Discussion:
34,000 patients die every year as a result of medical mistakes in UK alone!
(too old to reply)
Ilena Rose
2006-07-22 15:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Patients' lives are at risk because of 'medical blunders'
By LUCY BALLINGER, Daily Mail

12:33pm 21st July 2006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=396941&in_page_id=1770



Professor Sir Liam Donaldson believes there is too much complacency
about errors in healthcare which can result in the deaths of patients.
Sir Liam will criticise the medical profession in his fifth annual
report, which is published today, for not reducing the number of
mistakes made.

He said the medical profession should learn from the airline industry
how to reduce mistakes.

He told the BBC Ten O'Clock News: "Error is common in healthcare
around the world - something like one in 10 people who receive
hospital care in America, Australia and Britain undergo some sort of
medical error.

"It may just be that their records get confused with another patient's
but in some cases tragically it results in death.

"There's a lot we can learn from the airline industry about reporting
and analysing incidents and taking action to reduce risk.

"Rather than looking at harm and deaths that occur to patients as one
off events, we should look at connections and similarities, the common
causes, and use them as a source for learning and action just as the
airline industry has done."

Last year, a report by the National Audit Office estimated that up to
34,000 patients die every year as a result of medical mistakes.

Sir Liam believes there is complacency about medical mistakes and more
needs to be done to reduce them.

He said: "The airline industry has systematically reduced the risk of
air travel - healthcare hasn't yet done that whichever country we look
at."

The expert also has concerns about the effects of NHS deficits on
public health spending.

He said: "We've had reports at local level that when hospitals have
been in financial crisis there has been a tendency to use whatever
budgets are available to restore them to financial balance.

"It's very important we don't drain local public health budgets dry
for that purpose and we sustain public health programmes for smoking,
for obesity, for sexual health, that are so important for the future
health of our population - and to reduce future demands on the health
service."

In February a shocking survey listed horrifying cases of medical
blunders including a woman who was given a hysterectomy after a
records mix-up, a man who had the wrong testicle removed and a child
who was mistakenly circumcised after doctors visited the wrong home.

Sir Liam's comments come just days after Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of
health watchdog the Healthcare Commission, said the NHS needed to
improve patient safety.

Sir Ian believes although "stuttering progress" towards a
patient-centred service has been made, managing finances properly or
pushing people through the system is sometimes still the priority. He
said there must be "cultural change" within the NHS.

He said: "Safety has to remain at the top of the agenda. Safe care is
the most important thing, and I don't think it has been at the top of
the agenda all the time."

Last week Sir Liam unveiled another report which suggested doctors
could face five-yearly MOT-style check-ups to prove they are safe to
practise. The proposal was unveiled in the wake of the murders by GP
serial killer Dr Harold Shipman.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWAtchWAtch.htm
Skeptic
2006-07-22 21:22:42 UTC
Permalink
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
it's 4 maybe it's 400, I don't know. They don't define what includes a
medical error. They say 1 in 10 patients is a victim of some sort of
medical error. How many actually result in some adverse event is not known
or even commented on as a guess. For example, sending a bed to bring a
patient for an XRay instead of a wheelchair is a medical error but results
in harm to the patient or anyone else involved. It would be entirely
inconsequential. They talk about the airlines making changes to improve
safety, yet despite the known changes there is no evidence that these
changes have ever lead to any improved safety. And there have been changes
made in medicine, namely in residency where the most hours are logged, with
limitations on the number of consecutive hours that can be worked and hours
per week.

Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*, you
think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have a
dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no knowledge in
this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and therefore will
limit your interactions in this arena to selected news articles.
Post by Ilena Rose
Patients' lives are at risk because of 'medical blunders'
By LUCY BALLINGER, Daily Mail
12:33pm 21st July 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=396941&in_page_id=1770
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson believes there is too much complacency
about errors in healthcare which can result in the deaths of patients.
Sir Liam will criticise the medical profession in his fifth annual
report, which is published today, for not reducing the number of
mistakes made.
He said the medical profession should learn from the airline industry
how to reduce mistakes.
He told the BBC Ten O'Clock News: "Error is common in healthcare
around the world - something like one in 10 people who receive
hospital care in America, Australia and Britain undergo some sort of
medical error.
"It may just be that their records get confused with another patient's
but in some cases tragically it results in death.
"There's a lot we can learn from the airline industry about reporting
and analysing incidents and taking action to reduce risk.
"Rather than looking at harm and deaths that occur to patients as one
off events, we should look at connections and similarities, the common
causes, and use them as a source for learning and action just as the
airline industry has done."
Last year, a report by the National Audit Office estimated that up to
34,000 patients die every year as a result of medical mistakes.
Sir Liam believes there is complacency about medical mistakes and more
needs to be done to reduce them.
He said: "The airline industry has systematically reduced the risk of
air travel - healthcare hasn't yet done that whichever country we look
at."
The expert also has concerns about the effects of NHS deficits on
public health spending.
He said: "We've had reports at local level that when hospitals have
been in financial crisis there has been a tendency to use whatever
budgets are available to restore them to financial balance.
"It's very important we don't drain local public health budgets dry
for that purpose and we sustain public health programmes for smoking,
for obesity, for sexual health, that are so important for the future
health of our population - and to reduce future demands on the health
service."
In February a shocking survey listed horrifying cases of medical
blunders including a woman who was given a hysterectomy after a
records mix-up, a man who had the wrong testicle removed and a child
who was mistakenly circumcised after doctors visited the wrong home.
Sir Liam's comments come just days after Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of
health watchdog the Healthcare Commission, said the NHS needed to
improve patient safety.
Sir Ian believes although "stuttering progress" towards a
patient-centred service has been made, managing finances properly or
pushing people through the system is sometimes still the priority. He
said there must be "cultural change" within the NHS.
He said: "Safety has to remain at the top of the agenda. Safe care is
the most important thing, and I don't think it has been at the top of
the agenda all the time."
Last week Sir Liam unveiled another report which suggested doctors
could face five-yearly MOT-style check-ups to prove they are safe to
practise. The proposal was unveiled in the wake of the murders by GP
serial killer Dr Harold Shipman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWAtchWAtch.htm
john
2006-07-23 11:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
Post by Skeptic
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*, you
think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have a
dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no knowledge in
this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and therefore will
limit your interactions in this arena to selected news articles.
Avoid the monopoly medicine--Allopathy, which is 98% useless
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html
cathyb
2006-07-23 11:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
Post by Skeptic
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*, you
think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have a
dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no knowledge in
this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and therefore will
limit your interactions in this arena to selected news articles.
Avoid the monopoly medicine--Allopathy, which is 98% useless
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html
I see Skeptic was right: you have nothing to add but a link to your
site:

"As described on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-vaccinationists:
" large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the
whale,
illuminati, "weird science" and stuff which is not corrected to reflect

demonstrated mistakes."

Or, as I've said before, the site with the shite.

With thanks to HCN.
Skeptic
2006-07-23 21:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
David Wright
2006-07-23 21:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
Not all of it. But the ADR numbers are based on Lazarou's meaningless
article, they blame doctors for all the deaths due to bedsores and
malnutrition, etc. So the totals are crap.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Jan Drew
2006-07-24 04:20:20 UTC
Permalink
That's what David would like to believe.
Post by David Wright
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit.
Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
Not all of it. But the ADR numbers are based on Lazarou's meaningless
article, they blame doctors for all the deaths due to bedsores and
malnutrition, etc. So the totals are crap.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Jan Drew
2006-07-24 04:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit.
Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.

Prove it.
george conklin
2006-07-24 12:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
He should know because the real data are hidden by law in secret discussions
and the patients get only coverups or outright lies. Patients are never
told a damn thing except, "Sue." About 99% do nothing, which is what is
expected. In the mantime, insurance companies simply pay the increased
bills, no questions asked.
Skeptic
2006-07-25 00:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this point
has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to disprove non
existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the existence of
god.
Jan Drew
2006-07-25 07:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this point
has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to disprove
non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the existence
of god.
I see you have no proof.
George Conklin
2006-07-25 12:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this point
has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to disprove
non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the existence
of god.
I see you have no proof.
I just made that comment above. Personal opinions based on secret
conferences are useless. But to then state that because the data are secret
only those in the know can comment on their own performance is simply
circular reasoning. The result is that nothing gets done.
Skeptic
2006-07-26 00:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this
point has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to
disprove non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the
existence of god.
I see you have no proof.
No, I have no proof that your imaginary numbers are not real.
Jan Drew
2006-07-26 06:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this
point has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to
disprove non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the
existence of god.
I see you have no proof.
No, I have no proof that your imaginary numbers are not real.
You have no proof that I have imaginary numbers.

Ready to stop lying...now?
George Conklin
2006-07-26 11:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this
point has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to
disprove non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove the
existence of god.
I see you have no proof.
No, I have no proof that your imaginary numbers are not real.
No you don't. You just assert.
Mark Probert
2006-07-26 21:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
all estimates and based on faulty data.
So you say.
Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one presenting the data, which to this
point has only been loosely referred to in news articles. I need to
disprove non existent data no more than an atheist needs to disprove
the
Post by Skeptic
Post by Jan Drew
Post by Skeptic
existence of god.
I see you have no proof.
No, I have no proof that your imaginary numbers are not real.
No you don't. You just assert.
Hmmm...what appears to be a double negative....

Skeptic said he has no proof, and you disagreed with him, thus implying
that he does have proof.

Can you postulate a reason why Skeptic would not post his proof that you
claim he has?
Mark Probert
2006-07-24 15:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
george conklin
2006-07-24 15:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
Jan Drew
2006-07-24 19:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
Uh huh.

Shhhhhhhh......
Mark Probert
2006-07-24 22:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a low
estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
When facts are scarce, use conspiracies instead.
Jan Drew
2006-07-25 00:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Probert
Post by george conklin
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
When facts are scarce, use conspiracies instead.
Translation:

I cannot refute. Mention *ye ole conspiracies*.
Skeptic
2006-07-25 00:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
Well, at least you are admitting here that you don't have any idea about the
number of "medical errors" that actually occur and all we have are widely
varying guestimates with those guessing the largest numbers getting the most
press.
George Conklin
2006-07-25 00:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Mark Probert
Post by Skeptic
Post by john
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe
USA is 780,000 http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html so 34,000 would be a
low estimate, more like 100,000--150,000
all estimates and based on faulty data.
If the data was not faulty, there would be no need for estimates.
If errors were not kept in SECRET, then there would be no need for
estimates.
Well, at least you are admitting here that you don't have any idea about the
number of "medical errors" that actually occur and all we have are widely
varying guestimates with those guessing the largest numbers getting the most
press.
So you are admitting that the medial/industrial complex is afraid of
public disclosure of its errors and hides its mistakes while feeding crap to
the public.
george conklin
2006-07-23 12:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
it's 4 maybe it's 400, I don't know. They don't define what includes a
medical error. They say 1 in 10 patients is a victim of some sort of
medical error. How many actually result in some adverse event is not
known or even commented on as a guess. For example, sending a bed to
bring a patient for an XRay instead of a wheelchair is a medical error but
results in harm to the patient or anyone else involved. It would be
entirely inconsequential. They talk about the airlines making changes to
improve safety, yet despite the known changes there is no evidence that
these changes have ever lead to any improved safety. And there have been
changes made in medicine, namely in residency where the most hours are
logged, with limitations on the number of consecutive hours that can be
worked and hours per week.
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*, you
think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have a
dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no knowledge in
this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and therefore will
limit your interactions in this arena to selected news articles.
The report posted is nothing really new. The report was international in
scope and once again brings out the problem that while in the airline
industry mistakes are public and carefully examined to prevent future
problems, in the medical business mistakes are, by law, hidden and never
revealed and covered up. Thus there is never the slightest push for a
system change which could reduce errors. Every hospital has different ways
of doing the same thing and obviously many are superior to others, but each
stays with its own system regardless of outcome.
Skeptic
2006-07-23 21:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit. Maybe
it's 4 maybe it's 400, I don't know. They don't define what includes a
medical error. They say 1 in 10 patients is a victim of some sort of
medical error. How many actually result in some adverse event is not
known or even commented on as a guess. For example, sending a bed to
bring a patient for an XRay instead of a wheelchair is a medical error
but results in harm to the patient or anyone else involved. It would be
entirely inconsequential. They talk about the airlines making changes to
improve safety, yet despite the known changes there is no evidence that
these changes have ever lead to any improved safety. And there have been
changes made in medicine, namely in residency where the most hours are
logged, with limitations on the number of consecutive hours that can be
worked and hours per week.
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*, you
think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have a
dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no knowledge
in this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and therefore
will limit your interactions in this arena to selected news articles.
The report posted is nothing really new. The report was international in
scope and once again brings out the problem that while in the airline
industry mistakes are public and carefully examined to prevent future
problems, in the medical business mistakes are, by law, hidden and never
revealed and covered up. Thus there is never the slightest push for a
system change which could reduce errors. Every hospital has different
ways of doing the same thing and obviously many are superior to others,
but each stays with its own system regardless of outcome.
Spoken like someone with no medical knowledge or experience.
george conklin
2006-07-23 22:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an upper
limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower limit.
Maybe it's 4 maybe it's 400, I don't know. They don't define what
includes a medical error. They say 1 in 10 patients is a victim of some
sort of medical error. How many actually result in some adverse event
is not known or even commented on as a guess. For example, sending a
bed to bring a patient for an XRay instead of a wheelchair is a medical
error but results in harm to the patient or anyone else involved. It
would be entirely inconsequential. They talk about the airlines making
changes to improve safety, yet despite the known changes there is no
evidence that these changes have ever lead to any improved safety. And
there have been changes made in medicine, namely in residency where the
most hours are logged, with limitations on the number of consecutive
hours that can be worked and hours per week.
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*,
you think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to have
a dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no
knowledge in this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and
therefore will limit your interactions in this arena to selected news
articles.
The report posted is nothing really new. The report was international
in scope and once again brings out the problem that while in the airline
industry mistakes are public and carefully examined to prevent future
problems, in the medical business mistakes are, by law, hidden and never
revealed and covered up. Thus there is never the slightest push for a
system change which could reduce errors. Every hospital has different
ways of doing the same thing and obviously many are superior to others,
but each stays with its own system regardless of outcome.
Spoken like someone with no medical knowledge or experience.
Do you want to be known as a coverup artist too? You cannot bully your way
through international reports.
Skeptic
2006-07-23 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
The quote was "up to" which means they have no idea. They gave an
upper limit for their guess of 34, 000. They didn't give a lower
limit. Maybe it's 4 maybe it's 400, I don't know. They don't define
what includes a medical error. They say 1 in 10 patients is a victim
of some sort of medical error. How many actually result in some
adverse event is not known or even commented on as a guess. For
example, sending a bed to bring a patient for an XRay instead of a
wheelchair is a medical error but results in harm to the patient or
anyone else involved. It would be entirely inconsequential. They talk
about the airlines making changes to improve safety, yet despite the
known changes there is no evidence that these changes have ever lead to
any improved safety. And there have been changes made in medicine,
namely in residency where the most hours are logged, with limitations
on the number of consecutive hours that can be worked and hours per
week.
Now if you have anything constructive to add as what, *specifically*,
you think should be done to improve patient safety, I'd be happy to
have a dialogue on that important issue. But I suspect you have no
knowledge in this area and can't contribute in any meaningful way and
therefore will limit your interactions in this arena to selected news
articles.
The report posted is nothing really new. The report was international
in scope and once again brings out the problem that while in the airline
industry mistakes are public and carefully examined to prevent future
problems, in the medical business mistakes are, by law, hidden and never
revealed and covered up. Thus there is never the slightest push for a
system change which could reduce errors. Every hospital has different
ways of doing the same thing and obviously many are superior to others,
but each stays with its own system regardless of outcome.
Spoken like someone with no medical knowledge or experience.
Do you want to be known as a coverup artist too? You cannot bully your
way through international reports.
Your rants are old. If you believe yourself to be right, then go on and
post some factual data. Otherwise, your numbers (again, based on crappy
data) are meaningless guestimates.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-22 23:04:32 UTC
Permalink
FYI

Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306

"Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more
that $136 billion a year in United States. These estimates are higher
than the total cost of cardiovascular care or diabetes care in the
United States. A major component of these costs is adverse drug
reactions (ADE). In addition, ADEs may account for up to 140,000 deaths
annually in the United States. More than 2 decades ago, seminal work by
the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Project estimated that
approximately 30% of hospitalized patients experience adverse events
attributable to drugs and that from 3% to 28% of all hospital
admissions are related to ADEs. Moreover, fatal ADEs are expected in
approximately 0.31% of hospitalized patients in the United States.

... At the LDS Hospital [A teaching hospital affiliated with the
University of Utah School of Medicine] approximately 2.4% of all
patients develop an ADE. These are not rare and unusual events; indeed,
as in the Harvard Medical Practice Study, they are quite common. In a
recent study the rate of ADEs was even higher at 6.5% ... If these
figures are extrapolated to the United States as a whole, using LDS
Hospital ADE occurrence rates and an estimated 32 million yearly
hospital visits, then over 770,000 hospitalized patients in the United
States experience an ADE, and the direct hospital costs to treat these
events are approximately $1.56 billion annually. If a higher rate of
ADEs is assumed, as in the study by Bates et al, then the annual figure
for hospital costs alone would be $4.2 billion and the national excess
hospital length of stay attributable to ADEs would exceed 1.5 million
hospital days. These costs reflect only the direct hospital costs to
treat ADEs only, and they do not include the costs associated with
outpatient treatment or disability, which could raise this estimate by
an order of magnitude. Indeed, 1 estimate put the costs of drug
misadventures in the United States at $79 billion. As others have
noted, little attention has been focused on the detection and of ADEs
by hospitals, professional organizations, or by the government."
David Wright
2006-07-23 20:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
FYI
Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306
1997. Hot off the press.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Jan Drew
2006-07-23 21:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
FYI
Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306
1997. Hot off the press.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
David would like something new....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9818616/

A routine epidural turns deadly


Free video.


Excerpt:


Infections contracted in hospitals are the fourth largest killer in the
United States, causing as many deaths as AIDS, breast cancer and auto
accidents combined.


- One out of every 20 hospital patients gets an infection. That's 2 million
Americans a year, and an estimated 103,000 of them die.


- The single most important way to reduce hospital infection, according to
the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is for doctors and
other health care workers to clean their hands in between treating patients.


Source: Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Committee to Reduce
Infection Deaths, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-23 22:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.

Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761

"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
Post by David Wright
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
FYI
Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306
1997. Hot off the press.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Skeptic
2006-07-23 23:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-24 02:02:08 UTC
Permalink
I have the study in front of me. Among many others. Thank you.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
Skeptic
2006-07-24 02:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Good for you. The next step is to read them.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
I have the study in front of me. Among many others. Thank you.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-24 02:48:14 UTC
Permalink
I have ... here are some quotes from the study sir. Do you regularly
read Drug Safety? Enjoy your day.

"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."

"The importance of quantifying ADEs is particularly apparent in the
case of drug treatment for children, women of child-bearing age, and
the elderly. Because these population groups are exposed to medications
almost entirely in the postmarketing phase of drug use, there is no
systematic examination of the outcomes of medication use as would exist
if the medication were given as part of the clinical trial."

"Federal government agencies in North America (the US FDA and Health
Canada) have voluntary ADE reporting systems for healthcare
professionals and mandatory reporting systems for pharmaceutical
companies. It is unclear what proportion of ADEs are reported by
practicing clinicians directly to the FDA, but it is believed to be
less than the proportion reported through the pharmaceutical industry.
Between mid-1997 and mid-1998, physicians reported 2083 ADEs to the
FDA. If one assumes that 1997 is a typical reporting year, US
physicians report an ADE to the FDA once every 336 years, based on the
number of licensed physicians in the US. During the same reporting
period, pharmacists in the US reported 7406 ADEs to the FDA. US
pharmacists fare a bit better in the frequency analysis, reporting an
ADE to the FDA once every 26 years, based on the number of licensed
pharmacists in the US. Health-related accreditation bodies estimate
that as many as 95% of all ADEs are not reported, supporting the need
to stimulate reporting on a large-scale basis."

"National public health agencies are in a unique position to conduct
systematic revies of ADEs. These agencies have access to published and
unpublished ADE data, which will strengthen the validity of such
reviews."

"Although ADE data collected from RCTs [Randomized Controlled Trials]
may not reflect ADEs that may be seen in a real clinical setting (as
clinical trials are conducted in a more controlled setting),
randomization and blinding in these studies usually alleviate biases
and confounding that may exist in observational pharmacovigilance
studies."

"Recently, clinicians and scientists have come to realize that
systemic reviews of RCTs can be a valuable tool for combining both
efficacy and toxicity data in RCTs. However, the majority of published
systematic reviews are those of efficacy data and the number of
published reviews on ADEs is small. We conducted a Medline search (from
1966 until September 2003) using the terms 'adverse drug events',
'adverse drug reactions', 'drug toxicity', and combining them
with 'meta-analysis' or 'systematic reviews'. Our search only
resulted in 21 systematic reviews of ADEs."

"One solution may be for the US National Library of Medicine to
systematically index ADEs in clinical trials where these events are
reported in the publication."

"One approach in overcoming this problem is to develop strict
criteria for reporting ADEs in clinical trials. Such criteria must
concentrate on an active organ system-based reporting of ADEs. Some of
these criteria have been developed, but are still not widely used."

"Systematic reviews of ADEs have the potential to be a valuable
resource to clinicians. However, poor quality of ADE reporting in RCTs
has made it difficult to use systematic reviews as an effective and
efficient tool in quantifying ADEs. Stricter guidelines on the
reporting of ADEs in clinical trials will enable future clinical
scientists to use systematic reviews of ADEs in their clinical
decision-making process."
george conklin
2006-07-24 12:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane accidents,
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as long as
the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences, and patients
are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone posing as a
physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will never get
the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
Skeptic
2006-07-25 00:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane accidents,
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as long
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences, and
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone posing as
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will never
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing medical
errors, FYI.
George Conklin
2006-07-25 00:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane accidents,
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as long
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences, and
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone posing as
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will never
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing medical
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue. The
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told. As for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is public
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high. No one
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden. Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put into
place, medical errors will continue.
Skeptic
2006-07-25 02:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane
accidents,
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as
long
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences, and
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone posing
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will
never
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing medical
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue. The
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told. As for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is public
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high. No one
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden.
Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put into
place, medical errors will continue.
Medical errors will continue regardless of what type of system you employ.
Human error can be reduced but not eliminated. I don't think moving to a
more "public" sytem would lead to better outcomes. There is no reason to
think it would and certainly no data to support that thought. Patients are
notified of mistakes, at least of ones that may impact their care. I can't
speak for all facets of medicine, but when something I've done impacts a
patient (such as a surgical complication), he or she knows about from me.
Since you don't participate in these "secret conferences" we have, you don't
how effective they are or are not and can't comment intelligently on them.
I attend them regularly year round and they have a critical role in
improving outcomes.
George Conklin
2006-07-25 12:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When you do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane
accidents,
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as
long
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences, and
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone posing
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will
never
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing medical
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue.
The
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told. As for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is public
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high. No one
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden.
Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put into
place, medical errors will continue.
Medical errors will continue regardless of what type of system you employ.
Human error can be reduced but not eliminated.
Correct, but not the issue. The public analysis of human error and changes
in the system to prevent such error in the future is what airline analysis
is all about. The issue is public which results in changes in the system.
The medical industry never really changes systems, just accesses blame, as
in lawsuits.


I don't think moving to a
Post by Skeptic
more "public" sytem would lead to better outcomes. There is no reason to
think it would and certainly no data to support that thought.
Sure there is: the airline business was the example used.

Patients are
Post by Skeptic
notified of mistakes, at least of ones that may impact their care.
Are you kidding me? Mistakes are put off as predicted complications.
For example, if the colon is ruptured during a routine colonosopy, it is
written off as an expected complication. The patient gets a serious
operation and a $35,000 bill, plus about 6 weeks off from work and quite a
bit of pain. They also get dismissive comments from the physicians who
answer no questions. This happened to the departmental secretary. Would
you want the person who ruptured your colon 'fixing' it?

I can't
Post by Skeptic
speak for all facets of medicine, but when something I've done impacts a
patient (such as a surgical complication), he or she knows about from me.
See above. Errors are called complications and the forms you sign as a
patient calls all errors and omissions complications.
Post by Skeptic
Since you don't participate in these "secret conferences" we have, you don't
how effective they are or are not and can't comment intelligently on them.
The airline industry could say the same thing, but it is the PUBLIC
disclosure and discussions which make for system changes. Secret
conferences do none of that. Comparison of errors across hospitals and
systematic changes can never happen in secret. The case of high mortality
rates for heart bypass operations in New York State for one hospital came
about not from secret conferences, but from system-wide comparisons of
mortality. They then sent in a team to see what was wrong at the HOSPITAL,
not with individual physicians. And the discovered that operating too soon
after a heart attack was the issue. When the changed that practice,
mortality rates FELL to average amounts. That kind of change comes out only
from public analysis of data, by people who are qualified to do that.
Indiviudal physicians are not even remotely qualified to do that.
Post by Skeptic
I attend them regularly year round and they have a critical role in
improving outcomes.
No proof, just your personal opinion. And that is the problem. See above.
Only when the best practices across a wide range of hospitals are known can
real recommendations be made. When each hospital has its own secret
procedures discussed in secret, you are just in the game of covering up
outcomes, not improving them.
Skeptic
2006-07-26 00:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying
Adverse
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated
to
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the
US
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When
you
do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane
accidents,
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as
long
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences,
and
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone
posing
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will
never
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing
medical
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue.
The
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told. As for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is public
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high. No
one
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden.
Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put
into
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
place, medical errors will continue.
Medical errors will continue regardless of what type of system you employ.
Human error can be reduced but not eliminated.
Correct, but not the issue.
It is, actually. You want perfection. There is none.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
The public analysis of human error and changes
in the system to prevent such error in the future is what airline analysis
is all about. The issue is public which results in changes in the system.
The medical industry never really changes systems, just accesses blame, as
in lawsuits.
I don't think moving to a
Post by Skeptic
more "public" sytem would lead to better outcomes. There is no reason to
think it would and certainly no data to support that thought.
Sure there is: the airline business was the example used.
Pilots are not doctors and success of one industry does not mean success in
another. Just speculation on your part.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Patients are
Post by Skeptic
notified of mistakes, at least of ones that may impact their care.
Are you kidding me?
No, that is a statement of fact.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Mistakes are put off as predicted complications.
You need to learn the difference between a mistake and an accepted
complication.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
For example, if the colon is ruptured during a routine colonosopy, it is
written off as an expected complication.
There is no such thing as an "expected complication".
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
The patient gets a serious
operation and a $35,000 bill, plus about 6 weeks off from work and quite a
bit of pain. They also get dismissive comments from the physicians who
answer no questions. This happened to the departmental secretary. Would
you want the person who ruptured your colon 'fixing' it?
I've explained this to you before. Listen up George:

Most colonoscopies in the US are done by MEDICAL doctors. All perforations
in the US are repaired by SURGEONS. Thus, the doctor repairing rarely is
the one who created the problem.

But hey, thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
I can't
Post by Skeptic
speak for all facets of medicine, but when something I've done impacts a
patient (such as a surgical complication), he or she knows about from me.
See above. Errors are called complications and the forms you sign as a
patient calls all errors and omissions complications.
There are known complications of surgery. If a doctor were to be left hung
out to dry for every occurrence of a known possible complication, surgery
would cease in the US. Period.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Since you don't participate in these "secret conferences" we have, you
don't
Post by Skeptic
how effective they are or are not and can't comment intelligently on them.
The airline industry could say the same thing, but it is the PUBLIC
disclosure and discussions which make for system changes. Secret
conferences do none of that.
Flying a plane is an extraordinarily simple task when compared to navigating
the human body, it's anatomy and phsyiology, and all the potential disease
processes involved.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Comparison of errors across hospitals and
systematic changes can never happen in secret. The case of high mortality
rates for heart bypass operations in New York State for one hospital came
about not from secret conferences, but from system-wide comparisons of
mortality. They then sent in a team to see what was wrong at the HOSPITAL,
not with individual physicians. And the discovered that operating too soon
after a heart attack was the issue. When the changed that practice,
mortality rates FELL to average amounts. That kind of change comes out only
from public analysis of data, by people who are qualified to do that.
Indiviudal physicians are not even remotely qualified to do that.
Do what, evaluate mortality rates? I beg to differ.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
I attend them regularly year round and they have a critical role in
improving outcomes.
No proof, just your personal opinion.
An opinion based on information that you aren't privy to. At least my
opinions have a basis in something other than conspiracy theories.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
And that is the problem. See above.
Only when the best practices across a wide range of hospitals are known can
real recommendations be made. When each hospital has its own secret
procedures discussed in secret, you are just in the game of covering up
outcomes, not improving them.
Advice: If you're going to get a heart bypass surgery, you are free to ask
and SHOULD ask about success rates, mortality rates, etc etc etc. That
information IS important, I agree - and is available to any prospective
patient who asks.
George Conklin
2006-07-26 11:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying
Adverse
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated
to
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the
US
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When
you
do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane
accidents,
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But as
long
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential) conferences,
and
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone
posing
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public will
never
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality? Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing
medical
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue.
The
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told.
As
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is public
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high.
No
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
one
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden.
Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put
into
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
place, medical errors will continue.
Medical errors will continue regardless of what type of system you employ.
Human error can be reduced but not eliminated.
Correct, but not the issue.
It is, actually. You want perfection. There is none.
Wrong. Errors are so common now because the systems to prevent them are
not in place, nor will they ever be place when errors are kept secret.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
The public analysis of human error and changes
in the system to prevent such error in the future is what airline analysis
is all about. The issue is public which results in changes in the system.
The medical industry never really changes systems, just accesses blame, as
in lawsuits.
I don't think moving to a
Post by Skeptic
more "public" sytem would lead to better outcomes. There is no reason to
think it would and certainly no data to support that thought.
Sure there is: the airline business was the example used.
Pilots are not doctors and success of one industry does not mean success in
another. Just speculation on your part.
No, concrete examples were provided, as in the heart bypass situation in
New York State. Systems need to be changed. You see errors as simple human
failures alone.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Patients are
Post by Skeptic
notified of mistakes, at least of ones that may impact their care.
Are you kidding me?
No, that is a statement of fact.
Patients only know about an error if they sue. Otherwise they are told
they have complications covered under the massive paperwork which they must
sign. Ruptured colon following an exam? Predicted complication, never an
error.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Mistakes are put off as predicted complications.
You need to learn the difference between a mistake and an accepted
complication.
There is none as far as the patient is concerned.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
For example, if the colon is ruptured during a routine colonosopy, it is
written off as an expected complication.
There is no such thing as an "expected complication".
Ha Ha Ha. You just change the vocabulary and then you post. If your
colon is rutpured, you are simply told that that happens, tough luck.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
The patient gets a serious
operation and a $35,000 bill, plus about 6 weeks off from work and quite a
bit of pain. They also get dismissive comments from the physicians who
answer no questions. This happened to the departmental secretary.
Would
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
you want the person who ruptured your colon 'fixing' it?
Most colonoscopies in the US are done by MEDICAL doctors. All
perforations
Post by Skeptic
in the US are repaired by SURGEONS. Thus, the doctor repairing rarely is
the one who created the problem.
You mean just his good friend who gets the call? The same hospital gets
the business, and the billing went to the same unit, and insurance company
paid, of course, minus hundreds of things 'not covered' and billed directly
to the patient.
Post by Skeptic
But hey, thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.
Being nasty does not stop errors. You argue vocabulary, not results,
which is typical.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
I can't
Post by Skeptic
speak for all facets of medicine, but when something I've done impacts a
patient (such as a surgical complication), he or she knows about from me.
See above. Errors are called complications and the forms you sign as a
patient calls all errors and omissions complications.
There are known complications of surgery. If a doctor were to be left hung
out to dry for every occurrence of a known possible complication, surgery
would cease in the US. Period.
The RATES of errors are widely different, and the systems in place are the
problem. The systems are never fixed.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Since you don't participate in these "secret conferences" we have, you
don't
Post by Skeptic
how effective they are or are not and can't comment intelligently on them.
The airline industry could say the same thing, but it is the PUBLIC
disclosure and discussions which make for system changes. Secret
conferences do none of that.
Flying a plane is an extraordinarily simple task when compared to navigating
the human body, it's anatomy and phsyiology, and all the potential disease
processes involved.
That shows even more why systems need to be studied. You have it
backwards as usual.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Comparison of errors across hospitals and
systematic changes can never happen in secret. The case of high mortality
rates for heart bypass operations in New York State for one hospital came
about not from secret conferences, but from system-wide comparisons of
mortality. They then sent in a team to see what was wrong at the HOSPITAL,
not with individual physicians. And the discovered that operating too soon
after a heart attack was the issue. When the changed that practice,
mortality rates FELL to average amounts. That kind of change comes out only
from public analysis of data, by people who are qualified to do that.
Indiviudal physicians are not even remotely qualified to do that.
Do what, evaluate mortality rates? I beg to differ.
Absolutely. In the case cited, they changed the system at one hospital
and its death rates declined sharply. It was a real success story, but one
seldom found in medicine since the system favors mystification, as you do.
You are a classic case of what is wrong.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
I attend them regularly year round and they have a critical role in
improving outcomes.
No proof, just your personal opinion.
An opinion based on information that you aren't privy to. At least my
opinions have a basis in something other than conspiracy theories.
No, just your personal opinion, once again. Sad.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
And that is the problem. See above.
Only when the best practices across a wide range of hospitals are known can
real recommendations be made. When each hospital has its own secret
procedures discussed in secret, you are just in the game of covering up
outcomes, not improving them.
Advice: If you're going to get a heart bypass surgery, you are free to ask
and SHOULD ask about success rates, mortality rates, etc etc etc. That
information IS important, I agree - and is available to any prospective
patient who asks.
I did ask about such things and was given national data. You can't find
out about infection rates or anything like that, since that kind of data are
hidden.
Skeptic
2006-07-27 02:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilena Rose
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good
day.
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying
Adverse
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been
estimated
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
to
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in
the
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
US
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared
with
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes
mellitus
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular
disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated
to
claim
218,000 lives annually."
go read that study and see how they came to those numbers. When
you
do
that, you'll stop citing it.
When medical mistakes are publically recorded, like airplane
accidents,
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
and addressed publically, then of course more will be known. But
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
long
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as the law hides mistakes in secret (ok confidential)
conferences,
and
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
patients are lied to about what happened, it is easy for someone
posing
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
as
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
a physician to say that all data are suspect because the public
will
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
never
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
get the truth out of anyone. That is the law.
how would you propose going about defining and then publicizing "mistakes"
without bias or without compromising patient confidentiality?
Those
conferences, by the way, are actually very effective at reducing
medical
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
Post by Skeptic
errors, FYI.
Patients are not told of mistakes even one-on-one, unless the sue.
The
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
mistakes are so confidential that even those affected are not told.
As
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
for
reductions based on confidential conferences, the data which is
public
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
suggests not much is ever done and that error rates continue high.
No
Post by Skeptic
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
one
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
bothers to compare which systems are best since everything is hidden.
Until
the airline system of public disclosure and systematic change is put
into
Post by Skeptic
Post by george conklin
place, medical errors will continue.
Medical errors will continue regardless of what type of system you employ.
Human error can be reduced but not eliminated.
Correct, but not the issue.
It is, actually. You want perfection. There is none.
Wrong. Errors are so common now
"now"? Are they more common than at some point in the past? Source please.
Oh wait, you don't have one.
Skeptic
2006-07-27 02:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeptic
Post by Skeptic
Most colonoscopies in the US are done by MEDICAL doctors. All
perforations
Post by Skeptic
in the US are repaired by SURGEONS. Thus, the doctor repairing rarely is
the one who created the problem.
You mean just his good friend who gets the call?
So you are asserting that gastroenterologists - medicine doctors who perform
colonoscopies - are good friends with surgeons - who used to do *all* the
colonoscopies? Interesting. Proof? Nah, you don't use such things as
"evidence"... just baseless assumptions.
Post by Skeptic
The same hospital gets
the business, and the billing went to the same unit, and insurance company
paid, of course, minus hundreds of things 'not covered' and billed directly
to the patient.
yeah, that's right George - a GI doctor perforates bowels so the hospital
can bill for more procedures and he can get a referral to a surgeon who he
probably doesn't even know. So what if his malpractice insurance goes up,
or his patients don't want colonoscopies from him because his perf rate is
higher than all of his competitors'?

Wake up and stop being a half witted conspiracy theorist.

David Wright
2006-07-24 02:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
That depends on where they got their numbers. If it was just from,
for example, Classen et al's article, we aren't really any further
along. Also, "$30 billion to $130 billion" is quite a wide range and
suggests we really don't know much. And that's bad, but that's where
we are right now.

But I was mostly just surprised you were quoting such an old article.
Most of your stuff is recent.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
Post by David Wright
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
FYI
Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306
1997. Hot off the press.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-24 15:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Yes this is unfortunate to say the least - since "95% of all ADEs
are not reported" we can't say accurately the total numbers
involved. And I believe we will never know with certainty unless a
comprehensive and enforced reporting system is put in place. To my
knowledge there is no such system nor is there any likelihood that
there will be in the near future. Resistance due to cost, bureaucracy,
bias, perception, etc. will prevent this from happening. However,
action should be taken regardless of ever knowing the exact numbers as
we do know it's a serious problem.

My apologies if my comment was taken as insulting.

Have a great day.
george conklin
2006-07-24 15:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Yes this is unfortunate to say the least - since "95% of all ADEs
are not reported" we can't say accurately the total numbers
involved. And I believe we will never know with certainty unless a
comprehensive and enforced reporting system is put in place. To my
knowledge there is no such system nor is there any likelihood that
there will be in the near future. Resistance due to cost, bureaucracy,
bias, perception, etc. will prevent this from happening. However,
action should be taken regardless of ever knowing the exact numbers as
we do know it's a serious problem.
My apologies if my comment was taken as insulting.
Have a great day.
It is not insulting to point out that in the USA by law errors are kept
secret.
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-24 15:48:06 UTC
Permalink
I meant this statement ... "Would this be recent enough for your
evaluation?"

Have a good day.
David Wright
2006-07-25 04:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
I meant this statement ... "Would this be recent enough for your
evaluation?"
That's what I was responding to. What was the problem with that?

By the way, your postings would be easier to read if you would deign
to include some of the text to which you are responding.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Roman Bystrianyk
2006-07-25 12:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
By the way, your postings would be easier to read if you would deign
to include some of the text to which you are responding.
A valid point. Thank you.
Jan Drew
2006-07-24 04:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Actually, David was right there is the thread in 2004.

Posting the same old garbage.
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
Would this be recent enough for your evaluation? Have a good day.
Mahyar Etminan, Bruce Carleton, Paula A. Rochon, "Quantifying Adverse
Drug Events - Are Systematic Reviews the Answer?", Drug Safety,
September 1, 2004, Vol. 27, Num. 11, pp. 757-761
"The direct medical costs associated with ADEs have been estimated to
be in the range of $US30 billion to $US130 billion annually in the US
alone. These estimates are even more meaningful when compared with
other high cost conditions or diseases, such as diabetes mellitus
($US45.2 billion), obesity ($US70 billion), and cardiovascular disease
($US199.5 billion). Drug-related mortality has been estimated to claim
218,000 lives annually."
Post by David Wright
Post by Roman Bystrianyk
FYI
Classen, David C. MD MS, Pestotnik, Stanley L. MS RPh, Evans R. Scott
PhD, Lloyd James F., and Burke John P. MD, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients: Excess Length of Stay, Extra Costs, and
Attributable Mortality", JAMA, January 22, 1997, Vol. 277, Num. 0, pp.
301-306
1997. Hot off the press.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
vernon
2006-07-24 15:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Drew
Actually, David was right there is the thread in 2004.
Posting the same old garbage.
Actually July 2006 release expands the problem and states 1.5 MILLION
"suffer" and the death level is somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 per
year.
Loading...