HIV/AIDS Rises Among Girls and Women
March 12, 2010
Top News
By Jason Ramsey
Women are encouraged to get tested for HIV/AIDS regularly —every six months — and participate in National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (NWGHAAD).
NWGHAAD is celebrated with an aim to raise awareness of the rising effect of HIV/AIDS on women and girls.
Launched by the Office on Women’s Health (OWH), on March 10 of every year, organizations across the country extends support discuss and educate women and girls about prevention, the need for regular testing, and the way to lead a normal, healthy life instead of being infected in recognition of NWGHAAD.
The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services claims that a woman in the United States gets tested positive for HIV every 35 minutes and nearly 25% Americans surviving with HIV are women.
Also, less than 15 percent of new HIV infections in the U. S. were among females 13 and older in the mid 1980s, which boosted to about 27 percent by 2006.
The Global Fund is reported to meet in The Hague, Netherlands, on March 24 with a view to examine how it can fulfill its goals eradicating or reducing instances of the three diseases by 2015.
It estimates that between $13-20 billion are needed for the period 2011-2013.
Click here for the full report
Disease Cause Is Pinpointed With Genome
March 12, 2010
Reuters
By Julie Steenhuysen
The studies, which would not have been possible a year or two ago, are the first real delivery of the promised transformation of medical science from the Human Genome Project’s mapping of the human genetic code.
One was also made possible by some of the $5 billion that U.S. President Barack Obama directed to the National Institutes of Health in September from the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
And in that study, the genetic researcher was himself one of the patients.
Dr. James Lupski of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston has a recessive genetic disease called Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome. It affects the nerves stretching from the spinal cord to the arms, legs and feet.
Lupski has been experimenting on himself and his own family for years.
“We tried every other method for 25 years to find out which mutation was important,” he said in a telephone interview.
“With this methodology we were able to do it. This is the first time whole genome sequencing has applied to actually find the cause of a disease.”
Lupski had been taking blood samples from his grandparents, parents and siblings for years. He got close but the research was considered too risky for funding by the National Institutes of Health.
“He was only able to complete this study because of the stimulus money that we got,” said Dr. Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Her institute designated Lupski’s project for about half a million dollars of the money that Obama directed to the NIH.
RECESSIVE GENES
Lupski’s team used a gene sequencer from Carlsbad, California-based Life Technologies to read the entire DNA code in the samples from Lupski and three of his siblings who have the syndrome, his parents and four other siblings who do not.
“It is a recessive disease and neither of my parents have the disease. Each of us who has it got one mutant allele (gene) from my mom and one mutant allele from my dad,” he said.
Researchers know about 40 different genes that can cause Charcot-Marie-Tooth. But in each family, only one of these genes is involved.
The sequencing revealed a gene called SH3TC2, the researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Other groups are already working on a drug that may affect that gene, Lupski said.
The researchers also found that family members who inherited just one faulty copy of the gene had a predisposition to carpal tunnel syndrome, in which a nerve in the wrist can get pinched.
As prices are coming down on the cost of sequencing a human genome, more such research will be possible.
“We estimate that the entire effort would currently cost less than $50,000,” the researchers wrote.
In a second study, Jared Roach of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle and colleagues sequenced the entire genomes of a family of four affected by two recessive genetic diseases — Miller syndrome, which can cause facial disfigurement, and primary ciliary dyskinesia, a lung disorder that raises the risk of respiratory infections because the hairlike extension on cells called cilia fail to move properly.
“Our results demonstrate the unique value of complete genome sequencing in families,” they wrote in the journal Science.
They used a sequencer made by another one of the companies exploiting genomic sequencing, Complete Genomics based in Mountain View, California.
Click here for the full report
The Active Intelligence in Plants
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
Most vegetarians believe that by not eating animals, they are preserving life. Everyone knows that plants are alive but they are not viewed with the same level of intelligence as animals are. As science continues to uncover the complex nature of plants, it is becoming more apparent that plants are actively intelligent life that pursue their continued existence in similar ways as do animals.
Research on the subject naturally flies in the face of strict vegetarianism which often insists that eating animals is murder but eating plants is just fine. Yet the facts illustrate that the characteristics of animals used to argue that eating them is murder also apply to plants. In other words, in order for strict vegetarians to be consistent in their beliefs, they would also have to stop eating fruits and vegetables.
Plants are very sensitive to environmental changes and they have many built-in mechanisms to ward off attackers. They strive to find the best resources and have been observed to actually anticipate hurdles to survival and work to overcome them in advance.
According to Monika Hilker from the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin, plants are intelligent life that communicate through chemical signals. They are capable of listening, talking, seeing, and feeling, all senses for which most people think only animals have the capability.
Linda Walling from the University of California agrees, noting that animals actively ward off predators in order to survive. Many plants release chemicals or other deterrents when a bug nips at their leaves or stems, similar to how the immune system releases antibodies to ward off infection or disease. Plants are also able to identify nearby plant competitors and alter their growth patterns away from other plants.
Researchers from Pennsylvania State University analyzed plant responses to predators and found that in less than 20 minutes, a plant being eaten by a caterpillar was able to convert carbon from the air into a chemical compound designed to deter the caterpillar from continuing. It appeared to perform this task entirely from scratch.
Plants also send signals that are the equivalent of a cry for help, often attracting predators of their predators who snatch up the attackers and eat them. This is just one of many ways in which plants communicate with the living world around them in order to survive.
Rather than serve as a point of contention, the facts about intelligent plant life merely call into question the alleged ethics of eating only plants rather than animals. Both are intelligent creatures designed to maintain survival. Humans are even more intelligent creatures, choosing to survive by eating plants, animals, or both.
Click here for the full report
The Forced Vaccine Argument – Act of Violence?
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
This parody cartoon grew out of the idea that vaccines are “shots” that are being increasingly forced upon children and teens. At times, these vaccines are enforced at gunpoint or with the presence of vicious guard dogs — as happened in Maryland two years ago when a court judge ordered thousands of parents to bring their children to court for vaccination or face gunpoint arrest and possible jail time.
Most modern vaccinations are, of course, a form of chemical violence against children. If they were all formulated without chemical preservatives (like thimerosal) and dangerous adjuvants (which can harm the nervous system), that might be a different story. But far too many of today’s vaccines are chemical concoctions that are entirely unnatural to the human body. To force them into the bodies of innocent children is an act of medical violence.
The method of introducing the vaccines is unnatural and highly interventionist: These chemicals and DNA / RNA fragments are injected directly into the tissues and blood, bypassing the skin (a normal protective defense) and bypassing the digestive system, too. An injected mandatory vaccine dumps foreign material directly into the bloodstream of children without the consent of either the child or the parents — that’s what qualifies mandatory vaccines as “chemical violence” against children.
The Mad Doctor is in
The doctor in this parody cartoon was intentionally created to depict a “crazed” mad doctor because nothing turns an ordinary doctor into a mad man faster than an argument about vaccines. While he may seem to be a reasonable person on all other subjects, once you challenge him on the dangers of over-vaccination of children, all reason gets thrown out the window and he morphs into a raging lunatic of unscientific emotion.
The complete lack of scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines makes no difference to him. “Vaccines need no science,” he’ll say, “Because everybody knows they work!”
My offer of $10,000 to anyone who can produce a scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of H1N1 vaccines remains utterly unclaimed.
Vaccine failures are common
Meanwhile, in the real world vaccines are failing miserably. A recent outbreak of mumps in the New Jersey / New York area occurred almost entirely among children who had already been vaccinated against mumps.
Clearly if vaccines really worked, then an outbreak should have only occurred among those who were NOT vaccinated against mumps, right? But as I reported here on NaturalNews, 77 percent of the children who got infected had already been vaccinated!
A similar truth emerges when you look at H1N1 deaths: Thousands of those who were vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu had already received the vaccine shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H…). We still don’t know the exact number of how many vaccinated people died because the CDC is hiding that data from the public, making sure the mainstream media doesn’t learn the truth that even many of those who were vaccinated still died.
What the CDC and its Big Pharma cohorts want people to mistakenly believe is that vaccines always offer protection against infectious disease. (100% protection). But this is blatantly false. In fact, because vaccines introduce a weakened virus into the body, they may hamper the normal immune response, creating systemic weakness that makes people more vulnerable to future infectious disease. In essence, weakened viruses create weakened immune responses, “training” the immune system to be more passive against future threats. That’s why people who received vaccines in the past are far more likely to die of infectious disease in the future.
Click here for the full report
British Hospitals Banning Bedside Flowers
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
In an effort to prevent what they believe may cause patient health complications, some British hospitals have begun banning flower bouquets from hospital rooms. Citing the possibility of infection from bacteria in the water and the ill-conceived notion that flowers may use up all the oxygen in the room – even though plants actually release oxygen – some hospital officials are up in arms over the alleged dangers posed by plants.
Researchers from the Imperial College of London decided to survey hospital patients and staff to get their take on the situation. They found that most patients appreciate having flowers around while many staffers dislike them because they can be messy. Few made any correlation between plants and an increased risk for disease or infection.
Virtually all scientific research has shown that flowers pose no health risks to patients, yet many hospitals continue to cling to antiquated superstition that they are somehow dangerous to patients. The vast majority of studies have revealed that flowers have both immediate and long-term benefits for patients.
Aside from improving general morale and mood, flowers have been shown to increase patient memory, lead to fewer cases of postoperative analgesic application, reduce blood pressure and heart rate, and decrease pain. Though obvious, controlled studies found that patients who have flowers beside their beds are much happier than those who do not.
Simon Cohn, a medical anthropologist, sees the hysteria over bedside flowers as indicative of a trend in health care towards regimented, outcome-based delivery rather than relationship-based care of patients.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
It’s hilarious, really, to think that hospitals would ban flowers out of a fear that they might make people sick. Should they also ban sunlight, too? How about banning laughter while you’re at it?
With few exceptions, hospitals are death traps. They are not places of healing; they’re places of health deterioration. And (nearly) everything you experience at a hospital is bad for you: The laughable “food” you’re served, the re-circulated air, the artificial lights, the onslaught of medications and even the tap water (which is contaminated with fluoride).
Flowers might be the one thing that’s actually good for you in a hospital, and now they want to ban those, too. Why am I not surprised? Allowing patients to experience joy would be counterproductive to the whole agenda of suppressing their healing response…
Click here for the full report
Hopes Rise in Fight Against Aids
February 22, 2010
The Independant
By Steve Connor
Testing everyone at risk of HIV and treating them with anti-retroviral drugs could eradicate the global epidemic within 40 years, according to the scientist at the centre of a radical new approach to fighting Aids.
An aggressive programme of prescribing anti-retroviral treatment (ART) to every person infected with HIV could stop all new infections in five years and eventually wipe out the epidemic, said Brian Williams of the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis.
Dr Williams is part of a growing body of experts who believe that anti-HIV drugs are probably the best hope of preventing and even eliminating the spread of Aids, rather than waiting for the development of an effective vaccine or relying solely on people changing their sexual lifestyle.
The idea will be tested in the coming year, with the start of the first properly controlled clinical trial involving thousands of people living in a part of South Africa with a high incidence of HIV and Aids. Dr Williams said this will be followed by similar trials in the US, where HIV is rampant among some inner-city communities.
“Our immediate best hope is to use ART not only to save lives but also to reduce transmission of HIV. I believe if we used ART drugs we could effectively stop transmission of HIV within five years,” Dr Williams said. “It may be possible to stop HIV transmission and halve Aids-related TB within 10 years and eliminate both infections within 40 years,” he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego, California.
Anti-retroviral drugs dramatically lower the concentration of HIV within a person’s bloodstream, and, in addition to protecting patients against Aids, they significantly lower an individual’s infectiousness – their ability to transmit the virus to another person.
Dr Williams and his supporters believe that if enough infected people are treated, it would lower the rate of infection to such an extent that the epidemic would die out within the lifetime of those undergoing the treatment. Aids could effectively be wiped out by the middle of this century, he said.
“The problem is that we are using the drugs to save lives, but we are not using them to stop transmission,” Dr Williams said. Blocking transmission can only be done with an extensive testing regime followed by rapid treatment with anti-retroviral drugs to everyone found to be HIV positive, he said.
“The concentration of the virus drops 10,000 times [with ART] … This probably translates into a 25-fold reduction in infectiousness. But if you did this it would be enough essentially to stop transmission,” he said.
A study published in 2008 showed that it is theoretically possible to cut new HIV cases by 95 per cent, from a prevalence of 20 per 1,000 to 1 per 1,000, within 10 years of implementing a programme of universal testing and prescription of ART drugs.
“Each person with HIV infects, on average, one person every one or two years. Since people with HIV, and without treatment, live for an average of 10 years after infection, each person with HIV infects about five to 10 people,” Dr Williams said. “Treating people with ART within about one year of becoming infected would reduce transmission by about 10 times. Each person with HIV would infect, on average, less than one other person and the epidemic would die out.”
ART drugs have to be taken on a daily basis for life, and the cost for South Africa alone would be about $4bn (£2.6bn) per year. However, Dr Williams said that the cost of having to treat a growing number of Aids patients, as well as the economic cost of young adults dying off, would be higher than giving out free ART drugs to everyone who needs them.
“The key issue of cost is that if you don’t do anything it costs you a lot of money. In South Africa we spend a lot of money on people who are hospitalised with infections related to HIV,” Dr Williams said. “More importantly, we are killing young adults in the prime of their life just when they should be contributing to society. The cost to society of that is enormous.
“If you factor all of the costs into the equation then, in my opinion, doing this is a cost saving from day one because the cost of the drugs will be more than outweighed by the costs of treating all of these people with other diseases,” he said. “A friend of mine said that the only thing that is more expensive than doing this is not doing this.”
The first full-scale clinical trial is being planned in Hlabisa in Somkhele, about 220km north of Durban. It will be designed to test whether it is possible to ensure that people who are taking ART drugs comply with the strict prescription regime of daily pill taking, as well as discovering whether transmission rates fall below the level needed to sustain the epidemic.
“One quarter of the global cases are in southern Africa and one half of these are in South Africa, so South Africa is extraordinarily badly affected,” Dr Williams said.
“We could stop transmission quickly, but it doesn’t end the problem because people are infected with HIV for life. So we really are in it for the long term. We need to do a lot of operational research before we can consider this seriously as a public-health intervention, but there is a lot of enthusiasm for it,” he added.
Click here for the full report
Heal Yourself in 15 Days (part 9)
Febraury 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Do you suffer from a “nature deficiency?” If you’d like most people in modern society, you spend most of your 24 hours of the day indoors. You work under artificial fluorescent lights, you eat and sleep inside a house or apartment, you commute in the artificial environment of a car, bus or train. You rarely get outside and even when you do, it’s not real nature — it’s some artificial “planned” park with concrete sidewalks and maintained lawns.
I suspect you may have a nature deficiency. I know because I’ve been there. Probably much like you, I spent a lot of time outdoors as a child, but in my adult years, I found myself spending more and more hours indoors. It didn’t take long to realize that breathing re-circulated indoor air and having little or no time in nature wasn’t a good recipe for lifelong health.
Today, I’m a nature advocate. Time in nature is healing all by itself, and children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of a nature deficiency. But few people in the field of conventional medicine embrace the idea that nature itself a healer, so the message of spending time in nature to improve your health doesn’t get much attention.
However, I believe that not spending enough time in nature promotes depression, obesity and even cancer. In fact, I believe that nature is so important to lasting health that I took up permanent residency in a country where I have spring-like weather year-round, just so that I can be outside in nature every single day of the year!
That’s not possible to do in most places, but wherever you are, more time in nature can help you heal. Here’s how:
How spending time in nature helps you heal
• Sunlight
Sunlight supports all life on our planet. Without sunlight, we would simply have no life on Earth. Your body is designed to be exposed to sensible levels of sunlight, and that’s why experiencing a reasonable amount of sunlight directly on your skin makes good sense for your health.
As you well know, sunlight also causes your skin to generate vitamin D — perhaps the most miraculous nutrient yet discovered in the modern world. Vitamin D prevents cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It boosts bone density and immune function, and it prevents infectious disease far better than vaccines could ever hope to.
To get more vitamin D, simply spend more time in nature!
• Natural sounds
The natural sounds of nature are, in and of themselves, healing therapy. Simply surrounding yourself with the sounds of real nature causes a scientifically-provable reduction in stress levels and blood pressure.
The most powerful healing sounds in nature seem to be those from water: Waterfalls, water running down a creek or stream, rain and thunderstorms, etc. You can mimic these sounds with “sound conditioning” devices that broadcast sound loops of natural sounds. They’re very effective machines, but still nothing equals the healing potential of real sounds experienced directly in the real world.
• Colors
The colors of nature are, scientifically speaking, different wavelengths of light striking your retina and being interpreted as colors by your brain.
These different wavelengths are, in essence, a form of energy medicine. Light is energy, and what your body needs to be healthy is exposure to a diverse assortment of those energy wavelengths. That’s why looking at all the various colors of flowers, plants and animals is, by itself, a healing experience. It also stimulates the brain to become more active and more intelligent.
Spending more time in nature allows your brain to explore a more diverse natural reality, causing it to function at a higher cognitive level. Dull people, in contrast, tend to spend a lot of time indoors where the scenery never changes.
• Movement
Being in nature makes physical movement almost mandatory. When you’re in nature, you’re often walking, running, biking or swimming. And yet because the scenery is so beautiful, it doesn’t feel like exercise! It simply feels like fun!
Click here for the full report
Convicted Man Disputes HIV Risk
February 12, 2010
Winnepeg Sun
By Dean Pritchard
An HIV-positive man convicted of not disclosing his health status to his sex partners is seeking to overturn his 14-year prison sentence, arguing he posed no significant health risk to the victims.
Clato Mabior was convicted in 2008 of six counts of aggravated sexual assault in relation to six victims and one count each of sexual touching and sexual interference.
Mabior appeared Wednesday before the Manitoba Court of Appeal, where his lawyer Ian McNair argued Mabior’s “viral load” was so low his sex partners were at no significant risk of infection.
But what constitutes a significant risk, countered Crown attorney Liz Thompson.
“If one complainant is infected, can you say to them ‘Well, the chance was one in 100,000, so you’re out of luck?’
“We’re not criminalizing people with HIV,” Thompson said. “We’re saying as a person, you cannot put anybody in harm’s way.”
One of Mabior’s victims was 12-years-old at the time of the offences and three were 17. None of his victims have been diagnosed with HIV.
McNair said Mabior used a condom every time he had sex with two of the victims.
At the time of his March 2006 arrest, police believed as many as 45 girls and women may have been victimized by him. He stood trial in relation to 11 alleged victims.
Prior to his arrest, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority issued a public warning Mabior was defying medical advice about his HIV and knowingly having sex with unsuspecting partners.
Police said they believed Mabior had been luring runaways to his Sherbrook Street home with the promise of intoxicants and a place to stay. At his trial, court heard Mabior plied some of his victims with alcohol and drugs.
At his sentencing, Mabior was credited five years for time served. His remaining sentence is just under 71/2 years.
Mabior is from Sudan and is expected to be deported once he has served his sentence.
The appeal court reserved its decision.
Click here for the full report
Mumps Outbreak Among Those who got Mumps Vaccine
February 11, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
To hear the vaccine pushers say it, all the recent outbreaks of mumps and measles are caused by too few people seeking out vaccinations. It’s all those “non-vaccinated people” who are a danger to society, they say, because they can spread disease.
Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!
Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What’s unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated
Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.
But in this case, the 77 percent figure slipped out. And now intelligent observers are increasingly seeing the truth about these vaccines:
• Infectious disease vaccines simply don’t work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?
• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?
• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don’t really work. They tell you that you’ll be “protected” with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).
• Even if you’re vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what’s the point of the vaccine?
The lies of the CDC
The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called “scientific” evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.
I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine. To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I’ll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!
Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?
The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it’s all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!
If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It’s only logical.
In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don’t get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?
Click here for the full report
Drug-Resistant Bacteria Brought Home from Hospitals
February 8, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Patients who carry drug-resistant bacteria home after hospital discharge can transmit the infection to their home caretakers, according to a study conducted by researchers from Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.
Infection by antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a growing public health threat. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 3.5 million people become infected with MRSA in the United States each year, leading to 90,000 deaths. In particular, “community-acquired” MRSA infections — those acquired outside of health-care settings — are of increasing concern to public health officials.
“In the last decade, community-acquired MRSA strains have caused hospital outbreaks and sometimes replaced older strains previously responsible for hospital-acquired MRSA infections,” the researchers wrote. “Conversely, hospital-acquired MRSA strains can spread outside the healthcare system.”
The study was conducted on 1,501 patients who were discharged from French hospitals into home care between February 2003 and March 2004.
“Patients with major health problems are increasingly discharged to home health care, which creates new opportunities for the transmission of hospital-acquired MRSA,” researcher Jean-Christophe Lucet said.
The researchers found that 191 of the discharged patients, or 12.7 percent, were infected with MRSA. While just over half of these patients were able to eliminate their MRSA infections within one year of infection, 19.1 percent of the patients’ household contacts also became infected.
None of the infected household contacts developed symptoms of infection, meaning the bacteria were living only in the nose or skin — where they could be re-transmitted to someone else.
Older patients were more likely to bring MRSA home from the hospital, and elderly contacts were also most likely to acquire the infection. The contacts at highest risk were those providing care to the patients.
“Sharing the same bed or bedroom, in contrast, was not associated with MRSA transmission,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, MRSA may be preferentially transmitted to contacts at high risk for hand contamination during care procedures.”
They recommended that home health-care providers follow the same sanitation and hygiene practices that are recommended for hospitals.
Click here for the full report.
