http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1046188/MRSA-rise-1-7-hospitals-despite-Government-claims-infections-virtually-halved.html

MRSA on the rise in 1-in-7 hospitals despite Government claims that
'infections have virtually halved'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 17th August 2008


MRSA rates are soaring at one in seven hospitals - despite Government
claims to have the superbug under control.

Health secretary Alan Johnson has said that the NHS had virtually met
its aim to halve the number of MRSA infections in hospitals by April
2008.

But an analysis by the Liberal Democrats shows that the target is not
being met at almost two-thirds of hospitals.

 
A deadly cluster of MRSA bacteria - resistant to most antibiotic drug
agents and on the rise in 1-in-7 hospitals

In 23 trusts - one in seven - rates of infection have actually risen
since the target was set in 2004.

Critics say the true scale of superbug infection may be far higher,
because not all cases are recorded.

The biggest rise was at Hereford Hospitals, where the rate of MRSA
infection almost trebled.

LibDem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: 'Now the deadline for their
own MRSA target has passed, the Government might think the political
pressure is off. But it's not off for the NHS.' 

Michael Summers of the Patients' Association added that a lot more
needed to be done to tackle MRSA and prevent further deaths. 

The Department of Health maintained it was on track to meet the MRSA
target, adding that a strategy was in place to reduce infection.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Dear Pat:   Out of control.    More people affected than they admit
to.   No wonder.   The rug-sweepers can't sweep it away.   BAD DEAL.

You tried to warn.   Did a hell of a job doing so.   And caught a lot
of unnecessary flak from the likes of UKBA.    That should not have
happened...but then there are those on the core UKBA politburo that
their own agendas, selfish, in most cases that could give a shit about
anyone but themselves.   That's a GIVEN, once you get acquainted.
You want a list of names?

Burkie

On Aug 17, 7:50 pm, Burkie  wrote:
> Dear Pat:   Out of control.    More people affected than they admit
> to.   No wonder.   The rug-sweepers can't sweep it away.   BAD DEAL.
>
> You tried to warn.   Did a hell of a job doing so.   And caught a lot
> of unnecessary flak from the likes of UKBA.    That should not have
> happened...but then there are those on the core UKBA politburo that
> their own agendas, selfish, in most cases that could give a shit about
> anyone but themselves.   That's a GIVEN, once you get acquainted.
> You want a list of names?
>
> Burkie

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:00:39 -0700 (PDT), Burkie 
wrote:

>On Aug 17, 7:50 pm, Burkie  wrote:
>> Dear Pat:   Out of control.    More people affected than they admit
>> to.   No wonder.   The rug-sweepers can't sweep it away.   BAD DEAL.
>>
>> You tried to warn.   Did a hell of a job doing so.   And caught a lot
>> of unnecessary flak from the likes of UKBA.    That should not have
>> happened...but then there are those on the core UKBA politburo that
>> their own agendas, selfish, in most cases that could give a shit about
>> anyone but themselves.   That's a GIVEN, once you get acquainted.
>> You want a list of names?
>>
>> Burkie
>
I don't think anyone needs a list of names. They are all here aces
sable from anywhere in the world for years to come.

I came here for help because I was troubled and worried for the
farming industry. 

That uk.business.agriculture  was controlled by lobbyists paid by
otherwise respectable farming organisations came as a considerable
shock.

The British farming industry that they claimed to serve  will
ultimately suffer almost as much as the children that will die from
MRSA.

It was not obvious that we were  creating an archive that others would
use. The penny only dropped fairly recently.

That, I hope, will be the long term value of this very unpleasant
experience, rather than the persecution or humiliation of people that
have opposed and tried to frustrate the telling of the truth.

They will have enough trouble with their consciences as it is.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:00:39 -0700 (PDT), Burkie 
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 17, 7:50 pm, Burkie  wrote:
>>> Dear Pat:   Out of control.    More people affected than they admit
>>> to.   No wonder.   The rug-sweepers can't sweep it away.   BAD DEAL.
>>>
>>> You tried to warn.   Did a hell of a job doing so.   And caught a lot
>>> of unnecessary flak from the likes of UKBA.    That should not have
>>> happened...but then there are those on the core UKBA politburo that
>>> their own agendas, selfish, in most cases that could give a shit about
>>> anyone but themselves.   That's a GIVEN, once you get acquainted.
>>> You want a list of names?
>>>
>>> Burkie
>>
>I don't think anyone needs a list of names. They are all here aces
>sable from anywhere in the world for years to come.
>
>I came here for help because I was troubled and worried for the
>farming industry.
>
>That uk.business.agriculture  was controlled by lobbyists paid by
>otherwise respectable farming organisations came as a considerable
>shock.
>

Burkie

Please note that a public newsgroup such as uba cannot be "controlled" 
by anyone, just as it is impossible for Pat to close uba down in 10 
minutes as he has repeatedly claimed he could do.

You may add those two claims to your list of the times when Pat has not 
done as you have advised him, namely to "make absolutely sure, 
everything you post is correctomundo."

Malcolm

-- 
Malcolm

Dear Mr. Malcolm.      Pat Gardiner has provided continuous evidence
supporting his claims.   Yet, you continue to frustrate that effort on
his part.   Your animal health "experts" have failed you in so many
ways, it's farscical.   Yet you continue to berate Mr. Gardiner for he
has posted.   Unbeknownst to you, sir, some of the people that have
published their findings have been contacted, and substantiate their
research that Mr. Gardiner has shared.   And yet, you still have the
audacity to criticize his efforts.

There is something that really bothers me, and that is a gnawing
question as to why, a person with your intellect fails to recognize
peer-reviewed research, published in various professional journals,
substantiating the ever-growing human health issues that are now
obviously affecting both the swine and human populations in several
countries world-wide in a  serious way.

I can only draw a couple of conclusions from all your negative
responses to either his or my previous posts:    1)   if it's not your
idea, it's no good,  2)  you don't give a damn about the impacts of
these problems, 3) you just like to stir a pot of negativism for the
sake of doing so.  4)   you are a belligerant bully.

or, 5)   All the above.

One thing one can count on.......You always try to do your best to be
argumentative.   It would be refreshing to see you post something
constructive for a change.

Burkie

In article 
, 
Burkie  writes
>Dear Mr. Malcolm.      Pat Gardiner has provided continuous evidence
>supporting his claims.   Yet, you continue to frustrate that effort on
>his part.   Your animal health "experts" have failed you in so many
>ways, it's farscical.   Yet you continue to berate Mr. Gardiner for he
>has posted.   Unbeknownst to you, sir, some of the people that have
>published their findings have been contacted, and substantiate their
>research that Mr. Gardiner has shared.   And yet, you still have the
>audacity to criticize his efforts.
>
>There is something that really bothers me, and that is a gnawing
>question as to why, a person with your intellect fails to recognize
>peer-reviewed research, published in various professional journals,
>substantiating the ever-growing human health issues that are now
>obviously affecting both the swine and human populations in several
>countries world-wide in a  serious way.
>
>I can only draw a couple of conclusions from all your negative
>responses to either his or my previous posts:    1)   if it's not your
>idea, it's no good,  2)  you don't give a damn about the impacts of
>these problems, 3) you just like to stir a pot of negativism for the
>sake of doing so.  4)   you are a belligerant bully.
>
>or, 5)   All the above.
>
>One thing one can count on.......You always try to do your best to be
>argumentative.   It would be refreshing to see you post something
>constructive for a change.
>

Perhaps it is because I am a scientist that I query Pat. Since when has 
he quoted from "peer-reviewed research, published in various 
professional journals"? Instead, he quotes endlessly from unchecked 
media reports which are certainly not "peer-reviewed".

And please tell in which "peer-reviewed......professional journal" Pat's 
ever-changing hypothesis has been published?

I note that you don't seem to realise that "a couple" means two, not 
four :-(

-- 
Malcolm

Malcom:   Either you don't know how to read a Bibliography, read names
of researchers or don't know how to personally contact those people,
personally.....or.....more.    I rest my case.   I'm not going to be
impolite.

Gardiner has provided, actual reports, with bibliographies from
numerous scientific publications.   You tell us you're an expert and
you have the same ability as myself, to call anyone in the world to
ask questions.

Why you still persist in your personal campaign of tirades indicates a
person that can't/won't accept Truths.

Go bully some other people, Sir.   I could care less what you have to
say, because you haven't shared diddly squat but your own criticism of
others.

Burkie

In article ,
Burkie <URL:mailto:Burkie50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Malcolm.      Pat Gardiner has provided continuous evidence
> supporting his claims.   Yet, you continue to frustrate that effort on

Pat has provided continuous evidence, very little of which supports his
claims.

> his part.   Your animal health "experts" have failed you in so many
> ways, it's farscical.   Yet you continue to berate Mr. Gardiner for he
> has posted.   Unbeknownst to you, sir, some of the people that have
> published their findings have been contacted, and substantiate their
> research that Mr. Gardiner has shared.   And yet, you still have the
> audacity to criticize his efforts.

Most of the articles he steals and reproduces here are journalists'
interpretations of others' work.  The actual work is sound, the journalists
interpretations vary somewhat but the conclusions Pat draws from them are
tenuous at best.

> There is something that really bothers me, and that is a gnawing
> question as to why, a person with your intellect fails to recognize
> peer-reviewed research, published in various professional journals,
> substantiating the ever-growing human health issues that are now
> obviously affecting both the swine and human populations in several
> countries world-wide in a  serious way.

I think you miss the point.  Antibiotic driven evolution of pathogens has
been an accepted part of mainstream biology since the early 60's - and
arguably for ten years longer.  Pat has only just discovered it and still
doesn't understand it, nor does he understand epidemiology or pathology.

Pat has develped a massive conspiracy theory for which he has no evidence
whatever.  The only evidence -we- have is his ineptitude with a computer,
his abuse of usenet, his invalid website and his unwillingness/inability to
enter into reasoned debate. 

> I can only draw a couple of conclusions from all your negative
> responses to either his or my previous posts:    1)   if it's not your

Take a long hard look at the topic without recourse to Pat's garbage:

Yes, there is a lot wrong with the global pig industry - more so in China,
SE Asia and S america than N America and Europe.

Yes, there is a problem with human health and hospital acquired infection
worldwide - but the so-called superbugs are nowhere near the problem that
plain vanilla bugs were before the second world war.

Yes, humans do exchange micro-organisms with pigs, we always have.

No matter what Pat says there is absolutely no point in testing pigs for
MRSA, the result of the tests would make absolutely no difference to the
manner in which we should handle pigs and pig products.

No matter what Pat says there is no discernable vetocracy or conspiracy and
every vet I have met has walked upright.

I'm not going to go through Pat's entire list of groundless allegations,
partly because I haven't kept abreast of them but mainly because he'd only
invent a few more.  Pat is paranoid, incompetent and ill.  It's kindest to
ignore the bulk of his ramblings whilst occasionally indicating their
invalidity to any naive newcomer to the group.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

In article 
, 
Burkie  writes
>Malcom:   Either you don't know how to read a Bibliography, read names
>of researchers or don't know how to personally contact those people,
>personally.....or.....more.    I rest my case.   I'm not going to be
>impolite.
>
>Gardiner has provided, actual reports, with bibliographies from
>numerous scientific publications.

No, he has provided numerous reports from a variety of newspaper and 
other media websites. He only very rarely refers to peer-reviewed 
scientific publications relying instead on others' interpretations. He 
then adds his own commentary, often misinterpreting the reports or 
adding some nonsense involving a conspiracy theory. He then almost 
invariably links each report to pigs, whether or not they are mentioned 
and whether or not they have the slightest relevance, and also 
frequently adds gratuitous and libellous references to Britain's vets. 
In doing so, he greatly weakens whatever point he thought was contained 
in the reports. Are you claiming you haven't noticed this behaviour of 
his?

> You tell us you're an expert and
>you have the same ability as myself, to call anyone in the world to
>ask questions.
>
>Why you still persist in your personal campaign of tirades indicates a
>person that can't/won't accept Truths.
>
You yourself have told Pat that he should stick to telling the truth - 
using the strange word "correctomundo". This means that you acknowledge 
that he doesn't always do so. Indeed, as you *must* know, Pat also tells 
lies and libels people. I had some faint hope that you had realised this 
when you told Pat to stick to telling the truth. It seems that that was 
a mere aberration on your part :-(

>Go bully some other people, Sir.   I could care less what you have to
>say, because you haven't shared diddly squat but your own criticism of
>others.
>
Have you ever seen Pat accept anything from anybody that didn't fit with 
his warped agenda in which everything has to be linked to pigs and "bent 
vets"? It is pointless trying to correct him or to supply him with 
factual information, though I have tried. I now mainly restrict myself 
to very occasionally pointing out his grosser errors or omissions. Why 
don't you try doing the same, as you obviously realise they exist?

-- 
Malcolm

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:38:31 +0100, Derek Moody
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Burkie <URL:mailto:Burkie50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Malcolm.      Pat Gardiner has provided continuous evidence
>> supporting his claims.   Yet, you continue to frustrate that effort on
>
>Pat has provided continuous evidence, very little of which supports his
>claims.
>
>> his part.   Your animal health "experts" have failed you in so many
>> ways, it's farscical.   Yet you continue to berate Mr. Gardiner for he
>> has posted.   Unbeknownst to you, sir, some of the people that have
>> published their findings have been contacted, and substantiate their
>> research that Mr. Gardiner has shared.   And yet, you still have the
>> audacity to criticize his efforts.
>
>Most of the articles he steals and reproduces here are journalists'
>interpretations of others' work.  The actual work is sound, the journalists
>interpretations vary somewhat but the conclusions Pat draws from them are
>tenuous at best.
>
>> There is something that really bothers me, and that is a gnawing
>> question as to why, a person with your intellect fails to recognize
>> peer-reviewed research, published in various professional journals,
>> substantiating the ever-growing human health issues that are now
>> obviously affecting both the swine and human populations in several
>> countries world-wide in a  serious way.
>
>I think you miss the point.  Antibiotic driven evolution of pathogens has
>been an accepted part of mainstream biology since the early 60's - and
>arguably for ten years longer.  Pat has only just discovered it and still
>doesn't understand it, nor does he understand epidemiology or pathology.
>
>Pat has develped a massive conspiracy theory for which he has no evidence
>whatever.  The only evidence -we- have is his ineptitude with a computer,
>his abuse of usenet, his invalid website and his unwillingness/inability to
>enter into reasoned debate. 
>
>> I can only draw a couple of conclusions from all your negative
>> responses to either his or my previous posts:    1)   if it's not your
>
>Take a long hard look at the topic without recourse to Pat's garbage:
>
>Yes, there is a lot wrong with the global pig industry - more so in China,
>SE Asia and S america than N America and Europe.
>
>Yes, there is a problem with human health and hospital acquired infection
>worldwide - but the so-called superbugs are nowhere near the problem that
>plain vanilla bugs were before the second world war.
>
>Yes, humans do exchange micro-organisms with pigs, we always have.
>
>No matter what Pat says there is absolutely no point in testing pigs for
>MRSA, the result of the tests would make absolutely no difference to the
>manner in which we should handle pigs and pig products.
>
>No matter what Pat says there is no discernable vetocracy or conspiracy and
>every vet I have met has walked upright.
>
>I'm not going to go through Pat's entire list of groundless allegations,
>partly because I haven't kept abreast of them but mainly because he'd only
>invent a few more.  Pat is paranoid, incompetent and ill.  It's kindest to
>ignore the bulk of his ramblings whilst occasionally indicating their
>invalidity to any naive newcomer to the group.
>
>Cheerio,

Never mind the flattery. Do Britain's pigs have MRSA? Are they sick
with mutated PMWS?

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/