Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Fallacies in Modern Medicine: The HIV/AIDS Hypothesis

By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

This commentary was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 20, Number 1, Pages 18-19, Spring 2015.

Modern medicine has spawned great things like antibiotics, open heart surgery, and corneal transplants. And then there is antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS.

A civic-minded, healthy person volunteers to donate blood but, tested for HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), is found to be HIV-positive. This would-be donor will be put on a treatment regimen that follows the (285-page) Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents [1] and will be thrust into a medical world peppered with acronyms like CD4, ART, HIV RNA, HIV Ag/Ab, NRTI, NNRTI, PI, INSTI, PrEP, and P4P4P.

Adhering to these government-issued guidelines, a “health care provider” will start this healthy blood donor on antiretroviral therapy (ART). For the last two decades the standard for treating HIV infection is a three-drug protocol—“2 nukes and a third drug.” The “2 nukes” are nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and DNA chain terminators, like AZT (azidothymidine – Retrovir, which is also a NRTI). The “third drug” is a non-NRTI (NNRTI), a protease inhibitor (PI) or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI). [2]

These drugs are toxic. With prolonged use they can cause cardiovascular disease, liver damage, premature aging (due to damage of mitochondria), lactic acidosis, gallstones (especially with protease inhibitors), cognitive impairment, and cancer. The majority of people who take them experience unpleasant side effects, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

AZT, the most powerful “nuke” in the ART arsenal actually killed some 150,000 “HIV-positive” people when it started being used in 1987 to the mid-1990s, after which, if the drug was used, dosage was lowered. [3] When an HIV-positive person on long-term ART gets cardiovascular disease or cancer, providers blame the virus for helping cause these diseases. Substantial evidence, however, supports the opposite conclusion: it is the antiretroviral treatment itself that causes cancer, liver damage, cardiovascular and other diseases in these patients. [3] They are iatrogenic diseases.

The orthodox view holds that HIV causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome)—one or more of an assemblage of now 26 diseases. Reinforcing this alleged fact in the public’s mind, the human immunodeficiency virus is no longer just called HIV, it is now “HIV/AIDS.”

A new development in HIV care, called preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), promotes universal coverage with antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infections, based on the tenet that prevention is the best “treatment.” Given their unpleasant side effects, however, many people stop taking their antiretroviral drugs. An answer for that in the HIV/AIDS-care world is addressed by its P4P4P acronym (pay for performance for patients). With P4P4P, now under study, patients are given financial incentives to encourage them to keep taking the drugs. [2]

Could the hypothesis that the multi-billion-dollar HIV/AIDS medical-pharmaceutical establishment bases its actions on be wrong? In 1987, Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who isolated the first cancer gene, and in 1970 mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses, published a paper in Cancer Research questioning the role of retroviruses in disease and the HIV/AIDS hypothesis in particular [4]. Then, in 1988, he published one in Science titled “HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS.” [5] As a result, Dr. Duesberg became a pariah in the retroviral HIV/AIDS establishment, which branded him a “rebel” and a “maverick.” Colleague David Baltimore labeled him “irresponsible and pernicious,” and Robert Gallo declared his work to be “absolute and total nonsense.”

Skeptics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are chastised and subjected to ad hominem attacks. Anyone who questions this hypothesis is now branded an “AIDS denier,” which is analogous to being called a Holocaust denier. Nevertheless, non-orthodox scholars have been questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm for thirty years; and now, in the 21st century, as Rebecca Culshaw puts it, “there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong.” [6]

A key feature of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is that the virus is sexually transmitted. But only 1 in 1,000 acts of unprotected intercourse transmits HIV, and only 1 in 275 Americans is HIV-positive!  Drug-free prostitutes do not become HIV-positive, despite their occupation. [3,7]

HIV is said to cause immunodeficiency by killing T cell lymphocytes. But T cells grown in test tubes infected with HIV do not die. They thrive. And they produce large quantities of the virus that laboratories use to detect antibodies to HIV in a person’s blood. HIV infects less than 1 in every 500 T cells in the body and thus is hard to find. The HIV test detects antibodies to it, not the virus itself. For these and other reasons a growing body of evidence shows that the HIV theory of AIDS is untenable. [7]

A positive HIV test does not necessarily mean one is infected with this virus. Flu vaccines, hepatitis B vaccine, and tuberculosis are a few of the more than 70 things that can cause a false-positive HIV test. In healthy individuals, pregnancy and African ancestry conduce to testing HIV positive. In some people a positive test may simply indicate (without any virus) that one’s immune system has become damaged, from heavy recreational drug use, malnutrition, or some other reason. [8]

If HIV does not cause AIDS, then what does? The classic paper on AIDS causation, published in 2003 by Duesberg et al., implicates recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. [9]

If the theory is wrong, how can it persist? In a review of The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory by Henry Bauer, the late Joel Kaufman writes:

“One of the most difficult things to write is a refutation of a massive fraud, especially a health fraud, in the face of research cartels, media control, and knowledge monopolies by financial powerhouses… The obstacles to dumping the dogma are clearly highlighted as Dr. Bauer discusses the near impossibility of having so many organizations recant, partly because of the record number of lawsuits that would arise.” [10]

Henry Bauer, professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and former dean of the Virginia Tech College of Arts and Sciences, also presents a concisely reasoned refutation of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis in a 28-page online study, “The Case Against HIV,” with 51 pages of references—now 896 of them, which he continually updates. [3]

In a review of Harvey Bialy’s book, Review of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter Duesberg, my colleague Gerald Pollack, professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, writes:

“The book reminds us that although over $100 billion has been spent on AIDS research, not a single AIDS patient has been cured—a colossal failure with tragic consequences. It explains in too-clear terms the reasons why AIDS research focuses so single-mindedly on this lone hypothesis to the exclusion of all others: egos, prestige, and money. Mainstream virologists have assumed the power of the purse, and their self-interests (sometimes financial), propel them to suppress challenges. This is not an unusual story: challenges to mainstream views are consistently suppressed by mainstream scientists who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. It’s not just Semmelweis and Galileo, but is happening broadly in today’s scientific arena.” [11]

Adhering to the erroneous hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, the U.S. government spends billions of dollars annually on HIV/AIDS programs and research—$29.7 Billion for fiscal year 2014. It is a waste of money. It fleeces taxpayers and enriches the HIV/AIDS medical establishment and the pharmaceutical companies that make antiretroviral drugs. The annual cost of HIV care averages $25,000-$30,000 per patient, of which 67-70 percent is spent on antiretroviral drugs. [2]

The tide is beginning to turn, as evidenced in the Sept 24, 2014, publication by Patricia Goodson of the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University. She notes that “the scientific establishment worldwide insistently refuses to re-examine the HIV-AIDS hypothesis,” even while it is becoming increasingly “more difficult to accept.” She writes:

“This paper represents a call to reflect upon our public health practice vis-à-vis HIV-AIDS… The debate between orthodox and unorthodox scientists comprises much more than an intellectual pursuit or a scientific skirmish: it is a matter of life-and-death. It is a matter of justice. Millions of lives, worldwide, have been and will be significantly affected by an HIV or AIDS diagnosis. If we – the public health work force – lose sight of the social justice implication and the magnitude of the effect, we lose ‘the very purpose of our mission.’” [12]

Despite its long-term, widespread acceptance, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is proving to be a substantial fallacy of modern medicine.

REFERENCES

  1. These Guidelines are available at: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/adultandadolescentgl.pdf . Accessed Dec 15, 2014.
  2. “10 Changes in HIV Care That Are Revolutionizing the Field,” John Bartlett (December 2, 2013) Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814712 . Accessed Dec 15, 2014.
  3. The Case Against HIV, collated by Henry Bauer. Available at: http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/ . Accessed December 15, 2014
  4. Duesberg PH. Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality. Cancer Research. 1987;47:1199-1220.
  5. Duesberg PH. HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS. 1988;241:514-517. Available at: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html   Accessed Dec 15, 2014.
  6. Culshaw R. Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books; 2007.
  7. Bauer H. The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Jefferson, NC: McFarland; 2007.
  8. Duesberg PH. Inventing the AIDS Virus, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing; 1996.
  9. Duesberg PH, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The Chemical Basis of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy, and Malnutrition. J Biosci 2003;28:384-412. Available at: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html. Accessed Dec 15, 2014.
  10. Kauffman JM. Review of The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, by Henry H. Bauer, Jefferson, NC, McFarland, 2007. J Am Phys Surg. 2007;12:121-122.
  11. Pollack G. Statement on HIV/AIDS at: http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm Accessed Dec 15, 2014.
  12. Goodson P. Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent. Frontiers in Public Health. 2014; 2[Article 154]: 1-11. Available at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full . Accessed Dec 15, 2014.

July 4, 2015 - Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , ,

2 Comments »

  1. Continuing research and studies show that HIV causes nothing ( probably doesn’t/never existed) but profits. The lack of an epidemic from a new sexually transmitted makes it more probable that AIDS is a lifestyle problem. Let’s face it, if AIDS was a disease then we would have the bodies piled to the sky by now.

    Like

    Comment by GGH | July 17, 2019 | Reply

  2. VENEREAL DISEASES IN ANCIENT GREECE:

    There is more information about sexual life and VD among the Greeks, whose culture developed after the end of the Aegean and Mycenaean cultures.

    Greek achievements in literature, science, philosophy, and medicine are well known (33). Nevertheless, they owed some debt to the Egyptian medicine and beliefs, which in the classic period became anthropocentric and realistic. There exists much documentation about their sexual attitudes, preferences, and infections (34), even if the family (oikos) was the basis of the society in their city-states (polis). From mythology we know their gods and goddesses had numerous sexual liaisons, and erotic scenes are common in their sculptures, paintings, and literature already in the 8th century BCE. Hesiod in his poems wrote that the first women, Pandora, caused all problems on the Earth by opening her box; and the author knew that summer was the season for love (35). Aphrodite (Greek “aphros” is foam i.e. born in the sea) was their goddess of beauty and love, and there was a cult of the phallus too (1).There is no doubt that the Greeks tolerated all forms of sexual activity.

    Homosexuality was common, as we can see from numerous vase paintings, and Plato, a philosopher and contemporary of Hippocrates, wrote with sympathy about it.

    The active, older male was the “eraster”, while the younger, passive one was called “eromene” (36,37).

    Lesbians were tolerated, as well as prostitution. Solon (one of the seven wise men) in the 6th century BCE was the first to approve the institution of city brothels in Athens (38). There were different classes of prostitutes, among which the most intelligent and sophisticated were the hetaerae. Amid the most famous of them was Aspasia, so beautiful that Pericles, Socrates, Alcibiades, and many other men fell in love with her.

    Slightly less prestigious were the aulectrides, specialized in flute playing and dance, whereas in ports like Piraeus and Corinth the most common prostitutes were the dicteriades (38).

    Hippocrates (460-375 BCE) separated medicine from superstition and religion, was the first to collect clinical cases, provided us with a rich medical vocabulary, and in his oath advised the physicians to avoid any form of seduction of women and slave men when in a house. The Hippocratic corpus explains that diseases arise from a disbalance of the four bodily fluids (blood, yellow and black bile, and phlegm), and that the semen derived from the complete digestion of nutrients (39).

    Hippocrates recommended frequent sexual intercourse as a desiccative measure for conditions characterized by oversupply of phlegm (40).
    It seems he called acute gonorrhea “strangury”, thought it was caused by indulgence in the pleasure of Venus, described vaginal discharge – “leucorrhoea” (fluxus) – in women, as a consequence of their anatomic characteristics (in Mulieribus morbi), and distinguished different types: albus, rufus, ruber, and niger (41). He also mentioned some ulcers on male and female genitals, but this was surely not syphilis; it could have been herpes genitalis, and if phagadenic perhaps chancroid or tuberculosis (42). In examining women he already used a kind of vaginal speculum.

    The descriptions of genital excrescences in adults were probably genital warts (i.e. human papilloma virus infection).

    33. Sarton G. Ancient science. Through the golden age of Greece. New York: Dover Pub; 1993. pp. 238-612.
    34. Morton RS. Sexual attitudes, preferences and infections in Ancient Greece: has antiquity anything useful for us today? Genitourin Med 1991;67:59- 66.
    35. Esiodo. Le opera e i giorni. Milano: Rizzoli 1985; v.1-828
    36. Percy WA. Reconsiderations about Greek homosexuality.
    J Homosex 2005;49:13-61
    37. Scanlon TF. The dispersion of pederastyand athletic revolution in sixth-century BC. Greece. J Homosex 2005;49:63-85.
    38. Sanger W. History of prostitution. New York: Medic Publish Co; 1919. pp. 55-68.
    39. Mettler C. Venerology. In Mettler F ed. History of medicine: a correlative text arranged to subject. Philadelphia: Blakistone; 1947. pp. 601-59.
    40. Arikha N. Passions and tempers. A history of the humors. New York: Harper Collins; 2007. pp. 46-47.
    41. Sticker G. Entwurf einer Geschichte der ansteckenden Geschlechtskrankheiten. In Jadassohn J: Handbuch der Haut-u. Geschlechts Krankheiten. Berlin: Springer; 1931. pp. 264-603.
    42. Grmek M. Diseases in the ancient Greek world. Baltimore-London: J. Hopkins University Press; 1991. pp. 142-151.

    200,000 PATIENTS DIE EACH YEAR IN US HOSPITALS FROM MEDICAL MISTAKES

    How Many Die from Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?

    An updated estimate says it could be at least 210,000 patients a year, more than twice the number in a frequently quoted Institute of Medicine report

    By Marshall Allen, ProPublica on September 20, 2013

    It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient’s death, the numbers come out worse.

    In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous “To Err Is Human” report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials 2014 and quoted ubiquitously in the media.

    In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

    Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher 2014 between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says.

    That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.

    The new estimates were developed by John T. James, a toxicologist at NASA’s space center in Houston who runs an advocacy organization called Patient Safety America. James has also written a book about the death of his 19-year-old son after what James maintains was negligent hospital care.

    Asked about the higher estimates, a spokesman for the American Hospital Association said the group has more confidence in the IOM’s estimate of 98,000 deaths. ProPublica asked three prominent patient safety researchers to review James’ study, however, and all said his methods and findings were credible.

    What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure. There’s never been an actual count of how many patients experience preventable harm. So we’re left with approximations, which are imperfect in part because of inaccuracies in medical records and the reluctance of some providers to report mistakes.

    Patient safety experts say measuring the problem is nonetheless important because estimates bring awareness and research dollars to a major public health problem that persists despite decades of improvement efforts.

    “We need to get a sense of the magnitude of this,” James said in an interview.

    James based his estimates on the findings of four recent studies that identified preventable harm suffered by patients 2013 known as “adverse events” in the medical vernacular 2013 using use a screening method called the Global Trigger Tool, which guides reviewers through medical records, searching for signs of infection, injury or error. Medical records flagged during the initial screening are reviewed by a doctor, who determines the extent of the harm.

    In the four studies, which examined records of more than 4,200 patients hospitalized between 2002 and 2008, researchers found serious adverse events in as many as 21 percent of cases reviewed and rates of lethal adverse events as high as 1.4 percent of cases.

    By combining the findings and extrapolating across 34 million hospitalizations in 2007, James concluded that preventable errors contribute to the deaths of 210,000 hospital patients annually.

    That is the baseline. The actual number more than doubles, James reasoned, because the trigger tool doesn’t catch errors in which treatment should have been provided but wasn’t, because it’s known that medical records are missing some evidence of harm, and because diagnostic errors aren’t captured.

    An estimate of 440,000 deaths from care in hospitals “is roughly one-sixth of all deaths that occur in the United States each year,” James wrote in his study. He also cited other research that’s shown hospital reporting systems and peer-review capture only a fraction of patient harm or negligent care.

    “Perhaps it is time for a national patient bill of rights for hospitalized patients,” James wrote. “All evidence points to the need for much more patient involvement in identifying harmful events and participating in rigorous follow-up investigations to identify root causes.”

    Dr. Lucian Leape, a Harvard pediatrician who is referred to the “father of patient safety,” was on the committee that wrote the “To Err Is Human” report. He told ProPublica that he has confidence in the four studies and the estimate by James.

    Members of the Institute of Medicine committee knew at the time that their estimate of medical errors was low, he said. “It was based on a rather crude method compared to what we do now,” Leape said. Plus, medicine has become much more complex in recent decades, which leads to more mistakes, he said.

    Dr. David Classen, one of the leading developers of the Global Trigger Tool, said the James study is a sound use of the tool and a “great contribution.” He said it’s important to update the numbers from the “To Err Is Human” report because in addition to the obvious suffering, preventable harm leads to enormous financial costs.

    Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital whose book “Unaccountable” calls for greater transparency in health care, said the James estimate shows that eliminating medical errors must become a national priority. He said it’s also important to increase the awareness of the potential of unintended consequences when doctors perform procedure and tests. The risk of harm needs to be factored into conversations with patients, he said.

    Leape, Classen and Makary all said it’s time to stop citing the 98,000 number.

    Still, hospital association spokesman Akin Demehin said the group is sticking with the Institute of Medicine’s estimate. Demehin said the IOM figure is based on a larger sampling of medical charts and that there’s no consensus the Global Trigger Tool can be used to make a nationwide estimate. He said the tool is better suited for use in individual hospitals.
    Advertisement

    The AHA is not attempting to come up with its own estimate, Demehin said.

    Dr. David Mayer, the vice president of quality and safety at Maryland-based MedStar Health, said people can make arguments about how many patient deaths are hastened by poor hospital care, but that’s not really the point. All the estimates, even on the low end, expose a crisis, he said.

    “Way too many people are being harmed by unintentional medical error,” Mayer said, “and it needs to be corrected.”

    See how you can help ProPublica investigate patient safety and join our Facebook group on the topic.

    REVISITING TO ERR IS HUMAN 20 YEARS LATER
    by CARLOS A. PELLEGRINI, MD, FACS, FRCSI(HON), FRCSENG(HON), FRCSED(HON)
    PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 1, 2020

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM, now known as the National Academy of Medicine) 20 years ago published the landmark report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. This report increased awareness of medical errors in the U.S. and also called for health care system changes that would lead to improvements in patient safety and quality of care.
    The report cited a study that estimated at least 44,000 patients die annually in the U.S. as a result of medical errors, with an additional study suggesting it could be as high as 98,000.1 The report also stated that deaths attributed to medical errors exceeded “the number attributable to the eighth-leading cause of death,” which at the time was suicide.1-3 More importantly, the report highlighted the fact that most medical errors were the result of failures of the system rather than specifically attributable to individuals.1

    Still work to be done

    Two decades later, Mark R. Chassin, MD, FACP, MPP, MPH, president and chief executive officer of The Joint Commission—a member of the IOM Committee on Quality of Health Care in America that wrote the To Err Is Human report—believes that although that report and others have led to improvements in the health care system, the rates of familiar quality issues remain too high.

    For surgeons, quality issues that still demand attention include wrong-site surgery and the continued incidence of unintended retained foreign objects (URFOs). URFOs were the top sentinel event reported to The Joint Commission in 2017 (124 reported) and again in 2018 (121 reported). A total of 104 incidents of wrong-patient, wrong-site, wrong-procedure events were reported in 2017, with another 98 reported in 2018.

    Dr. Chassin touched on the To Err Is Human report and more in a Modern Healthcare editorial,

    “One-size-fits-all approach to patient safety improvement won’t get us to the ultimate goal—zero harm.”

    Dr. Chassin laid out three changes health care leadership can make to ensure patients receive higher quality care. They are as follows:3

    • Commit to a goal of zero harm
    • Drastically overhaul the institutional culture
    • Understand that safety processes often fail at rates of 50 percent or more

    In the Modern Healthcare commentary, Dr. Chassin also wrote that “the method we have employed is the ‘one-size-fits-all’ best practice.”3 But that approach often leads to modest or inconsistent improvements that are difficult to sustain over time.
    “We cannot continue to use the same methods and expect different results,” Dr. Chassin wrote.

    “Evidence is accumulating that process improvement methods long used successfully in industry—Lean, Six Sigma and change management, taken together—are far more effective than the ‘one-size-fits-all’ best-practice approach.”3

    Dr. Chassin also spoke with Nancy Foster, American Hospital Association vice-president for quality and patient safety, for the Advancing Health podcast. In the episode, Dr. Chassin described the impact of the To Err Is Human report on health care safety.4

    Now what?

    So where do we go from here?
    In a recent High Reliability Healthcare blog post, Dr. Chassin reflected on the future impact of To Err Is Human and how health care can continue to improve.

    “We’ve made some significant progress, but the next major gains will arise only from the efforts of health care leadership and organizations, not government, business, market forces, nor patient advocacy groups,” Dr. Chassin wrote.5

    He also asked that after 20 years, “Who is satisfied with the current state?” He noted, “If we’re not satisfied, we need to change the way we have been going about improvement.”5

    The report marked a pivotal moment in the health care industry, policymaking, and society’s expectations about how health care is provided.

    My personal take on the IOM report is positive. I believe that before the report was published, health care leaders were primarily focused on innovation. The report marked a pivotal moment in the health care industry, policymaking, and society’s expectations about how health care is provided. Starting in early 2000 (the report was released in November 1999), attention rapidly shifted from a focus on innovation as a way to advance health care to a focus on safety. That movement toward safety has grown ever since, and that, I believe, has provided enormous benefits to our patients.6
    Am I satisfied with the rate of harm surgical patients continue to experience?
    Of course not.
    However, safety is not a static goal line but rather a moving target. New processes, new devices, new ways of providing treatment—yes, innovation—continues full throttle, and while these advances have benefited society in a significant way, they also have created vulnerability and risks that were not present before. Managing those risks, creating a culture of safety, and continuing to focus on ways to identify and eliminate threats before they become errors is, in my view, the greatest legacy of this report and a moral imperative for every surgeon.

    Disclaimer
    The thoughts and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of Dr. Pellegrini and do not necessarily reflect those of The Joint Commission or the American College of Surgeons.
    ________________________________________
    References
    1. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. Executive Summary. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225179/. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    2. National Vital Statistics Reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (National Center for Health Statistics). Deaths: Final data for 1997. June 30, 1999. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_19.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    3. National Vital Statistics Reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (National Center for Health Statistics). Births and deaths: Preliminary data for 1998. October 5, 1999. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_25.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    4. Chassin M. One-size-fits-all approach to patient safety improvement won’t get us to the ultimate goal—zero harm. Mod Healthcare. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/opinion-editorial/one-size-fits-all-approach-patient-safety-improvement-wont-get-us-ultimate-goal. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    5. American Hospital Association patient safety leader reflects on ‘To Err is Human’ report. Advancing Health. Available at: http://www.aha.org/advancing-health-podcast/2019-11-13-patient-safety-leader-reflects-err-human-report. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    6. Chassin M. To Err is Human: The next 20 years. The Joint Commission High Reliability Healthcare blog. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/resources/news-and-multimedia/blogs/high-reliability-healthcare/2019/11/to-err-is-human-the-next-20-years/. Accessed December 30, 2019.
    Tagged as: quality improvement, The Joint Commission, To Err Is Human

    Like

    Comment by Dave Rubin | August 3, 2020 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.