Y
Yelxol
Guest
Hello:
I am finishing up a book concerning the cross-infection of women by their medical providers ("Fatal
Probe") that has received incredible accolades from several dozen women, published writers, a few
publishers and even several MDs.
One of the chapters concerns Medical Malpractice and suggests that there actually is not a MM crises
- as is portrayed by the doctors and their ins. firms.
The chapter will also describe how defense lawyers will do anything to win, that a Med Mal case is
not a bed of roses (unless you consider the thorns) and could very well be even more traumatic than
the consequences of the "incident".
Rather than continue with developing the chapter, the thought crossed my mind that a plaintiff law
firm would be interested in writing this section... with proper credit, of course.
So, I am copying the INTRODUCTION to the work below for your conv. and hope to hear from you.
My email addy is: [email protected]. Please insert "FATAL PROBE" in the sub. line. (I rec.
lots of spam.)
FATAL PROBE
INTRODUCTION
The literature stresses structural rather than psychological causes of helplessness in
depersonalizing institutions. People appear to be crushed by hierarchies of power, often arbitrary
in application, and rendered impotent by bureaucratic inertia that frustrates attempts to change
'evil' norms, behaviors and values. From the book Humanization and Dehumanization of Health Care
There is a real possibility that an otherwise healthy woman can walk into a doctor's office for her
annual pelvic exam, and walk out infected with a deadly disease. The health provider may not be
breaking any laws or recommended procedures, but the outcome is just as lethal.
Concern for the health of women worldwide is the motivating factor behind this book. Only through
efforts like this – a call to action - can women begin to guard their health through awareness of
their medical care. Additionally, the public should know of the medical community's continued denial
of any wrongdoing, and understand that fundamental changes will never occur if average citizens do
not take an active role in holding doctors accountable for their actions.
Do not think this book is intended to be a `slam' against the entire medical profession, for the
value of proper medical care is inestimable, and vast strides in medicine within the last few
decades have greatly improved the quality and longevity of life for the average person. The author
is not an M.D., and makes no attempt to dispense medical advice.
Although the book is in no way a thorough study of gynecological devices and procedures, it is a
rank view of the threat of cross-contamination in gynecological medicine. One of the issues inherent
in this study is the difficulty any outsider faces at the prospect of breaching the privacy fence
that surrounds the entire medical community.
Think of this as an open-minded query into the examination room of the obstetrician, gynecologist,
GP or other medical providers who render services to women.
There are few doctors brave enough to go against the grain, who will confirm or corroborate these
assertions. In fact, few in the medical profession will dare to admit to reading this book. No other
book, article, brochure or TV journal has ever brought to the public's attention these hidden issues
and concerns that directly affect every woman on the globe, and indirectly, every man.
On the other hand, there are reams of opinionated, professorial studies, stacks of books, hundreds
of URLs and innumerable web pages that champion and defend the traditional beliefs that continue to
be asserted by the medical community. Many of these beliefs and operating principals are baseless
assumptions and unsubstantiated claims that the entire medical community holds up as truth.
Most doctors will claim to not have time to do their own research or read published studies in their
particular field of practice. They rely – in most cases – on what we will refer to as Medical
Hearsay, a major contributor to the problem of gynecological cross-contamination.
Medical hearsay refers to the manner in which doctors trade information back and forth. Citing each
other as "credible sources," they establish what they then refer to as "common medical knowledge."
Basically, rumors are passed from doctor to doctor so often that they gain repute. Therefore, a
portion of what is called "common medical knowledge" is founded in inaccuracies and assumptions,
instead of scientific studies and thorough inquiries. An example of "common medical knowledge":
"Medical instruments used in gynecological procedures are always sterilized."
This statement is patently untrue. Yet, when asked, doctors and nurses emphatically agree with it.
However, the guidelines, as posted on the FDA web site, are as follows:
Semi-critical devices: Those that contact mucous membranes
(i.e. Gynecological devices). These devices require high-level disinfection (destruction of all
microorganisms except some highly resistant viruses [1] ).
What's the difference? Sterilization and disinfection are completely different. Sterilization
involves high temperature destruction of all possible pathogens. Disinfection amounts to high-
quality dishwashing.
There is no regulation, rule or law that all medical instruments used in invasive, gynecological
procedures must be sterilized. In his Newsweek Magazine article, Underwood states that:
"Tens of thousands of the medical instruments used in highly invasive procedures are not intended to
be sterilized." [2]
The medical community justifies the reality by saying, "There is no need to use sterile instruments
during the examination of non-sterile areas of the body because the area is already non-sterile and
body cavities are encased in intact, mucous membranes; therefore, high-level disinfection is
adequate."
This amounts to Medical Hearsay, which appears to have been first propagated by the American Society
of Gastrointestinal Endoscopists (ASGE) in their defense of the continuing publication of numerous
media reports of cross-infection from non-sterile medical instruments manufactured by Olympus of
Japan. [3]
This book was written for the purpose of telling the public that a woman's visit to her
obstetrician, gynecologist, general practitioner or health care clinic may result in her becoming
cross- infected with something as serious as a life-threatening pathogen, such as HIV, HCV, HBV,
CJD, HPV (cervical cancer), something as unnerving and troublesome as a yeast infection or one of a
number of other infectious/contagious diseases.
The cause of this danger can be isolated to one specific possibility: the widespread use of non-
sterile gynecological medical devices and procedures, a practice officially permitted by the federal
government through guidelines and rules published by the U.S. CDC and FDA.
It is important to point out that not all OBs, GYNs, GPs and other medical providers are guilty of
using non-sterile devices/techniques. Women should not avoid any needed medical exam because of a
fear they might become cross-infected with a deadly pathogen.
However, they should ask very specific questions and observe carefully for revealing signs of any
lax attention to procedural details.
It is also important to note there is some possibility that those who use non-sterile
devices/techniques may not be fully aware of the associated dangers. After all, most medical
schools, medical associations and medical journals – along with the FDA and the CDC – subscribe to
the ludicrous, outrageous belief that there is no need to use sterile devices during gynecological
exams – again, this is medical hearsay. (See Chapter "Medical Ethics")
This astounding fifteenth century, chauvinistic mindset is predicated on the fact that the vaginal
cavity is already non- sterile; therefore, there is no need to use sterile devices/techniques in
invasive gynecological examinations. You can be sure that Semmelweis, Pasteur, et al, would be
shocked that `modern-day' medicine chooses to completely ignore the dangers of cross-
contamination. [4]
Furthermore, it is assumed that the vaginal cavity is encased within an intact mucous membrane.
Membranes are fragile, and any number of incidents can cause their rupture.
Invasive medical devices, used incorrectly, could rupture the delicate cells and compromise the
membrane of a woman's vaginal cavity.
Common sense appears to have been tossed by the wayside, and replaced with Medical Hearsay.
Ref:
1. Such as HPV, CJD prions and various other deadly pathogens. Also, HIV and many other `less
hearty' pathogens that were embedded under lubrication or trapped in the mechanism of the device
have been found to survive so-called "high-level disinfection". "… human pathogens, including the
fragile AIDS virus can survive disinfection procedures when entrapped in lubricants…", September
1995, Nature Medicine, David Lewis, PhD, microbiologist, Univ. of GA, and Max Arens, PhD, co-
director of the Retrovirus Lab,, Wash, Univ. School of Med., St. Louis.
2. Do scopes spread sickness? Yes, they can but it's possible to protect yourself. Newsweek
Magazine, Underwood A., 1999; Mar 1:72.
3. Medicine's dirty little secret: Hard to clean endoscopes can transmit infection. USA Today,
Robert Davis, 1999 Feb 18; Sect. D,
p.1,2.
4. Certainly there are many physicians who, in spite of lax guidelines from the CDC and FDA,
carefully and religiously clean and sterilize their gynecological instruments and do not waver
from the use of sterile techniques.
Chapters available on request. Thanks
I am finishing up a book concerning the cross-infection of women by their medical providers ("Fatal
Probe") that has received incredible accolades from several dozen women, published writers, a few
publishers and even several MDs.
One of the chapters concerns Medical Malpractice and suggests that there actually is not a MM crises
- as is portrayed by the doctors and their ins. firms.
The chapter will also describe how defense lawyers will do anything to win, that a Med Mal case is
not a bed of roses (unless you consider the thorns) and could very well be even more traumatic than
the consequences of the "incident".
Rather than continue with developing the chapter, the thought crossed my mind that a plaintiff law
firm would be interested in writing this section... with proper credit, of course.
So, I am copying the INTRODUCTION to the work below for your conv. and hope to hear from you.
My email addy is: [email protected]. Please insert "FATAL PROBE" in the sub. line. (I rec.
lots of spam.)
FATAL PROBE
INTRODUCTION
The literature stresses structural rather than psychological causes of helplessness in
depersonalizing institutions. People appear to be crushed by hierarchies of power, often arbitrary
in application, and rendered impotent by bureaucratic inertia that frustrates attempts to change
'evil' norms, behaviors and values. From the book Humanization and Dehumanization of Health Care
There is a real possibility that an otherwise healthy woman can walk into a doctor's office for her
annual pelvic exam, and walk out infected with a deadly disease. The health provider may not be
breaking any laws or recommended procedures, but the outcome is just as lethal.
Concern for the health of women worldwide is the motivating factor behind this book. Only through
efforts like this – a call to action - can women begin to guard their health through awareness of
their medical care. Additionally, the public should know of the medical community's continued denial
of any wrongdoing, and understand that fundamental changes will never occur if average citizens do
not take an active role in holding doctors accountable for their actions.
Do not think this book is intended to be a `slam' against the entire medical profession, for the
value of proper medical care is inestimable, and vast strides in medicine within the last few
decades have greatly improved the quality and longevity of life for the average person. The author
is not an M.D., and makes no attempt to dispense medical advice.
Although the book is in no way a thorough study of gynecological devices and procedures, it is a
rank view of the threat of cross-contamination in gynecological medicine. One of the issues inherent
in this study is the difficulty any outsider faces at the prospect of breaching the privacy fence
that surrounds the entire medical community.
Think of this as an open-minded query into the examination room of the obstetrician, gynecologist,
GP or other medical providers who render services to women.
There are few doctors brave enough to go against the grain, who will confirm or corroborate these
assertions. In fact, few in the medical profession will dare to admit to reading this book. No other
book, article, brochure or TV journal has ever brought to the public's attention these hidden issues
and concerns that directly affect every woman on the globe, and indirectly, every man.
On the other hand, there are reams of opinionated, professorial studies, stacks of books, hundreds
of URLs and innumerable web pages that champion and defend the traditional beliefs that continue to
be asserted by the medical community. Many of these beliefs and operating principals are baseless
assumptions and unsubstantiated claims that the entire medical community holds up as truth.
Most doctors will claim to not have time to do their own research or read published studies in their
particular field of practice. They rely – in most cases – on what we will refer to as Medical
Hearsay, a major contributor to the problem of gynecological cross-contamination.
Medical hearsay refers to the manner in which doctors trade information back and forth. Citing each
other as "credible sources," they establish what they then refer to as "common medical knowledge."
Basically, rumors are passed from doctor to doctor so often that they gain repute. Therefore, a
portion of what is called "common medical knowledge" is founded in inaccuracies and assumptions,
instead of scientific studies and thorough inquiries. An example of "common medical knowledge":
"Medical instruments used in gynecological procedures are always sterilized."
This statement is patently untrue. Yet, when asked, doctors and nurses emphatically agree with it.
However, the guidelines, as posted on the FDA web site, are as follows:
Semi-critical devices: Those that contact mucous membranes
(i.e. Gynecological devices). These devices require high-level disinfection (destruction of all
microorganisms except some highly resistant viruses [1] ).
What's the difference? Sterilization and disinfection are completely different. Sterilization
involves high temperature destruction of all possible pathogens. Disinfection amounts to high-
quality dishwashing.
There is no regulation, rule or law that all medical instruments used in invasive, gynecological
procedures must be sterilized. In his Newsweek Magazine article, Underwood states that:
"Tens of thousands of the medical instruments used in highly invasive procedures are not intended to
be sterilized." [2]
The medical community justifies the reality by saying, "There is no need to use sterile instruments
during the examination of non-sterile areas of the body because the area is already non-sterile and
body cavities are encased in intact, mucous membranes; therefore, high-level disinfection is
adequate."
This amounts to Medical Hearsay, which appears to have been first propagated by the American Society
of Gastrointestinal Endoscopists (ASGE) in their defense of the continuing publication of numerous
media reports of cross-infection from non-sterile medical instruments manufactured by Olympus of
Japan. [3]
This book was written for the purpose of telling the public that a woman's visit to her
obstetrician, gynecologist, general practitioner or health care clinic may result in her becoming
cross- infected with something as serious as a life-threatening pathogen, such as HIV, HCV, HBV,
CJD, HPV (cervical cancer), something as unnerving and troublesome as a yeast infection or one of a
number of other infectious/contagious diseases.
The cause of this danger can be isolated to one specific possibility: the widespread use of non-
sterile gynecological medical devices and procedures, a practice officially permitted by the federal
government through guidelines and rules published by the U.S. CDC and FDA.
It is important to point out that not all OBs, GYNs, GPs and other medical providers are guilty of
using non-sterile devices/techniques. Women should not avoid any needed medical exam because of a
fear they might become cross-infected with a deadly pathogen.
However, they should ask very specific questions and observe carefully for revealing signs of any
lax attention to procedural details.
It is also important to note there is some possibility that those who use non-sterile
devices/techniques may not be fully aware of the associated dangers. After all, most medical
schools, medical associations and medical journals – along with the FDA and the CDC – subscribe to
the ludicrous, outrageous belief that there is no need to use sterile devices during gynecological
exams – again, this is medical hearsay. (See Chapter "Medical Ethics")
This astounding fifteenth century, chauvinistic mindset is predicated on the fact that the vaginal
cavity is already non- sterile; therefore, there is no need to use sterile devices/techniques in
invasive gynecological examinations. You can be sure that Semmelweis, Pasteur, et al, would be
shocked that `modern-day' medicine chooses to completely ignore the dangers of cross-
contamination. [4]
Furthermore, it is assumed that the vaginal cavity is encased within an intact mucous membrane.
Membranes are fragile, and any number of incidents can cause their rupture.
Invasive medical devices, used incorrectly, could rupture the delicate cells and compromise the
membrane of a woman's vaginal cavity.
Common sense appears to have been tossed by the wayside, and replaced with Medical Hearsay.
Ref:
1. Such as HPV, CJD prions and various other deadly pathogens. Also, HIV and many other `less
hearty' pathogens that were embedded under lubrication or trapped in the mechanism of the device
have been found to survive so-called "high-level disinfection". "… human pathogens, including the
fragile AIDS virus can survive disinfection procedures when entrapped in lubricants…", September
1995, Nature Medicine, David Lewis, PhD, microbiologist, Univ. of GA, and Max Arens, PhD, co-
director of the Retrovirus Lab,, Wash, Univ. School of Med., St. Louis.
2. Do scopes spread sickness? Yes, they can but it's possible to protect yourself. Newsweek
Magazine, Underwood A., 1999; Mar 1:72.
3. Medicine's dirty little secret: Hard to clean endoscopes can transmit infection. USA Today,
Robert Davis, 1999 Feb 18; Sect. D,
p.1,2.
4. Certainly there are many physicians who, in spite of lax guidelines from the CDC and FDA,
carefully and religiously clean and sterilize their gynecological instruments and do not waver
from the use of sterile techniques.
Chapters available on request. Thanks