RE:RE:RE:Bernard & Echo Echo, all of your studies did not include manual cleaning prior to sterilization. Manually cleaning is required by device manufacturer's IFU's and per FDA's recommendations for sterilization on scopes. My question is were you aware of this and continued to cite them?
Quality of studies are important in providing best tools to protect investors, healthcare workers, and most importantly, patients.
For those with actual interest in the matter, here's an independent study performed by the CDC on eradicating and preventing a 'Real-Life' CRE outbreak at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26855298
This study performed on 589 ERCP's from Oct. 2013-April2014, effectively stopping the CRE outbreak. CDC continued to monitor scopes additional 18 months before they had a positive, but it wasn't from the original strain of the CRE Outbreak.
Could the CDC have stepped in to help give the FDA legitimate data so it can provide legitimate guidance on stopping outbreaks and saving lives?
Or, did the FDA only recommend EtO because I quote- "ETO has simply been grandfathered from decades old IFU's of OEM's and this was the reason for it being included in the supplementary recommendations for reprocessing scopes of FDA in 2015."
Again, did you make a mistake or knowingly mislead??
Not sure which expert to believe on here, but out of respect to the fact I'm sitting underwater on this stock, might as well have some fun..
From what I read, the VP4's AJIC study used a total of 11 in-clinic used scopes and only 2 of those 11 were used in the post-sterilization assessment, performed in-house at TSO3 per the article.
So, should I give more credance to the results from sterilizing "Simulated soils mimic clinical use" on 2 scopes sent back to TSO3 over the CDC actually stepping into a hospital with an CRE Outbreak, providing guidance and studying multiple infected scopes sterilized thousands of times over the course of years?
So far from our discussions we have uncovered..
2 actual turnarounds of Duodenoscopes per day.
Orthopedic batteries ability to be sterilized by EtO.
Toxicity of EtO versus H2O2. Why not just say they're both bad? But, you and DrWong tried to explain how a 18k person study spanning 60 years showing no elevated risk of cancer or other diseases by the independent organization NIOSH, (which is under the CDC) as irrelevant. You would actually try to convince someone to pay more attention to a mouse study?!? (This one bugs me as I care for peoples health working inside CS departments) If you had to work with these chemicals everyday, what would you believe? 60 years and 20,000 humans by the CDC's NIOSH or some salesguy's lab mouse study with your health on the line???
Total disregard for an independent study showing serious issues with H2O2 corrossivness eating up internal components and risiduals remaining in certain plastics for weeks after H2O2 sterilization.
H2O2 at 70% concentration and higher is "rocket fuel" and the vapor concentration inside sterilizer's reaches 90% concentration, so it's literally 'rocket fuel vapor'. I wasn't getting carried away with that statement Doctor.
I also appreciate Dr. Wong taking time away from his investment desk to try and convince us the worker's on NIOSH's EtO study were wearing space suits back in the 1940's at the industrial EtO Sterilization sites... Well, at NASA where they incorporate Highly Concentrated H2O2 into their rocket fuel, they literally do wear 'space suits' to protect themselves. Wonder why they don't just trust those mice studies you referred to?
I'm still long on TSO3. I am not long on the BS I've pointed out, but hey, it's a forum, and I welcome the dialogue and find it amusing and troubling..