Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AIDing Disease
NRO ^ | June 10, 2005 | Deroy Murdock

Posted on 06/12/2005 5:23:24 PM PDT by neverdem

E-mail Author

Author Archive


to a Friend


11:55 a.m.

AIDing Disease

The real bogeymen are the ones protesting research and development.

Some AIDS activists are impossible to satisfy. While pharmaceutical researchers toil to treat and prevent AIDS, assorted protesters demand so much that drug companies are throwing their hands up in exasperation. Perfectionist groups literally have halted promising drug trials. These militants should desist before they jeopardize even more human lives.

This battle between “patient advocates” and drug manufacturers rages primarily in Africa and Asia, where AIDS spreads as quickly as juicy gossip. Because the third world includes so many AIDS patients, and drugs can be studied most efficiently where diseases move swiftly, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control, among others, chose Cambodia and Cameroon to test Tenofovir, Gilead Science’s HIV-prevention pill.

As Marilyn Chase explained in the May 18 Wall Street Journal, activists insisted that researchers guarantee volunteers “developed-world standards of prevention” and lifelong access to AIDS drugs if they became infected. Normally, such individuals would visit local clinics. Outside demonstrators wanted counseling, condoms, and free needles for Thai intravenous-drug users, plus bleach to sterilize old needles.

“In every war, there are those who collaborate with the enemy,” declares an Act Up-Paris manifesto. “AIDS too has its collaborators: [Including] those who see the epidemic as an opportunity to make money.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if drugs sold at cost, or were free, despite research and development expenses? Wouldn’t it be nice if grocers gave away food?

Act Up-Paris’s idealism sometimes disappears. At a 2004 AIDS conference, it hurled fake blood at and destroyed Gilead’s display case. “Gilead’s greed kills,” protesters bellowed.

Facing such outrage, researchers canceled a Cambodian study last August and suspended one in Cameroon last February. The 2006 goal for determining Tenofovir’s effectiveness has slid to 2007. In those additional twelve months, five million people needlessly could contract HIV. How many will AIDS kill in the same time frame?

“What the developed world’s activists are doing to the developing world is tantamount to murder or genocide,” says Congress of Racial Equality spokesman Niger Innis. He has visited Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, and Thailand to study global health issues. Innis adds: “If AIDS researchers waited for environmental and health standards in developing nations to reach those of the West before they conducted much-needed AIDS trials, you could kiss goodbye a generation of Africans. You can’t wait for purified Poland Spring water to extinguish a fire raging in your house right now.”

Act Up-Paris and the European AIDS Treatment Group even managed to terminate French, German, and Spanish studies of Maraviroc, a prospective AIDS therapy. The group argued that highly immuno-suppressed HIV-positive patients should not try this Pfizer drug as a first treatment.

“At last July’s World AIDS Conference in Bangkok, I saw people splatter red paint on and trash the information booths of several drug companies. They did the same thing two years earlier in Barcelona,” says Abner Mason, executive director of the AIDS Responsibility Project. “This type of activism slows and, in some cases, stops the development of new drugs. This ultimately will mean that millions of people will have nowhere to turn when they need therapy.”

Drug companies are responding to these vandals by retiring their test tubes. Says one pharmaceutical executive: “Activists who hound drug companies, and the incentive system that underpins drug discovery, are directly responsible for depressing R&D for HIV. From a peak of 125 drugs in development in 1998-1999, we are now down to around 80, a 36 percent decline. This is a direct consequence of hostile, unrelenting attacks on the industry. No matter what industry does, no good deed goes unpunished in HIV/AIDS.”

“We are seeing 27 percent fewer companies working in HIV research than there were six years ago,” says American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Roger Bate. “Companies don’t like to be told that they have blood on their hands and that they back genocide. If they are not making money on their research, they’re unlikely to keep funding it. . . These drugs will not be like Lipitor, which made $10.9 billion last year. Compared to such a blockbuster drug, even the best AIDS drug will not earn anywhere near that kind of money.”

While activists scream about profits, AIDS silently kills Africans and Asians by the millions.

Deroy Murdock is a New York–based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: africa; aids; asia; ccr5; cxcr4; deroymurdock; health; hivaids; medicine

1 posted on 06/12/2005 5:23:24 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They should sit down and keep their mouths shut.

2 posted on 06/12/2005 5:30:05 PM PDT by ncountylee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

if coxukrs would keep their mouths and butts shut, there wouldn't be so much AIDS, would there? Sort of proves that misery loves company, even dissimilar company. sad.

3 posted on 06/12/2005 5:30:21 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Leftists killing those they profess to be helping. Sounds a lot like the DNC and the black community with there altruist Utopian welfare state. Do we need anymore evidence that the left are evil.....</p>

4 posted on 06/12/2005 5:32:09 PM PDT by deadrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

AIDS is not caused by HIV IMO. Read the following carefully to learn what the AIDS Lobby is not telling you:

5 posted on 06/12/2005 5:33:20 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; ..

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

6 posted on 06/12/2005 5:34:24 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

When liberals eat their own.

7 posted on 06/12/2005 7:00:17 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC; David Lane; adam_az
Duesberg is out to lunch. The virus has been cultured.
The New England Journal of Medicine
Please sign in for full text and personal services
Original Article
Volume 327:1192-1197 October 22, 1992 Number 17

The use of viral culture and p24 antigen testing to diagnose human immunodeficiency virus infection in neonates. The HIV Infection in Newborns French Collaborative Study Group
M Burgard, MJ Mayaux, S Blanche, A Ferroni, ML Guihard-Moscato, MC Allemon, N Ciraru-Vigneron, G Firtion, C Floch, F Guillot, and et al.


This Article
- Return to Search Result

Tools and Services
- Add to Personal Archive
- Add to Citation Manager
- Notify a Friend
- E-mail When Cited

More Information
- Find Similar Articles
- PubMed Citation

BACKGROUND. Early diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in infants born to infected mothers is important for the infants' medical care, but the presence of maternal antibodies makes serologic tests uninformative. METHODS. In a cohort study of 181 infants born to HIV-infected mothers, we assessed the diagnostic value of HIV viral culture and testing for the presence of p24 antigen. The infants were tested at birth, again during the first 3 months, then followed and tested at the age of at least 18 months. RESULTS. Of the 181 infants, 3 died of HIV infection and 37 were seropositive after the age of 18 months. Viral cultures at birth were positive in 19 of the 40 infected infants and in none of the uninfected infants, yielding a sensitivity of 48 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 32 to 63 percent) and a specificity of 100 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 97 to 100 percent). By the age of three months, 30 of the 40 infants (75 percent) had positive cultures; again, there were no false positive results among the infants who were tested a second time, of the 141 who remained uninfected. The sensitivity of testing for p24 antigen at birth was only 18 percent, with a specificity of 100 percent. The presence of p24 antigen at birth was associated with the development of early and severe HIV-related disease (P less than 0.04). CONCLUSIONS. Viral culture at birth can correctly identify about half of newborns with HIV infection. The fact that this usually sensitive technique fails to identify about half the ultimately infected neonates suggests that vertical transmission of HIV may occur late in pregnancy or during delivery.

Source Information

Laboratory of Microbiology, Hopital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France.

This article has been cited by other articles:


Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

8 posted on 06/12/2005 7:12:21 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; ..

Check comment# 8. Some of you may want to make a note of it for the next time that you come across someone who says HIV has never been cultured, and all that they have is meaningless tests for antibodies.

9 posted on 06/12/2005 7:41:44 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Americalover

please add Americalover to your pings!

10 posted on 06/12/2005 7:44:56 PM PDT by bitt ("There are troubling signs Bush doesn't care about winning a third term." (JH2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; tiamat; ...

==Duesberg is out to lunch. The virus has been cultured.

Someone is out to lunch, but it is not Duesberg. Duesberg has always maintained that HIV can be cultured. He uses the fact that HIV does not kill the very T-cells it's cultured in as yet further proof that HIV is harmless. The following is taken from the Duesberg et al J. Biosci. paper (link in post #5) that you either didn't bother to read or didn't bother to understand:

AIDS Establishment wisdom

"3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing
T-cells (1–3)."

Duesberg et al's response:

"But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on
viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral
DNA integrated into cellular DNA (4, 25). Thus, T-cells
infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce
HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diagnosis
of AIDS are Immortal (9–15)!"

Here, again, is the link to the paper:

11 posted on 06/12/2005 8:26:58 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

PS In case anyone is wondering what Duesberg means by "immortal" means that the T-cells neverdem is referring to are "infected" with HIV and mass produced for the very lucrative HIV antibody tests. HIV mulitiplies in these T-cells forever and ever and ever without ever killing any of them. So much for HIV killing T-cells! These T-cells remain "immortal" because HIV is a harmless retrovirus.

12 posted on 06/12/2005 8:50:37 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC
Thanks for the link, but how does Duesberg explain what appears to be HIV/AIDS in heterosexuals or injection drug users who are not malnourished, those who received transfusions or blood products, and the radical decrease found with Antiretroviral therapy and mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1?

What's killing homosexuals in this country, i.e. what's the etiology? Kaposi's sarcoma, PCP pnuemonia, etc. are only found in folks with compromised immune systems, IIRC.

HIV is found in other cells besides certain T-lymphocytes. The virus just needs to find cells with CD4 molecules and either CCR5 or CXCR4 coreceptors.

Unwelcome guests with master keys: how HIV enters cells and how it can be stopped. .

So what if killing the host organism does not appear to be in the interest of the virus, reproducing itself appears to be its only mission as an intracellular parasite.

13 posted on 06/12/2005 9:40:11 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

==Thanks for the link, but how does Duesberg explain what appears to be HIV/AIDS in heterosexuals or injection drug users who are not malnourished

I would prefer to take one question at a time. Your first question is inquiring about two totally different AIDS categories. Let's take a look at injection drug abusers first. Again, this is from the Duesberg et al paper linked above:

4.3 Prediction 2: Drugs cause AIDS and other diseases

4.3a Literature confirms that illicit recreational drugs
cause AIDS defining and other drug-specific diseases:
We have recently summarized the evidence from over 60
publications, beginning in 1909 (Achard et al 1909),
which prove that regular consumption of illicit recreational
drugs causes all AIDS defining and additional drug-specific
diseases at time and dose-dependent rates (Duesberg
1996b; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). At recreational doses,
addictions ranging from years to over a decade are typically
required to reach pathogenic thresholds. Thus the literature
confirms the original “lifestyle”- or drug AIDS hypothesis.

4.3b Epidemiological drug dose-AIDS-response curves:
In figure 2 (§ 2) we have already shown that the chronology
of the epidemic of illicit drug-use in the US during
the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the US AIDS epidemics,see also Duesberg and Rasnick (1998). A report
from the White House, underwritten by president Clinton,
provides additional data: It states in 1996 that the
number of regular users of illicit recreational drugs in the
US soared from a negligible background in the early
1960s to a high of 25 million, or about 10% of the US
population, in the late 1980s (Clinton and The White
House 1996; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). Since its peak in the late 1980s-early 1990s, the US drug epidemic has
declined to an estimated 13 million regular users in 1996
(Los Angeles Times 1998; White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy 1998), again roughly paralleling
the course of the AIDS epidemic (figure 2).

The Duesberg and Rasnick paper "AIDS Dilemma: Drug Diseases Blamed on a Passenger Virus" (1998) cited in the quotation above can be found here:

14 posted on 06/12/2005 11:36:32 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BTW, if you take the time to carefully read the original link I posted, you will find that most of your questions can be answered in that paper alone.

15 posted on 06/12/2005 11:43:21 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Health Care Personnel and accidental AIDS

NYSNA Continuing Education Online

New York State Mandated
Infection Control and Barrier Precautions


Element I: Responsibility to Adhere to Scientifically Accepted Principles and Practices
Element II: Transmission, Prevention, and Control of Infection
Element III: Engineering and work Practice Controls
Element IV: Barriers and Personal Protective Equipment
Element V: Cleaning, Disinfection, and Sterilization
Element VI: Infection Control Prevention in Healthcare Workers
Appendix A
Appendix B
Download Course
Course Exam
Ask the Instructor
Exit to Menu


Element III: Engineering and Work Practice Controls, Con't.

Work Practice Controls

In addition to risks related to device characteristics described above under engineering controls, there are risks associated with how a task is performed. Work Practice Controls, also known as administrative controls, include policies and procedures regarding work practices that reduce or eliminate the likelihood of exposure by altering the manner in which a task is performed.

Some circumstances or practices increase opportunities for exposure to infectious material; these include percutaneous exposure, mucous membrane/non-intact skin exposure and parenteral exposure.

Development and Implementation of Work Practice Controls: These include the evaluation and revision of the way in which high-risk tasks are performed, such as hand washing and respiratory protection.

Needlestick injuries have been associated with certain work practices such as

  • Recapping;
  • Transferring a body fluid between containers; and
  • Failing to properly dispose of used needles in puncture-resistant sharps containers.

Past studies of needlestick injuries have shown that 10% to 25% occurred when recapping a used needle (Ruben, et al., 1983; Krasinski, et al., 1987; McCormick & Maki, 1981; McCormick, et al., 1991; Yassi & McGill, 1991). Although recapping by hand has been discouraged for some time and is prohibited under the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard (19 CFR 1910.1030) unless no alternative exists, 5% of needlestick injuries in NaSH hospitals are still related to this practice (Figure 2). Injury may occur when a healthcare worker attempts to transfer blood or other body fluids from a syringe to a specimen container, such as a vacuum tube, and misses the target. Also, if used needles or other sharps are left in the work area or are discarded in a sharps container that is not puncture resistant, a needlestick injury may result.

Whenever a needle or other sharp device is exposed, injuries can occur. Data from NaSH show that approximately 38% of percutaneous injuries occur during use and 43% occur after use and before disposal. Causes of percutaneous injuries with hollow-bore needles are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Causes of percutaneous injuries with hollow-bore needles in NaSH hospitals, by % total percutaneous injuries (n=3,057), June 1995 - July 1999. (Source: CDC [1999].)

Percutaneous exposures occur when the skin is pierced, causing a point of entry for blood or other infectious material. Percutaneous injury can occur through handling, disassembly, disposal, reprocessing of needles and other sharps, manipulating needles and other sharps by hand, recapping, removing scalpel blades. During some procedures, such as blind suturing, there is opportunity for injury, due to poor visualization, which can expose the patient as well as the healthcare worker. Whenever the non-dominant hand is opposing or next to a sharp or when bone spicules or metal fragments are present, the risk of percutaneous injury is greater.

Mucous membrane/non-intact skin exposures also increase the risk of exposure to infection. Direct contact with blood or body fluid can occur, as well as through splashing or sprays of blood or body fluid.

Parenteral exposures occur with injection with infectious material or an infusion of contaminated blood products. Transplantation of contaminated organs/tissues also results in parenteral exposure.

Work practice controls begin with an evaluation of the task being done to determine if it is being accomplished in the safest way possible. Work practice controls that help to reduce the risk of exposure to infections include efforts to modify procedures in order to avoid injury. Some examples include:

  • Utilizing a safer device whenever possible

  • Passing sharp instruments by use of designated "safe zones".

  • Disassembling sharp equipment by use of forceps or other devices.

  • Using forceps, suture holder, or other instruments for suturing.

  • Using forceps rather than fingers for holding tissue.

  • Not leaving sharps on a field.

  • Hand washing.

  • Prompt cleaning of blood and body fluid spills.

  • Containing the spill so that exposure to other individuals, equipment, or instruments is prevented until cleaned up.

  • Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) - gloves are mandatory, gowns/aprons are used depending on extent of spill.

  • Wiping up blood with disposable cloth, pour diluted bleach solution (1/4 cup household bleach to 1 gallon water) or other EPA approved agent directly onto the surface, let sit 10 minutes, then wipe with second disposable cloth.

  • Bagging the medical waste according to policy and procedure in your facility; the bag should be labeled with biohazard sign.

  • Worker training and education, for example, this New York State mandatory training in infection control for licensure or relicensure certain health professionals, as well as annual reviews in most healthcare facilities.

  • Monitoring for safe work practices. This is not only an individual professional responsibility, but also quality assurance; risk management and health and safety committees are among those responsible for safe work practices.

Identifying Those at Risk for Exposure

Those at risk for exposure include healthcare workers who are performing a procedure, any assistants in a procedure, those who are near or are observing the performance of a procedure and ancillary personnel. Based on this definition, most of the more than 8 million healthcare workers in the United States are at risk for exposure.

Between 1985 and 2000 (the most current available information), 56 "documented" cases and 138 "possible" cases of occupational Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) transmission cases were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2000) (See Table 1). Nurses and laboratory technicians were most often involved. Percutaneous injury, or needlestick injury, accounted for 49 (89%) of the documented transmissions. Of these, 44 involved hollow-bore needles used for blood collection or insertion of an IV catheter (NIOSH, 1999).

Multiple studies have been conducted to estimate the rate of HIV transmission to workers who were exposed to HIV infected blood through percutaneous injury. Of 6,498 exposures studied, 21 infections followed, for an average transmission rate of 0.3% per injury. Additionally, studies have indicated that the risk of HIV transmission increased when the worker was exposed to a large quantity of blood from a patient, as indicated by (1) a visibly bloody device, (2) a procedure that involved placing a needle in a patient's vein or artery, or (3) a deep injury (NIOSH, 1999).

Table 1. Healthcare workers with documented and possible occupationally acquired AIDS/HIV infection, by occupation, reported through June 2000, United States¹ 



Possible Occupational  Transmission3

Dental worker, including dentist



Embalmer, morgue technician



Emergency medical technician, paramedic



Health aide, attendant



Housekeeper/maintenance worker



Laboratory technician, clinical



Laboratory technician, non-clinical






Physician, non-surgical



Physician, surgical



Respiratory therapist



Technician, dialysis



Technician, surgical



Technician/therapist, other than those listed above



Other healthcare occupations









  1. Healthcare workers are defined as those persons, including students and trainees, who have worked in a health care, clinical, or HIV laboratory setting at any time since 1978. See MMWR 1992;41:823-25.
  2. Healthcare workers who had documented HIV seroconversion after occupational exposure or had other laboratory evidence of occupational infection: 48 had percutaneous exposure, 5 had mucocutaneous exposure, 2 had both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures, and 1 had an unknown route of exposure. Forty-nine healthcare workers were exposed to blood from an HIV-infected person, 1 to visibly bloody fluid, 3 to an unspecified fluid, and 3 to concentrated virus in a laboratory. Twenty-five of these healthcare workers developed AIDS.
  3. These healthcare workers have been investigated and are without identifiable behavioral or transfusion risks; each reported percutaneous or muco-cutaneous occupational exposures to blood or body fluids, or laboratory solutions containing HIV, but HIV seroconversion specifically resulting from an occupational exposure was not documented.

Hepatitis B (HBV) infections have declined significantly due to widespread immunization of healthcare workers with the hepatitis B vaccine, the use of standard precautions and the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. In 1983 17,000 new Hepatitis B infections were estimated among healthcare workers. In 1995, that number declined to 800, a 95% reduction in new cases of HBV. The CDC (1999) reports that since 1994, the number of Hepatitis B infections among healthcare workers has remained steady at approximately 800 annually.

After a single needlestick exposure to HBV infected blood or body fluid, the rate of HBV transmission to susceptible healthcare workers ranges from 6% to 30%. This applies only to those healthcare workers who are not immunized against HBV or who have not had prior infection. Those persons who have antibodies to HBV either from pre-exposure vaccination or prior infection are not at risk.

However, the CDC identifies that only a fraction of healthcare workers are exposed to HBV through percutaneous injuries. While needlesticks are among the most efficient modes of HBV transmission, these exposures probably account for only a minority of HBV infections among healthcare workers . In several investigations of nosocomial hepatitis B outbreaks, most infected healthcare workers could not recall an overt percutaneous injury, although in some studies, up to one third of infected healthcare workers recalled caring for a patient who was HBsAg-positive. In addition, HBV has been demonstrated to survive in dried blood at room temperature on environmental surfaces for at least 1 week. It is possible that HBV infections occurring in healthcare workers with no history of non occupational exposure or occupational percutaneous injury might have resulted from direct or indirect blood or body fluid exposures that inoculated HBV into cutaneous scratches, abrasions, burns, other lesions, or on mucosal surfaces (CDC, 2001).

The rate of infection in healthcare workers with Hepatitis C (HCV) after needlestick or other percutaneous injury averages 1.8% (Alter, 1997). Currently, no vaccine exists to prevent HCV infection. Preventing needlestick injury is the best approach to reducing the risk of infection with HCV. According to the CDC, HCV is not transmitted efficiently through occupational exposures to blood. The average incidence of anti-HCV seroconversion after accidental percutaneous exposure from an HCV-positive source is 1.8%, with one study indicating that transmission occurred only from hollow-bore needles compared with other sharps. Transmission rarely occurs from mucous membrane exposures to blood, and no transmission in healthcare providers has been documented from intact or nonintact skin exposures to blood. Data are limited on survival of HCV in the environment. In contrast to HBV, the epidemiologic data for HCV suggest that environmental contamination with blood containing HCV is not a significant risk for transmission in the healthcare setting, with the possible exception of the hemodialysis setting where HCV transmission related to environmental contamination and poor infection-control practices have been implicated (CDC, 2001).

Exposure to needlestick injury increases the risk of acquiring serious or fatal infections. More than 20 other infections, other than HIV, HVB, and HVC, can be transmitted through needlesticks, including: tuberculosis, syphilis, malaria and herpes (ANA, 1999). The ramifications of such an injury touch every aspect of a person's life, physically, emotionally, professionally, socially, and spiritually.

In addition to healthcare workers, patients in healthcare settings are also at significant risk for infection. In the United States, annually approximately 2 million patients acquire nosocomial infections, at a treatment cost exceeding $4.5 billion (Bures, et al, 2000).

In the US, the reporting of diseases is mandated by state laws and regulations. These laws and regulations, as to which infectious diseases are reportable, vary from state to state. The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System is a cooperative effort that began in 1970 between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and participating hospitals to create a national nosocomial infections database. The database is used to:

  • Describe the epidemiology of nosocomial infections
  • Describe antimicrobial resistance trends
  • Produce nosocomial infection rates to use for comparison purposes.

The data are collected uniformly by trained infection control personnel using surveillance protocols that target inpatients at high risk of infection and are reported routinely to CDC where they are aggregated into the database.

Participation in the NNIS System is voluntary and involves only acute care general hospitals in the United States. Long term care facilities, such as rehabilitation, mental health, and nursing homes are not included in the NNIS System. By law, CDC assures participating hospitals that any information that would permit identification of any individual or institution will be held in strict confidence.

Application of Controls to Reduce or Eliminate Hazards Related to Tuberculosis (TB)

The use of both engineering controls and work practice controls can help to reduce or eliminate the spread of TB. Engineering controls include the use of isolation rooms that provide 6 exchanges per hour. Portable ventilators should be used if appropriate rooms are not available. Negative pressure is needed; keep the patient room door closed. Verify air exchange rate and negative pressure regularly.

NIOSH approved HEPA filter respirators should be worn whenever:

  • Entering rooms of patients with suspected or confirmed TB.

  • Performing high hazard procedures in patients with suspected or confirmed TB, such as aerosolized medication administration, bronchoscopy, or sputum induction.

  • Transporting patient with suspected or confirmed TB in a closed vehicle, even if the patient is wearing a mask.

The use of ultra violet light is an adjunct to other measures.

Work practice controls include the following:

16 posted on 11/21/2005 5:00:07 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson