Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Grace Filby
Posted on 26 Feb 2008 11:40 am

So the Department still considers that there is "little evidence" to suggest that airborne exposure is a significant transmission route. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't a significant transmission route though, does it? Who sponsors the research into hand hygiene and cleaning? Who sponsors research into the benefits of fresh air? And isn't there a bit of a bias that needs to be put right? Why not actively make the effort to look really carefully at the evidence that there is in total? It is the principle that matters.

Is the Dept. of Health really still dithering and waiting for evidence to arrive on its doorstep - and when it does, simply saying it is "aware" but does nothing about it? Sorry, not good enough. People have been contacting them about this for years and getting nowhere beyond fob-offs and excuses.

So much for those bold claims by a former Secretary of State for Health that "no stone would be left unturned" regarding MRSA.

Maybe it would be worth taking another careful look. For previous correspondence sent via an MP for a Ministerial reply (and an interesting item from the Times newspaper 24.12.07 about the airborne transmission of MRSA, E.coli and C.difficile) see

Surely the Department of Health does know about the testing of air disinfection units at Porton Down?

Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.