. But you won't bother with
that little fact, because it'd interfere with your crusade.

-- 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)

Jeff said:

"Brad Edwards" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went to
discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu.

The flu is not very common in the late spring or summer. I
doubt you had the flu. Another illness that you would have
had had you not visited the doctor.

Well this was immediately prior to "flu season". I guess my
"not long ago" claim is false. Damn, time flies quicker than
I had thought. Anyways, it was when the news channels were
reporting the first cases of influenza in, I believe, the
midwest. I'm on the coast, and the maps tracking influenza
outbreaks hadn't shown it reaching my area yet. I must've
been one of the earlier cases. I'm fairly certain it was a
flu, since I've dealt with it many times before in the past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My friend had to go to get a vaccination, and left with
tonsillitis.

Right, but did he come in with the germs that cause
tonsillitis?

Maybe, who knows. There's no way to prove it, which is why I
was curious about peoples observations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are these two isolated incidents, or do you also notice
that people often visit a hospital for one reason, and
leave with an unrelated infection?

I worked mostly with sick kids in hospitals and clinics
for about 4 years. In that time, I had one episode of
vomiting diarrhea, maybe 5 mild cases of diarrhea and
several mild colds.

I've always been fascinated with how hospital workers can be
around sickness year round and not be sick themselves.

I'm wondering if it is a different situation for people who
aren't around hospitals very often, and those who are. You
might've been more in shape so to speak, and more capable of
fighting a whole array of potential infections due to your
constant exposure and adaptation. Whereas, people who aren't
around many sick people, who then visit a hospital, possibly
with a weaker immune system if they are visiting because of
some illness already underway, maybe are like sitting ducks
to the infectious agents.

Quoted message said:

Never a serious illness. Of course, I always got the flu
shot every year.

If you wash your hands and don't touch your face, your
chances of getting sick are pretty small.

Your chances of getting sick from coworkers who are
afraid to miss a day of work, even if they have a fever
of 105 or are pooping every 1/2 hour, family and friends
is far higher.

Yes, I wish that people were more conscious about the risk
they pose to other people. During the period of the illness
when it is most infectious, people should be aware and make
their best effort to protect others in order to limit the
spread of the sickness. That means keeping our kids home
from school, and taking sick days from work.

I wonder how silly this sounds, but if it were shown that
there is in fact an increased risk of getting sick when
visiting the hospital, then maybe people who are visiting
with such things as flu-like symptoms, or symptoms of some
other infectious illness could wear cheap disposable
respirators to and from the doctors office as well as making
sure they wash their hands prior to entering the building.

I myself am able to fight off a severe case of the flu. But
I'm thinking about people with very weak immune systems,
such as the elderly, who visit in order to get a pain
prescription refilled, and leave with the influenza virus. I
think that most people would find it silly to wear a
respirator in public places, and think the person was just
being a baby, but if it helped minimize the spread of
illnesses that could potentially kill the weaker population,
then maybe it's not so crazy?

David Wright said:

Besides, you don't pick up a case of the flu in a couple
of hours, it'd have been incubating when you got to the
hospital.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went
to discuss something with a doctor and left with a severe
case of the flu. My

I was wondering if someone would say that. The wording was
for dramatic effect. "Left with" the infection means you
picked it up there and left with the infectious agent, it
doesn't mean you left with the resulting illness due to the
infection. It took 3 days I believe for the tonsillitis to
become a full-blown issue.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 04:02:07 GMT, [email hidden] (David

Wright) said:

In article <2004061923590916807%nospam@herenet>, Griffin

Quoted message said:

On 2004-06-19 23:35:27 -0400, Brad Edwards
<[email hidden]> said:

Well, I certainly wouldn't rule out coincidence. However,
any time you visit a place where sick people congregate,
the likelihood that you might pick something up increases
slightly. Wash your hands and keep them away from your
face, and you'll probably be fine.

Besides, you don't pick up a case of the flu in a couple of
hours, it'd have been incubating when you got to the
hospital.

Which means that the original poster may not have picked up
an infection at the clinic, but rather he may have been
responsible for giving it to others, as viral shedding
begins during the prodrome.

PF

Brad Edwards said:

I've always been fascinated with how hospital workers can
be around sickness year round and not be sick themselves.

We wash our hands. A *lot*. And we keep them away from our
face.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I wish that people were more conscious about the risk
they pose to other people.

It's easier to control your own actions than the actions of
others. So...wash your hands. A *lot*. And keep them away
from your face. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I think that most people would find it silly to wear a
respirator in public places, and think the person was just
being a baby, but if it helped minimize the spread of
illnesses that could potentially kill the weaker
population, then maybe it's not so crazy?

Surgical-type masks and molded dust masks are more window
dressing than anything else. If you really want to protect
yourself against airborne droplets, you need a properly-
fitted HEPA filter mask. They're relatively costly, easily
damaged, and not very comfortable to wear for any length of
time (if they're on right, they're *tight*). Again, your
best bet is handwashing and staying away from sick people
(and if you're the sickie, stay home).

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But the
CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000 ? die
from an infectious disease, which is about 4% of "an
estimated 2 million annual infections."

According to articles that analyzed the IOM's estimates,
those estimates are quite dubious. But you won't bother
with that little fact, because it'd interfere with your
crusade.

You aren't following.

The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC numbers... not
the IOM. Therefore, whether the IOM estimates are dubious or
not matters not. Because this would only bring into question
the 'remaining' 20,000 (of the 100,000 IOM estimate).

The OTHER 20,000 iatraogenic deaths - are in addition to
those 80,000 CDC-generated fugures.

So... please address the 80,000 and let's just forget those
other 20,000 for now.

The question is: Do you argue with CDC's 80,000 figure??

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went
to discuss something with a doctor and left with a
severe case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a
vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are these two
isolated incidents, or do you also notice that people
often visit a hospital for one reason, and leave with
an unrelated infection?

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But the
CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000 ? die
from an infectious disease, which is about 4% of "an
estimated 2 million annual infections."

According to articles that analyzed the IOM's estimates,
those estimates are quite dubious. But you won't bother
with that little fact, because it'd interfere with your
crusade.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

Sorry. I may not have been clear:

The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's numbers...
not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM estimates are
dubious is a relatively small consideration... by
comparison, that is. Because this only brings into question
the 20,000 "deaths by mistake" (of the 100,000 IOM
estimate).

The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious disease"😉
cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're only human" type
reasoning.

This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision makers)
make the decisions to through out the sterilization
procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when I was in the
business). For example, individually packaged sterile gloves
aren't seen very often around the hospital these days. But
every room (even surgery prep) has a couple of "community
glove boxes" sitting on the counter or the night stand...
for anyone and everyone to jam their dirty little hands into
and contaminate the entire... (you get the picture).

So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
infectious diseases.

Then, let's talk about the annual (totally unregulated)
880,000,000 private physician visits. Is the cross-infection
rate (nosocomial) as high or higher than the regulated
hospitals' cross-infection rate?

And why?

Or do you challenge the CDC's 80,000 figure as a base
number? And if so... why?

Best regards.

Will Locksley Author "Fatal Probe" "The Biker" "The Clinic"
"The Plaintiff" "Nottingham, Ltd."

Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jeff said:

"Brad Edwards" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I went
to discuss something with a doctor and left with a
severe case of the flu.

The flu is not very common in the late spring or summer.
I doubt you had the flu. Another illness that you would
have had had you not visited the doctor.

Well this was immediately prior to "flu season". I guess
my "not long ago" claim is false. Damn, time flies quicker
than I had thought. Anyways, it was when the news channels
were reporting the first cases of influenza in, I believe,
the midwest. I'm on the coast, and the maps tracking
influenza outbreaks hadn't shown it reaching my area yet.
I must've been one of the earlier cases. I'm fairly
certain it was a flu, since I've dealt with it many times
before in the past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My friend had to go to get a vaccination, and left with
tonsillitis.

Right, but did he come in with the germs that cause
tonsillitis?

Maybe, who knows. There's no way to prove it, which is why
I was curious about peoples observations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are these two isolated incidents, or do you also notice
that people often visit a hospital for one reason, and
leave with an unrelated infection?

I worked mostly with sick kids in hospitals and clinics
for about 4 years. In that time, I had one episode of
vomiting diarrhea, maybe 5 mild cases of diarrhea and
several mild colds.

I've always been fascinated with how hospital workers can
be around sickness year round and not be sick themselves.

I'm wondering if it is a different situation for people
who aren't around hospitals very often, and those who are.
You might've been more in shape so to speak, and more
capable of fighting a whole array of potential infections
due to your constant exposure and adaptation. Whereas,
people who aren't around many sick people, who then visit
a hospital, possibly with a weaker immune system if they
are visiting because of some illness already underway,
maybe are like sitting ducks to the infectious agents.

Quoted message said:

Never a serious illness. Of course, I always got the flu
shot every year.

If you wash your hands and don't touch your face, your
chances of getting sick are pretty small.

Your chances of getting sick from coworkers who are
afraid to miss a day of work, even if they have a fever
of 105 or are pooping every 1/2 hour, family and friends
is far higher.

Yes, I wish that people were more conscious about the risk
they pose to other people. During the period of the
illness when it is most infectious, people should be aware
and make their best effort to protect others in order to
limit the spread of the sickness. That means keeping our
kids home from school, and taking sick days from work.

I wonder how silly this sounds, but if it were shown that
there is in fact an increased risk of getting sick when
visiting the hospital, then maybe people who are visiting
with such things as flu-like symptoms, or symptoms of some
other infectious illness could wear cheap disposable
respirators to and from the doctors office as well as
making sure they wash their hands prior to entering the
building.

I myself am able to fight off a severe case of the flu.
But I'm thinking about people with very weak immune
systems, such as the elderly, who visit in order to get a
pain prescription refilled, and leave with the influenza
virus. I think that most people would find it silly to
wear a respirator in public places, and think the person
was just being a baby, but if it helped minimize the
spread of illnesses that could potentially kill the weaker
population, then maybe it's not so crazy?

I do not know if this has been suggested, but here it is:

I believe those who work day in and day out in patient care
develope immunizations to many pathogens. That may be the
answer you are seeking.

Will

In article <[email hidden]>,

yelxol said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...
> I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I
> went to discuss something with a doctor and left with
> a severe case of the flu. My friend had to go to get a
> vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are these two
> isolated incidents, or do you also notice that people
> often visit a hospital for one reason, and leave with
> an unrelated infection?

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But
the CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000 ?
die from an infectious disease, which is about 4% of "an
estimated 2 million annual infections."

According to articles that analyzed the IOM's estimates,
those estimates are quite dubious. But you won't bother
with that little fact, because it'd interfere with your
crusade.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

Sorry. I may not have been clear:

The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's numbers...
not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM estimates are
dubious is a relatively small consideration... by
comparison, that is. Because this only brings into question
the 20,000 "deaths by mistake" (of the 100,000 IOM
estimate).

The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious disease"😉
cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're only human" type
reasoning.

This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision makers)
make the decisions to through out the sterilization
procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when I was in the
business). For example, individually packaged sterile
gloves aren't seen very often around the hospital these
days. But every room (even surgery prep) has a couple of
"community glove boxes" sitting on the counter or the night
stand... for anyone and everyone to jam their dirty little
hands into and contaminate the entire... (you get the
picture).

So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
infectious diseases.

Then, let's talk about the annual (totally unregulated)
880,000,000 private physician visits. Is the cross-
infection rate (nosocomial) as high or higher than the
regulated hospitals' cross-infection rate?

Let's not. Because that's where you have your Paul Bunyan-
sized axe to grind. And I don't care, because you're trying
to extrapolate from some poorly-defined hospital data (you
aren't starting with what kinds of infections these are, or
how they were transferred, or anything).

Then off you go into the wild blue yonder, with your
meaningless speculations about what is happening in doctors'
offices, based on what's happening in hospitals (only you
don't really know what's happening in hospitals, or whether
it has any relevance to a doctor's office).

You were a bit easier to take when you were on your earlier
crusades about the Mayo Clinic or whatever. It was more
obvious up front that you were a loon.

-- 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)

In article <[email hidden]>,

yelxol said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> yelxol <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
> >message
> >news:<[email hidden]>...
> >> I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I
> >> went to discuss something with a doctor and left
> >> with a severe case of the flu. My friend had to go
> >> to get a vaccination, and left with tonsillitis.
> >> Are these two isolated incidents, or do you also
> >> notice that people often visit a hospital for one
> >> reason, and leave with an unrelated infection?
> >
> >According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
> >hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But
> >the CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000
> >? die from an infectious disease, which is about 4%
> >of "an estimated 2 million annual infections."
>
> According to articles that analyzed the IOM's
> estimates, those estimates are quite dubious. But you
> won't bother with that little fact, because it'd
> interfere with your crusade.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

Sorry. I may not have been clear:

The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's
numbers... not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM
estimates are dubious is a relatively small
consideration... by comparison, that is. Because this
only brings into question the 20,000 "deaths by mistake"
(of the 100,000 IOM estimate).

The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious disease"😉
cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're only human"
type reasoning.

This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision
makers) make the decisions to through out the
sterilization procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when I
was in the business). For example, individually packaged
sterile gloves aren't seen very often around the
hospital these days. But every room (even surgery prep)
has a couple of "community glove boxes" sitting on the
counter or the night stand... for anyone and everyone to
jam their dirty little hands into and contaminate the
entire... (you get the picture).

So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
infectious diseases.

Then, let's talk about the annual (totally unregulated)
880,000,000 private physician visits. Is the cross-
infection rate (nosocomial) as high or higher than the
regulated hospitals' cross-infection rate?

Let's not. Because that's where you have your Paul Bunyan-
sized axe to grind. And I don't care, because you're
trying to extrapolate from some poorly-defined hospital
data (you aren't starting with what kinds of infections
these are, or how they were transferred, or anything).

Then off you go into the wild blue yonder, with your
meaningless speculations about what is happening in
doctors' offices, based on what's happening in hospitals
(only you don't really know what's happening in
hospitals, or whether it has any relevance to a doctor's
office).

You were a bit easier to take when you were on your
earlier crusades about the Mayo Clinic or whatever. It
was more obvious up front that you were a loon.

David:

The word "take" used in you last paragraph can be 'taken'
several ways. I am not sure how you meant it.

I thought it was fairly unambiguous, but I guess not. I
meant "take" as a synonym for "tolerate".

Quoted message said:

It seems to be difficult to have you focus on a specific
question / issue.

Not really. I just don't feel like playing your game.

Quoted message said:

However, let us try again... and I will begin with a
question:

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be with creditability?

That's not even English. Do you mean "do I find them
credible?" or something else?

Quoted message said:

As stated previously, their (CDC's) figures are
actually conservative when compared with other hospital
"exit polls".

Frankly, you may not be capable of 'discussing' this
subject in a rational way, since (as a physician - which is
an assumption on my part) you are apparently, or may be,
too close to the nucleus. If so, that is certainly
understandable.

I'm not a physician.

Quoted message said:

However, before we end this thread, I am very curious as to
your thoughts concerning the CDC data.

I think it's completely irrelevant to the campaign you are
attempting to wage.

As I recall, your first major foray onto sci.med was to
flame about how the Mayo Clinic had somehow infected you
with inadequately sterlized equipment during a colonoscopy.
Then you vanished for a while, then came back with a new
hobbyhorse about how women were being infected by improperly
sterilized speculums (specula?) during gyn exams. Now you're
pushing a book you've written, and, golly, it has to do with
patients being infected in doctors' offices.

-- 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)

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
yelxol <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
>message
>news:<[email hidden]>...
>> I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I
>> went to discuss something with a doctor and left
>> with a severe case of the flu. My friend had to go
>> to get a vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are
>> these two isolated incidents, or do you also notice
>> that people often visit a hospital for one reason,
>> and leave with an unrelated infection?
>
>According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
>hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But
>the CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000
>? die from an infectious disease, which is about 4% of
>"an estimated 2 million annual infections."

According to articles that analyzed the IOM's
estimates, those estimates are quite dubious. But you
won't bother with that little fact, because it'd
interfere with your crusade.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

Sorry. I may not have been clear:

The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's numbers...
not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM estimates are
dubious is a relatively small consideration... by
comparison, that is. Because this only brings into
question the 20,000 "deaths by mistake" (of the 100,000
IOM estimate).

The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious disease"😉
cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're only human"
type reasoning.

This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision
makers) make the decisions to through out the
sterilization procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when I
was in the business). For example, individually packaged
sterile gloves aren't seen very often around the hospital
these days. But every room (even surgery prep) has a
couple of "community glove boxes" sitting on the counter
or the night stand... for anyone and everyone to jam
their dirty little hands into and contaminate the
entire... (you get the picture).

So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
infectious diseases.

Then, let's talk about the annual (totally unregulated)
880,000,000 private physician visits. Is the cross-
infection rate (nosocomial) as high or higher than the
regulated hospitals' cross-infection rate?

Let's not. Because that's where you have your Paul Bunyan-
sized axe to grind. And I don't care, because you're
trying to extrapolate from some poorly-defined hospital
data (you aren't starting with what kinds of infections
these are, or how they were transferred, or anything).

Then off you go into the wild blue yonder, with your
meaningless speculations about what is happening in
doctors' offices, based on what's happening in hospitals
(only you don't really know what's happening in hospitals,
or whether it has any relevance to a doctor's office).

You were a bit easier to take when you were on your
earlier crusades about the Mayo Clinic or whatever. It was
more obvious up front that you were a loon.

David:

The word "take" used in you last paragraph can be 'taken'
several ways. I am not sure how you meant it.

It seems to be difficult to have you focus on a specific
question / issue. However, let us try again... and I will
begin with a question:

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be with creditability?

As stated previously, their (CDC's) figures are actually
conservative when compared with other hospital "exit polls".

Frankly, you may not be capable of 'discussing' this subject
in a rational way, since (as a physician - which is an
assumption on my part) you are apparently, or may be, too
close to the nucleus. If so, that is certainly
understandable.

However, before we end this thread, I am very curious as to
your thoughts concerning the CDC data.

Best regards.

Will

"Sterilization is a nuisance" Olympus of Japan,
manufacturers of a significant percentage of U.S.
medical devices.

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
yelxol <[email hidden]> wrote:
>[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in
>message news:<[email hidden]-
>gy.com>...
>> In article
>> <[email hidden]>,
>> yelxol <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote
>> >in message
>> >news:<[email hidden]>...
>> >> I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago
>> >> I went to discuss something with a doctor and
>> >> left with a severe case of the flu. My friend had
>> >> to go to get a vaccination, and left with
>> >> tonsillitis. Are these two isolated incidents, or
>> >> do you also notice that people often visit a
>> >> hospital for one reason, and leave with an
>> >> unrelated infection?
>> >
>> >According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
>> >hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year.
>> >But the CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ?
>> >80,000 ? die from an infectious disease, which is
>> >about 4% of "an estimated 2 million annual
>> >infections."
>>
>> According to articles that analyzed the IOM's
>> estimates, those estimates are quite dubious. But
>> you won't bother with that little fact, because it'd
>> interfere with your crusade.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>
>Sorry. I may not have been clear:
>
>The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's
>numbers... not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM
>estimates are dubious is a relatively small
>consideration... by comparison, that is. Because this
>only brings into question the 20,000 "deaths by
>mistake" (of the 100,000 IOM estimate).
>
>The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious
>disease"😉 cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're
>only human" type reasoning.
>
>This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision
>makers) make the decisions to through out the
>sterilization procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when
>I was in the business). For example, individually
>packaged sterile gloves aren't seen very often around
>the hospital these days. But every room (even surgery
>prep) has a couple of "community glove boxes" sitting
>on the counter or the night stand... for anyone and
>everyone to jam their dirty little hands into and
>contaminate the entire... (you get the picture).
>
>So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
>horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
>infectious diseases.
>
>Then, let's talk about the annual (totally
>unregulated) 880,000,000 private physician visits. Is
>the cross-infection rate (nosocomial) as high or
>higher than the regulated hospitals' cross-infection
>rate?

Let's not. Because that's where you have your Paul Bunyan-
sized axe to grind. And I don't care, because you're
trying to extrapolate from some poorly-defined hospital
data (you aren't starting with what kinds of infections
these are, or how they were transferred, or anything).

Then off you go into the wild blue yonder, with your
meaningless speculations about what is happening in
doctors' offices, based on what's happening in
hospitals (only you don't really know what's happening
in hospitals, or whether it has any relevance to a
doctor's office).

You were a bit easier to take when you were on your
earlier crusades about the Mayo Clinic or whatever. It
was more obvious up front that you were a loon.

David:

The word "take" used in you last paragraph can be 'taken'
several ways. I am not sure how you meant it.

I thought it was fairly unambiguous, but I guess not. I
meant "take" as a synonym for "tolerate".

Quoted message said:

It seems to be difficult to have you focus on a specific
question / issue.

Not really. I just don't feel like playing your game.

Quoted message said:

However, let us try again... and I will begin with a
question:

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be with creditability?

That's not even English. Do you mean "do I find them
credible?" or something else?

Quoted message said:

As stated previously, their (CDC's) figures are actually
conservative when compared with other hospital "exit
polls".

Frankly, you may not be capable of 'discussing' this
subject in a rational way, since (as a physician - which
is an assumption on my part) you are apparently, or may
be, too close to the nucleus. If so, that is certainly
understandable.

I'm not a physician.

Quoted message said:

However, before we end this thread, I am very curious as
to your thoughts concerning the CDC data.

I think it's completely irrelevant to the campaign you are
attempting to wage.

As I recall, your first major foray onto sci.med was to
flame about how the Mayo Clinic had somehow infected you
with inadequately sterlized equipment during a
colonoscopy. Then you vanished for a while, then came back
with a new hobbyhorse about how women were being infected
by improperly sterilized speculums (specula?) during gyn
exams. Now you're pushing a book you've written, and,
golly, it has to do with patients being infected in
doctors' offices.

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability? (Please excuse my error in
inserting the word "with".. my mistake. That is what
sometimes happens with when one changes the sentence
structure.)

But do not allow that to keep you from answering the
question.

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability?

BTW: I was led to believe that you are/were a physician. In
fact, I believe I have ref. to you as doctor or Dr. (more
than once) and was not corrected. Hmmm.

What IS your occupation? Are you assoc. with the medical
profession at all... directely or indirectly? Just curious.

Finally... I find it strange that you the CDC data is
"completely irrelevant to the campaign (I am)
attempting to wage."

I suppose you need to read the book before you can judge
that the data is "completely irrelevant", don't you?

Once again: The CDC has reported that 80,000 hospital pts
die EACH YEAR from iatrogenic infectious diseases. That just
HAPPENS to be 80% of the 100,000 reported by the IOM.

I do not focus on the 100,000 IOM data. I address
specifically the 80,000 CDC data. Cam you now understand the
relevance? The extrapolation technique can then be
addressed, but, if you were really interested, you would
read the book.

Will Author "Fatal Probe" Amazon.com

yelxol said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, yelxol

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

>In article
><[email hidden]>, yelxol
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
>>news:<[email hidden]>...
>>
>>>In article
>>><[email hidden]>,
>>>yelxol <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brad Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:<[email hidden]>...
>>>>
>>>>>I don't visit hospitals very often. Not long ago I
>>>>>went to discuss something with a doctor and left
>>>>>with a severe case of the flu. My friend had to go
>>>>>to get a vaccination, and left with tonsillitis. Are
>>>>>these two isolated incidents, or do you also notice
>>>>>that people often visit a hospital for one reason,
>>>>>and leave with an unrelated infection?
>>>>
>>>>According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), U.S.
>>>>hospitals kill about 100,000 patients every year. But
>>>>the CDC estimates that more than 80% of them ? 80,000
>>>>? die from an infectious disease, which is about 4%
>>>>of "an estimated 2 million annual infections."
>>>
>>>According to articles that analyzed the IOM's
>>>estimates, those estimates are quite dubious. But you
>>>won't bother with that little fact, because it'd
>>>interfere with your crusade.
>>>
>>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>>
>>Sorry. I may not have been clear:
>>
>>The annual 80,000 iatrogenic deaths were CDC's
>>numbers... not the IOM's. Therefore, whether the IOM
>>estimates are dubious is a relatively small
>>consideration... by comparison, that is. Because this
>>only brings into question the 20,000 "deaths by
>>mistake" (of the 100,000 IOM estimate).
>>
>>The much larger segment ("deaths by infectious
>>disease"😉 cannot be so quickly assigned such "We're
>>only human" type reasoning.
>>
>>This is because the hospital staff (and/or decision
>>makers) make the decisions to through out the
>>sterilization procedures used 30 to 40 years ago (when
>>I was in the business). For example, individually
>>packaged sterile gloves aren't seen very often around
>>the hospital these days. But every room (even surgery
>>prep) has a couple of "community glove boxes" sitting
>>on the counter or the night stand... for anyone and
>>everyone to jam their dirty little hands into and
>>contaminate the entire... (you get the picture).
>>
>>So... please address these 80,000 hospital pts who die
>>horrible, protracted deaths every year from iotrogenic
>>infectious diseases.
>>
>>Then, let's talk about the annual (totally unregulated)
>>880,000,000 private physician visits. Is the cross-
>>infection rate (nosocomial) as high or higher than the
>>regulated hospitals' cross-infection rate?
>
>Let's not. Because that's where you have your Paul Bunyan-
>sized axe to grind. And I don't care, because you're
>trying to extrapolate from some poorly-defined hospital
>data (you aren't starting with what kinds of infections
>these are, or how they were transferred, or anything).
>
>Then off you go into the wild blue yonder, with your
>meaningless speculations about what is happening in
>doctors' offices, based on what's happening in hospitals
>(only you don't really know what's happening in
>hospitals, or whether it has any relevance to a doctor's
>office).
>
>You were a bit easier to take when you were on your
>earlier crusades about the Mayo Clinic or whatever. It
>was more obvious up front that you were a loon.
>

David:

The word "take" used in you last paragraph can be 'taken'
several ways. I am not sure how you meant it.

I thought it was fairly unambiguous, but I guess not. I
meant "take" as a synonym for "tolerate".

Quoted message said:

It seems to be difficult to have you focus on a specific
question / issue.

Not really. I just don't feel like playing your game.

Quoted message said:

However, let us try again... and I will begin with a
question:

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be with creditability?

That's not even English. Do you mean "do I find them
credible?" or something else?

Quoted message said:

As stated previously, their (CDC's) figures are actually
conservative when compared with other hospital "exit
polls".

Frankly, you may not be capable of 'discussing' this
subject in a rational way, since (as a physician - which
is an assumption on my part) you are apparently, or may
be, too close to the nucleus. If so, that is certainly
understandable.

I'm not a physician.

Quoted message said:

However, before we end this thread, I am very curious as
to your thoughts concerning the CDC data.

I think it's completely irrelevant to the campaign you are
attempting to wage.

As I recall, your first major foray onto sci.med was to
flame about how the Mayo Clinic had somehow infected you
with inadequately sterlized equipment during a
colonoscopy. Then you vanished for a while, then came back
with a new hobbyhorse about how women were being infected
by improperly sterilized speculums (specula?) during gyn
exams. Now you're pushing a book you've written, and,
golly, it has to do with patients being infected in
doctors' offices.

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability? (Please excuse my error in
inserting the word "with".. my mistake. That is what
sometimes happens with when one changes the sentence
structure.)

But do not allow that to keep you from answering the
question.

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability?

BTW: I was led to believe that you are/were a physician.
In fact, I believe I have ref. to you as doctor or Dr.
(more than once) and was not corrected. Hmmm.

What IS your occupation? Are you assoc. with the medical
profession at all... directely or indirectly? Just
curious.

Finally... I find it strange that you the CDC data is
"completely irrelevant to the campaign (I am) attempting
to wage."

I suppose you need to read the book before you can judge
that the data is "completely irrelevant", don't you?

Once again: The CDC has reported that 80,000 hospital pts
die EACH YEAR from iatrogenic infectious diseases. That
just HAPPENS to be 80% of the 100,000 reported by the IOM.

I do not focus on the 100,000 IOM data. I address
specifically the 80,000 CDC data. Cam you now understand
the relevance? The extrapolation technique can then be
addressed, but, if you were really interested, you would
read the book.

Will Author "Fatal Probe" Amazon.com

The CDC report had no control so the result as you are
interpreting it is not credible.

Joe

In article <[email hidden]>,

yelxol said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I recall, your first major foray onto sci.med was to
flame about how the Mayo Clinic had somehow infected you
with inadequately sterlized equipment during a
colonoscopy. Then you vanished for a while, then came
back with a new hobbyhorse about how women were being
infected by improperly sterilized speculums (specula?)
during gyn exams. Now you're pushing a book you've
written, and, golly, it has to do with patients being
infected in doctors' offices.

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability?

That's still not English. Do you mean "credible?"

Quoted message said:

But do not allow that to keep you from answering the
question.

Once you manage to state the question, I might be able to
answer it.

Quoted message said:

Do you find the CDC's report(s) concerning iatrogenic cross-
infections to be creditability?

Same problem here.

Quoted message said:

BTW: I was led to believe that you are/were a physician. In
fact, I believe I have ref. to you as doctor or Dr. (more
than once) and was not corrected. Hmmm.

I'm a PhD, so I can use the title if I wish. However, I'm
not in the medical field, so on the medical newsgroups, I
generally don't use the title (just to avoid confusion).

Quoted message said:

What IS your occupation? Are you assoc. with the medical
profession at all... directely or indirectly? Just curious.

Sure. I'm a patient. :-)

Quoted message said:

Finally... I find it strange that you the CDC data is
"completely irrelevant to the campaign (I am) attempting
to wage."

I suppose you need to read the book before you can judge
that the data is "completely irrelevant", don't you?

I might read your book if someone gave it to me. I'm
certainly going to do nothing to enrich you by buying it.
However, having seen your mangled attempts at research and
logic before, I'm disinclined to spend much effort on you.

Quoted message said:

Once again: The CDC has reported that 80,000 hospital pts
die EACH YEAR from iatrogenic infectious diseases. That
just HAPPENS to be 80% of the 100,000 reported by the IOM.

So it does. Whether that's of any significance whatever is
another question entirely.

-- 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)

In article <[email hidden]>,

yelxol said:

1. General question: Do you find the CDC's report(s)
concerning iatrogenic cross-infections to be credible?

2. Specific question: Do you 'disbelieve' (or question) the
CDC data that reports 80,000 U.S. hospital pts die each
year from iatrogenic cross-infection?

Better question: do you understand the difference between
"iatrogenic" and 'nocosomial"?

-- 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)