40% of new consultations with family doctors are for infectious disease.
Mansfield, OH (PRWEB) June 12, 2004
132,000 U.S. Women Dying Every Year from Iotrogenic Infectious Diseases.
FATAL PROBE by Will Locksley - Six year study of 400 medical records, case files and interviews uncovers what could be the greatest cover-up ever by the American Medical Association.
New release/two weeks: Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, ... Prerelease copy available for download to media as PDF at no charge.
Exerpts from the book, Chapter IX:
Unregulated Private Physicians: A Major Problem for Women
In an average year in the U.S. there are 110 million gynecological examinations in the offices of private practitioners and clinics. At least 3.3 million of them are contracting infectious/contagious diseases.
As discussed in Chapter II, the Institute of Medicine estimates that over 100,000 patients die every year in U.S. hospitals as a result of medical errors or mistakesÂ . and beginning in 1999 that dialogue was sold to the American public in newspaper banners and on TV news programs across the nation. However, the important story is that 80% or 80,000 of those 100,000 patients die from an infectious disease.
This fact Â published by the CDC Â was noted in earlier reports in 1999, but seldom mentioned when reported on in recent years. The 80,000 who die from infectious diseases are conveniently 'bundled in' with the other 20,000, most of whom did die because of medical errors.
Why is this a big deal? Why is this noteworthy? For two primary reasons:
1. Many, if not most of those 80,000 deaths (every year) are preventable.
2. The 80,000 represent only 4% of the estimated 2,000,000 (two million) hospital patients who are actually cross-infected every year.
Most patient-to-patient infections are preventable because they are primarily caused by the conscious, predetermined use of non-sterile devices, non-sterile procedures, non-sterile techniques or some combination thereof. Therefore, these 80,000 yearly deaths are not Âmedical errorsÂ or 'medical mistakes'.
They are caused by or the result of procedures put into place by committees of hospital staffs that make decisions based on discussions with staffs of other hospitals and medical institutions. However, these general procedures are based primarily on the ludicrous, irresponsible guidelines of the CDC and FDA .
A few examples of what causes patient cross-infection:
Failure to sterilize ALL reusable gynecological devices before reuse is not a "medical error", it is a conscious decision.
Failure to use single-use lubricants instead of 'community gel jars' is not a "medical error", it is a conscious decision.
Failure to use sterile or sheathed endoscopes is not a "medical error", it is a conscious decision.
Failure to use individually packaged sterile gloves instead of non-sterile gloves from 'community glove boxes' is not a "medical error" , it is a conscious decision.
To be sure we understand the enormity of this:
Every year 80,000 patients die from preventable cross-infections while seeking medical help in hospitals...a horrible, grotesque, agonizing, slow death...that, in most cases, requires even more medical treatment (money) than the original illness.
(Therefore, this "infection problem" is in actuality an income producer for the medical profession of enormous proportions.)
Note: This is 20 times the number of deaths Â each and every year Â as those caused by terrorists on the one-day attack at the World Trade Center .
Humans do indeed become callous, thick-skinned and even apathetic to recurrent, unceasing revulsions to which they are frequently exposed. The loss of our naivetÃ© as a result of the constantly repeated display of violence and sexual explicitness in the print media, on television and in the movies is a good example .
Though certainly shocking, the 80,000 deaths-from-infection only includes the 33.6 million hospital admissions, not the 880 million yearly visits to private clinics and physiciansÂ offices, where medical errors and infections are virtually impossible to track.
This is because there is virtually no oversight of private doctors and clinics. The public is left to trust the doctors, nurses and other staff to simply Âdo the right thingÂ and not cut cornersÂ in the privacy of their unregulated offices.
Because of this total absence of oversight and lack of infection control units, it is safe to assume the risk of cross-infection is significantly greater in private clinics and doctorsÂ offices than in hospitals.
Once an MD is licensed to practice in a state, there is no oversight of his/her office practices. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the level of standard associated with the examining rooms, the staff, the techniques, the medical devices and the physicians affiliated with private practices and clinics would be found far below those of a highly regulated hospital environment.
Lack of concern for the safety of medical patients becomes clear when one considers the fact that there is an oversight-type office associated with almost every 'blue collar' occupation in every county government Â plumbers, electricians, builders, et al.
Could our government leaders be telling us that the reverence of their plumbing, electrical and building codes are more important than whether or not irresponsible doctors are cross-infecting patients with HIV, HPV, HCV and other deadly pathogens?
Hospitals are required to meet rigorous guidelines in order to pass accreditation standards set by governing bodies, such as The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Hospitals are also held to high standards by state and federal agencies, and almost all hospitals staff an autonomous Infection Control Unit.
In addition, because hospitals have substantially larger budgets, there are far greater resources available to them for achieving and maintaining considerably higher standards than the offices of private physicians . Comparing hospital infection control regulations and procedures with those of physicians' offices and private clinics is certainly an eye-opening view into the enormity of the dangers threatening the private patient'.
However, a causal relationship or ratio between hospital-related infections and all private office-related infections is not suggested. After all, most office visits do not involve highly invasive examinations, in which cross-infections are a much greater risk.
The greater the number of patients of a facility who are infected with one or more diseases, the more likely other patients of that same facility will become cross-infected.
Though most office visits do not involve highly invasive examinations, one large segment does.
More than 110 million of the 880 million yearly visits to private physicians involve unregulated gynecological examinations , and there is as great or greater potential of infection during a gynecological exam than there is during many hospital visits. Combined with the fact that the exam is a highly invasive procedure, a significant percentage of OBGYN patient visits are occasioned by infectious disease complaints.
Infectious disease accounted for 19.0% of the annual visits to private physicians from 1980 through 1996 and visits for females was 27% higher for infectious disease than for males.
"40% of new consultations with family doctors are for infectious disease."
(In addition, it is important to remember that most 'infectious disease' hospital admissions are first seen in a private physicianÂs office.)
Using the 6% yearly infection rate from tightly regulated hospitals, we can estimate the number of women infected during visits to their medical provider each year.
Data gathered from the CDC, the AMA and other organizations indicates that, on average, women visit their doctor's office twice a year. Therefore, we will use half of the 110 million office visits referred to above as our base number.
Applying the 6% hospital infection rate to these 55 million women is more than conservative, in that they are visiting their doctors twice a year, instead of only once, as is the case with most all hospital patients. This, of course gives them a greater 'opportunity' of infection.
Nonetheless, we will apply the conservative 6% rate to the 55 million women, which indicates that 3.3 million women are cross-infected each year with an infectious diseaseÂ during visits to their private doctor or clinic.
As stated in the Introduction, some of these infections may result in the patient becoming cross-infected with something as serious as a life-threatening pathogen: i.e. HIV, HCV, HBV, CJD, HPV (cervical cancer), something as unnerving and troublesome as a yeast infection or one of a number of other infectious/contagious diseases.
An even more somber consideration is: How many of these 3.3 million women die who contract these diseases, and how many of them 'pass it on to' (cross-infect) their matesÂ or to their children?
Again using the CDC numbers ascribed to hospital patients (4% of the 2 million infected hospital patients die from the disease), this would indicate that these iatrogenic infectious diseases are the direct cause of the deaths of 132,000 U.S. womenÂ every year.
If that many women are being cross-infected every year, if that many women are dying, then why isn't it in the news? Why havenÂt women rallied to voice their concerns and complaints?
The Primary Reason:
Symptoms of these diseases do not manifest until 30 to 60 days - or much longer - after the initial infection.
If patients do question their medical providers as to the possibility of contamination during their office visits, they are scoffed at, told the infection was either already present and lying dormant in their system, or that they were infected after the exam.
They are asked if they have had any sexual activity since the exam or, though it may seem ridiculous, within 20, 30 40 years prior to the exam. (See Chapter V.)
The patient is told it would be impossible to contract a disease from a medical instrument. In most cases, the patient has no choice but to accept the word of the doctor. After all, they need her/his help to cure the infectionÂ so it would not be smart to question too much.
Private patient records are treated almost as the private property of the physician or clinic, hospital records are randomly reviewed by JCAHO (see above) and other oversight groups.
In order to stop the atrocious, medieval practice of using non-sterilized gynecological medical instruments, specific rules and protocols must be established that require the sterilization of those reusable devices.
A comprehensive process should be devised that will monitor the examining rooms, the staff, the procedures, the instruments and the physicians affiliated with private practices and clinics; otherwise, women will continue to be unknowingly and unnecessarily infected or cross-infected at the hands of their medical providers.
William Parrish, Editor
# # #