Tuesday, 21 April 2009

MRSA - understanding good statistics

The current flurry of improved MRSA statistics coming from British Health Service Trusts needs a degree of informed interpretation.

Most knowledgeable commentators have some doubts about the NHS statistics being totally free from the malign influence of "targets."

If you pay over the odds for sick animals, the market delivers sick animals in huge numbers, we know that from the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001.

If you pay over the odds for NHS Chief Executives to produce reductions in MRSA, you get statistics that show an improvement.

The greed-driven economy is easy to predict. It produces whatever you pay for, especially if the pay is generous and the payee ruthlessly inadequate and focused on benefiting personally from good results.

That aside, there are perfectly respectable, but still more ominous,reasons why the MRSA figures often show a genuine improvement and probably will continue to do so for some months.

This at a time when the real situation on the ground may well deteriorate further.

NHS MRSA screening has almost reached its objective of universal screening for all elective surgery. The gradual introduction over past months would bring an improvement in the statistics. Enough money has been spent upon it.

Screening NHS style detects about 70 percent of carriers who can be sent home to "clean up" or in emergency situations given a degree of isolation and attention until they are clear.
This, taken together with good ward cleaning, washing hands etc, should and will reduce the rates of MRSA.

Good so far! Well Done NHS.

What are you going to do about the 30 percent missed of human carriers by the nasal swabs?

BUT the statistics of HA - Hospital Acquired - MRSA were always overstated and over the years the writer has staunchly defended the NHS from being blamed for CA - Community Acquired- MRSA. They were carrying the can for incoming patients bringing MRSA into the hospital and spreading it about undetected.

So the situation in the hospital sector may well improve, for a while whilst the situation in the community deteriorates sharply. We can be lulled into believing all is well, when the opposite is the case. All over the world, the attention is shifting dramatically to risks beyond the hospital walls. Eventually MRSA will wash back into the wards from outside.

The European Continental system of "Search and Destroy" with its more reliable testing centred on the obvious risk patients of veterinarians, pig and pork industry patients, will always give better real results, both within the hospitals and outside in the community.

The Continentals have few problems in their hospitals and a clear vision of the problems on the farms and in the meat factories.

Britain, Ireland (with a single exception), Canada and now the United States have chosen a system that may well give some false confidence for a few short months and delay the necessary measures been taken way beyond the hospital doors.

The situation is serious and time is not on our side.

Sunday, 19 April 2009

MRSA - no pets or flying veterinarians

The anticipated campaign of "blame the pets" or perhaps more politically correct "blame the companion animals" is getting under way in the United States.

Thoughtfully suggested as an excuse for MRSA st398, escaping from pig farms and into the hospitals and community, by Britain's bent government vets to their North American colleagues.

The latter who doubtless would have arrived at the same explanation eventually without British help.

So the spin line is clear - "people give MRSA to pets, who give it back to people - just one of those things and nobody's fault."

Perfect disinformation, classically British, perfectly true, but only part of the story.

Alas, if you listen to crooks with the style, flash and dash of Britain's corrupt government vets, it is easy to be seduced onto the easy road to veterinary ruin.

In their blind panic to shift the blame for human deaths to the innocent, they forget something pretty important.

The people most likely to be handling animals other than their owners are likely to be the vets treating them, often for routine procedures.

The people most likely to be giving the pets and their owners MRSA are veterinarians.

Several series of tests have been taken at veterinary conferences. The results?

Vets, especially livestock vets, carry MRSA in disproportionate numbers. The vets, themselves creditably, although not in Britain,have provided the evidence.

Which is why the Dutch and other Continental European countries target veterinarians for special testing and decontamination at the hospital door. They want to stop them spreading it to other patients under their "Search and Destroy" regime, lately adopted by one private hospital in Dublin.

Alas, that bright bit of spin that pets are the problem has hit the floor at great speed. And worse for the vets, the full consequences are yet to be played out.

That passport with those proud words "Veterinary Surgeon" becomes manacle to keep vets close to home, away from international conferences and holiday homes, off airlines with recirculated air.

Cruises, already fraught with epidemics, won't welcome them either.

International travel will become difficult, if not impossible. Try getting back from Florida to Wimbledon by sea these days, if some airline pulls the plug on veterinarians to protect their passengers.

Thanks to Defra's lunatic vets, Britain's 22000 vets are going to have to stay home to help sort out the mess that envelops our farms, hospitals, futures and prosperity.

Seems fair enough. They could and should have stopped the agricultural ministry Maff-Defra from faking the science years ago.

The bet is that American vets will be too smart to be conned by British crooks. They might get grounded but they will stay out of jail.

Saturday, 11 April 2009

MRSA - The law of unintended consequences.

In January 2008, Gordon Brown, British PM, after some confusion, announced MRSA screening for patients on entry to hospitals for elective surgery, to take effect as soon as possible.

He was on TV two days running, making minor corrections on the second occasion.

That seemed perverse, even at the time.

For cost and practicality, the proven Dutch model of thoroughly screening veterinarians, pig and pork workers, would have been preferable.

The Dutch model could been implemented faster and would have saved many lives. It also would have helped stop spread.

But it would have meant an admission that the government veterinary terror squads had caused an international disaster.

Anyway non-descriminatery screening sounds better, especially when you would have to discriminate against the vets currently going from farm to farm spreading disease.

Vets being taken aside for special measures would have alerted the media.

The law of unintended consequences has struck.

It applies to MRSA specifically, but has echoes to all other pig and livestock related diseases.

Screening has just come in for most NHS trusts with all the bally-hoo you would expect.

Recently, I spotted an unusual remark from Ipswich.

"IPSWICH Hospital is winning the war on superbugs today, but in the community the battle is faltering."

Prof. Pennington is admitting community acquired C.Diff rises in Grampian, Scotland

The Chief Medical Officer is talking about the problems of livestock related disease.

The penny has dropped.

Up to the present, it has been very easy for NHS trusts to massage the figures for MRSA or C.Diff by marking them down as "Community Acquired" and failing to mention these cases in their reports.

Livestock related disease was falling into a black hole of non-reporting, as hospitals struggled to deal with the consequences.

Universal screening, prior to elective surgery, not only wrecks that scam, but it actually puts it into reverse.

MRSA screening by a quick nasal swab (which is what is being used)fails to pick up 30 percent. Those 30 percent are now going to turn up in the "hospital acquired" figures.

What are our PR bunnies and their over paid bosses going to do? The change is going to wreck their plans and careers.

They could come out and blame pigs.

They could wait for bad figures and try to explain. That will finger pigs too, indirectly, but will come later.

They could start preparing the ground as Ipswich were doing this week.

They will probably do all three in different places and different times.

Now the general situation is going from bad to worse especially in Britain and Canada, with the United States now following. Frankly, we now face a series of livestock related human epidemics.

All our literature from the shabby to the superb has long prophesied scientists starting a pandemic and, oddly, the governments covering it up in a world of constant surveillance, totalitarianism and personal intimidation under the guise of "Let's not start a panic."

It looks like it's here. We all must have wondered what one would do in such a "theoretical" possibility.

Now, we will all find out.

Friday, 10 April 2009

MRSA - Pigs - Britain's Plan B

This report is compiled from a variety of sources, mostly government.

Sooner or later, Britain’s corrupt State Veterinary Service are going to have to admit that Britain’s pigs have MRSA.

It will become clear that they have been deliberately covering it up for some years.

We know that they are very concerned that the admission will be “misunderstood” by the general public.

The general public will understand perfectly that they have been lied to again and will be lining up to put the boot up some veterinary and political backsides.

The MRSA will probably be St398 and/or a selection of related strains.

There will be continuation of the campaign to blame the Dutch, Danes, illegal immigrants, imaginary terrorists and especially anyone weak and vulnerable.

But that will not be enough. The government vets have been running out of innocent victims to blame for their crimes against humanity.

They plan to use pets or “companion animals” as the cover story. They intend to claim that pets get MRSA from humans and then pass it back to humans.

They do not intend to admit the high level of MRSA carriers within the veterinary profession, who are probably more likely to be the source for any MRSA in cats, dogs and horses.

They have been working hard with some virtually “in-house” animal charities, dominated by vets, to get them to push the “pets are a risk” agenda.

No doubt, the compliant vets hope for even more money and the charities a big increase in donations to spend on “blame the pets” PR and the services of vets.

Defra has been holding consultations with North American veterinary organisations to co-ordinate their new campaign.

So watch for news items appearing featuring Tiddles and Fido with soft compassionate vets and sweet music: together with instructions to consult your vet.

They would have included sweet little old ladies, but I imagine that veterinary blunders, lies and greed will have killed them all off by then.

Friday, 3 April 2009

MRSA returns to P.E.I. hospital nursery

More and more problems at a hospital, in pig country with a history of circovirus problems, that is less than open with the community.


Superbug infection returns to P.E.I. hospital nursery Last Updated: Friday, April 3, 2009 7:19 AM AT

CBC News Three babies born in the last three weeks at Charlottetown's Queen Elizabeth Hospital have tested positive for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, just weeks after an outbreak was declared over.

Two of the babies are infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and officials are still waiting for final test results on the third. The babies are all healthy and have been sent home.

Hospital executive director Rick Adams told CBC News Thursday they still don't know the source of the problem. "We were looking at what is different over the last several weeks,"said Adams.

"Number one, we know we have relaxed our visiting restrictions. Number Two, since the outbreak back in late 2008 was declared over, we slowly relaxed other barrier precautions. In spite of that though, at the same time, we were carrying out or conducting environmental swabs."

Visitor restrictions and requirements for gloves and gowns in the maternity ward were lifted in late February after an outbreak that began last spring was felt to be under control.

Increased infection control measures and visiting restrictions are being put back in place in the maternity unit. All health-care workers will wear gloves, gowns and masks when caring for newborns. In addition, mothers and babies will continue to be screened for MRSA.The only people allowed to visit in the maternal-newborn care area will be partners, grandparents and siblings. Visitors are being restricted to immediate family for gynecology patients.

Adams said at this point staff are not being tested.

Strict rules on cleaning hands upon entering and leaving the hospital are also in place.