Letter to ACIPC17 delegates

A letter sent today to all 308 delegates to the 2017 Australasian Conference on Infection Prevention and Control.

Dear Delegate,

I wish to draw your attention to the presence of Hygiene Solutions Ltd at ACIPC17. This UK company presents a serious threat to healthcare providers in Australia and New Zealand . Extensive evidence from both published papers and from disclosures by former employees of the business has revealed numerous fraudulent practices and reckless and irresponsible actions by this company. One well documented example is a very substantial and clearly correlated step increase in C. difficile infections in the University College London Hospitals on the implementation of the Deprox system, followed by an equally clear decrease when this system was abandoned 2  and a half years later. Approximately 70 additional cases over baseline occurred over the 29 months of Deprox operation. See: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/freedom-information-request-reveals-exact-c-richard-marsh/

In brief, the history of these issues is as follows:

In response to insoluble technical problems with residual H2O2 vapour, the system manufacturer, Specialist Hygiene Solutions Ltd, secretly and drastically cut the disinfectant vapour concentration settings on the entire fleet of almost 200 systems, leaving the process almost entirely ineffective against the deadly HCAI pathogens it was claimed to eliminate. See:

https://deproxfraud.info/2017/03/13/leaked-emails-prove-test-cheating-bodily-harm-and-massive-fraud/

Thus not only were tens of thousands of patients needlessly put at risk of debilitating and possibly fatal infections, but the health services of the UK,  Australia and New Zealand were defrauded of over £20,000,000.

Further to this, the Deproxin solution contains silver nitrate, which is forbidden in the EU for fogging applications on account of its toxicity to lung tissue and mucous membranes. Several Deprox operators have suffered chronic respiratory illness as a result of being exposed to the residual fog after a room has been treated. These persons are actively seeking legal compensation for these injuries.

See: https://deproxfraud.info/2017/11/07/2-more-deprox-operators-hit-with-throat-and-lung-damage/

The UK market is now largely aware of the dangerous and fraudulent nature of Hygiene Solutions Ltd, which has crippled their sales prospects in that area – hence their presence at ACIPC17 in an attempt to open up the Australasian market.

My simple request is that any healthcare institution contemplating doing business with Hygiene Solutions Ltd should thoroughly research the health and safety, and the germicidal efficacy of the products offered.  Independent confirmation should be sought, as the directors of the company have no hesitation about fabricating evidence.

No less than 39 examples of these fabrications can be found here:

https://deproxfraud.info/deprox-fraud/

The Health and Safety Executive is leading an investigation in to Hygiene Solutions Ltd in the UK.  The officer coordinating the operation is Mr Martin Ball;

Martin Ball | HM Inspector of Health and Safety

CRD Compliance Team

Health & Safety Executive Chemicals Regulation Division

5S.1 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside, L20 7HS.

Tel: 0151 951 3512

martin.ball@hse.gov.uk

Summary of issues

  • The process is only capable of a small fraction of the claimed disinfection efficacy.
  • Rooms and equipment cleaned with Deprox remain dangerously contaminated with pathogens, and are a serious and potentially lethal threat to patients.
  • Residual chemicals of H2O2, AgNO3 and PbO are way in excess of legal limits and several operators have suffered permanent respiratory damage.
  • The fraud is accomplished by a complex and sophisticated web of misinformation, outright lies, rigged tests, and claiming test results from competitor’s machines as their own.
  • Healthcare providers in the UK, AU and NZ are being defrauded of tens of millions of pounds.

Sincerely,

Richard Marsh

http://www.deproxfraud.info

Rick fentiman

 

Response to my letter to #ACIPC17 Delegates, from an administrator within the North Sydney Local Health District

#acipc17

 

 

Hygiene Solutions posts fake email addresses at ACIPC17

Hygiene Solutions has two new e-publications for ACIPC17, these are in the Sponsor e-satchel section on the ACIPC17 app. ( https://guidebook.com/guide/102693/poi/8908501/ )

All but one of the website addresses given on these documents is fake:

www.hygienesolutionsau.com

www.hygienesolutionsnz.com

www.hygienesolutionsus.com

Only the UK website actually exists:

www.hygienesolutionsuk.com

wrong address

 

Advertisements

CANBERRA SHARK ATTACK!

Deprox hales acipc 2017

On 2nd February 2017, in response to publication of the whistleblower exposé of the Deprox fraud, Specialist Hygiene Solutions Australia Pty Ltd declared voluntary liquidation, and Australian Deprox distributor Acute Healthcare hastily dropped the product from its catalogue.

However, in order to to maintain product registration with the ARTG (Australian Register of Therapeutic Devices) Hygiene Solutions (UK) must have a registered Australian company as sponsor.

It has emerged that a second business, under the name Specialist Hygiene Solutions Australia has been created with a new ABN  – this is a partnership, rather than a limited company – and this new entity has taken over sponsorship of the Deprox and Deproxin products.

Unfortunately, Australian business practices are less than transparent, and short of legal action it is impossible to identify who the beneficial owners of this Australian partnership are. The only identity given is “The Trustee for the RS & HR family Trust and others”  Like Panamian bank accounts and Cayman Island investment trusts, this legitimised  anonymity is very convenient for individuals wishing to invest in unethical or fraudulent trading, as funds can be easily laundered through a web of interconnected Australian family trusts.

However, a search of the history reveals that the original name of “The Trustee for the RS & HR family Trust and others” was “THE TRUSTEE FOR RS & HR FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE AT SITE SUPPLIES TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE HALES TRUST”

Furthermore, a search of Australian trademarks reveals the following:

Deprox 4

The  LinkedIn profile shows that  Gregory Hales was a director of At Site Supplies, and is currently the director of SafeSmart Access. Both SafeSmart Access and Hygiene Solutions limited share the same Sydney, NSW address.

SafeSmart Access

Deprox hales

It seems likely  therefore that the Australian Deprox operation is run by Gregory Jay Hales, a prominent member of the so called “Hales Exclusive Brethren” a highly controversial religious sect headquartered in Sydney, Australia.

Australian relaunch in Canberra

Rick Fentiman, Hygiene Solutions Ltd director and self-appointed “Cambridge University Microbiologist” will be exhibiting at the Australasian College of Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) exhibition in Canberra, 20-22 November 2017. He will doubtless be bringing his “Proxcide” Mk. III Deprox prototype, as well as the Deprox and Ultra-V systems to display.

Hygiene Solutions Ltd has also splashed out $10,300 to become a “Bronze Sponsor” of the ACIP exhibition, over and above the $6,600 for the booth. This level of investment suggests a major push in to the Australian market, and it is rumoured that the Fentimans may be relocating to Australia along with their business, thus evading a number of impending legal actions in the UK. Given Australia’s historic function as a penal colony, this move would seem to be entirely appropriate.

Deprox 1

Any hospitals considering these systems should first give sober consideration to the tragic experience of the UCLH hospital in London, where a C. difficile epidemic following the introduction of the Deprox system led to an estimated 12 deaths over a period of 3 years.

 

Surfacide v. Ultra-V – If you can’t beat them…cheat them.

Trials in real hospital environments present the most accurate and convincing measure of the comparative efficacy of the various area decontamination systems offered. Highly qualified microbiologists go to great lengths to ensure that both the environment in the rooms and the test organisms are matched as precisely as possible for the different systems being compared, and that the tests are as far as possible closely representative of genuine hospital situations.

It is obvious that these tests are only meaningful if the decontamination systems under test are also operated exactly as they would be in everyday use, i.e. using the same methods and timing as the manufacturer recommends.

Unfortunately, a small minority of manufacturers are prepared to abuse the trust of the scientific community, and deliberately move the goalposts to give their equipment an unfair advantage.

A recently published comparative test of the Surfacide versus the Ultra-V UV-C systems, conducted by the UCLH Clinical Microbiology Lab is a sad example of this deceitful and unfair practice. As might be expected of the UCLH, the preparation of the rooms and the microbiological testing was done carefully and thoroughly. The test however was sabotaged by Ultra-V manufacturer, Hygiene Solutions Ltd, who rather than operating their machine in line with their published procedures, instead took the following measures in an attempt to cheat the competition of a fair outcome:

  1. They extended the exposure time four fold, from the claimed 20 minutes to over 80 minutes.
  2. They repositioned the unit several times during each process – contrary to their published claim that the unit will decontaminate a whole room from a single central location.

The Surfacide system, meanwhile, was operated exactly as the manufacturer describes – without relocation, and with the exposure set by the integral measuring system.

In spite of this grossly unfair advantage, the Ultra-V still gave a significantly inferior performance to Surfacide – particularly in respect of C. difficile spores, where the following log reductions were obtained:

IPS Infection Prevention 2017 #IP2017 Ultra-V Surfacide C difficile

For C. difficile with low soiling, the Ultra-V in spite of its unfair advantages, averaged a log reduction of just 0.58 as compared with Surfacide which averaged a useful, if not dramatic, log 2.5.

What then would the results of a FAIR test have been? Or in other words, what can we expect the Ultra-V to achieve in real, everyday use? Numerous studies demonstrate that log reduction with time is essentially linear in the range of log 0 to 5. As Ultra-V is actually only used with a 20 minute rather than an 80 minute exposure, we can expect the log reductions in 20 minutes to be about 25% of the figures obtained in the test.

Replotting the bar graphs from the UCLH poster presentation gives the following comparison, which represents the real relative performance of the two systems:

IPS Infection Prevention 2017 #IP2017 Ultra-V Surfacide C difficile NHS.png

It is clear at a glance that for MRSA, and K. pneumoniae , Ultra-V averages well below log 2, and its efficacy against C. difficile is negligible. However, the Hygiene Solutions website boldly makes the following claim:

Ultra-V

Ultra-V 2.PNG

What independent research is referred to here? – Just ask Hygiene Solutions –  they will send you a copy of the sabotaged UCLH study analysed above…

Ultra-V efficacy “insignificant” in 75% of terminal cleans – NHS study.

Hygiene Solutions own Corrado Gilbert, along with Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Infection Prevention Nurse Matthew Reid and others published the study below in the Journal of Infection Prevention.

Two observations:

From the table at the bottom of the Abstract, we see that the mean CFU drops from 15.71 to 2.92 as a result of the Ultra-V process. This is a 5 fold reduction. Hygiene Solutions website promises a log4 to log6 efficacy for Ultra-V, i.e. a 10,000 fold to 1,000,000 fold reduction. How do Hygiene Solutions account for the difference?

From “Results” we see that only 25% of the rooms had a statistically significant reduction in CFU. How do Hygiene Solutions explain the 75% of rooms that had no significant reduction in CFU?

Ultra-V

The original article can be downloaded below. See page 16 of the pdf.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1757177415599501

Alternatively the abstract is also published here, and can be accessed without subscription. Scroll down just over a quarter of the page to find the article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5074091/

Victory! Judge dismisses Fentiman’s gagging order.

The Honourable Mr. Justice B.A. Barrington-Foote has dismissed Hygiene Solutions’ application to register a gagging order against Richard Marsh, and awarded costs to the applicant.

Canadian justice has thus defended the right of a whistleblower to speak out in defence of the life and health of hospital patients worldwide. The deproxfraud.info website will continue its exposure of the fraudulent and astonishingly ineffective Deprox and Ultra-V hospital decontamination systems and the criminal activities of Hygiene Solutions’ directors.

Justice.PNG

Justice

Fentiman attacks whistleblower…again.

Stung by the damning exposure of the Ultra-V’s incredibly poor performance against C. difficile (log0.1 – log1.1) Hygiene Solutions Ltd. director, Rick Fentiman made a further attack in the Regina Court of Queen’s Bench on Friday against whistleblower Richard Marsh.

Fentiman’s lawyer, F. William Johnson QC spoke for almost a hour, on the theme “Corporations have a right to defend their reputation.” Judge The Hon. Brian Barrington-Foote, was not persuaded, and has reserved judgement.

Fentiman is attempting to register a gagging order that would prevent Richard Marsh from disclosing any further information about “Hygiene Solutions Ltd, its directors, employees or Deprox product.”  As a precaution, Richard has put in place a comprehensive backup plan to ensure that deproxfraud.info continues to publish unhindered even if the gagging order is passed.

This contingency plan depends on the fact that the gagging order is specific to Richard Marsh, and limited in its scope to Saskatchewan. The first two elements in the plan have already been enacted:

  • The ownership of the website has been transferred to an anonymous third party in Asia.
  • The Editorship of the site has been transferred to Dr Ecosse, who is not a Canadian resident.

The final element, which will only be put in to effect should the gagging order be allowed, is to transfer authorship of the blog posts to Dr Ecosse. It should be noted that Dr Ecosse has very deep personal reasons of his own to take issue with Hygiene Solutions, he is in no sense acting as an agent, and is certainly not being remunerated for his efforts. Dr Ecosse is also exceptionally well qualified to review and comment on the fraudulent activities of Hygiene Solutions Ltd. from a medical and scientific standpoint.

Whistleblower3 Ultra-V

Once this final step has been taken, deproxfraud.info will continue to publish indefinitely without any input whatever from Richard Marsh, and Hygiene Solutions’ lawyers will have the interesting task of tracking down Dr. Ecosse, who may prove to be rather elusive…

Whistleblower Ultra-V

 

 

Shocking Ultra-V test results!

A comprehensive trial of the Hygiene Solutions Ltd Ultra-V decontamination system has exposed shocking discrepancies between the manufacturer’s claims and the actual performance of the system. Prof Peter Wilson, a consultant microbiologist at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation (UCLH) tested the system against a variety of bacteria and spores using both contact plates and Biological Indicator discs. Six single patient isolation rooms were decontaminated and the results aggregated. The thorough in-vivo testing and the high reputation of the author and the UCLH Environmental Microbiology laboratory leave no doubt whatever as to the accuracy of the results.

Here are Hygiene Solutions’ claims, and the UCLH test results compared:

Claim:

Can achieve between a 6-log and a 4-log reduction of a broad spectrum of pathogens

Inactivates Clostridium difficile infection (C.diff.), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) even in light soiling

Test Result

C. difficile spores in low soiling, log reductions between log 0.1 and log 1.1 (see Table III below)

Claim:

Placed in one central location within each room, Ultra-V can effectively decontaminate all surfaces in the enclosed healthcare area within the shortest treatment time.

Test Method

“Hygiene Solutions Ultra-V™: a single-emitter device (UVC, λ=265nm) relocated intermittently as determined by sensors in room.”

Claim:

How long does the process take? Average side room would normally take 20 minutes to complete.

Test Result

Process time, NOT including preliminary manual clean, 1 hour and 19 minutes. (See table 1 below)

Summary:

Hygiene Solutions claims imply a validated log 4 to 6 reduction of C. difficile, even in light soiling, on all surfaces in a single patient room in about 20 minutes – without moving the unit from a central location.

In reality, even with a 79 minute process time, and multiple relocations of the unit to eliminate shadowed areas, the greatest log reduction achieved for C.difficile spores was log 1.1. That is about ONE THOUSANDTH of the claimed performance – in spite of the process time being extended 4 fold.

Table 1

Table III

Download the entire paper as a pdf:

Comparison of Two Whole-Room UV-Irradiation Systems for Enhanced Disinfection of Patient Rooms Contaminated with MRSA, carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Clostridium difficile spores

S. Ali, S. Yui, M. Muzslay, A.P.R. Wilson

Or read the article on the Journal of Hospital Infection site:

http://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(17)30455-3/fulltext