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…

Advertisements

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

Ultra-V tested by UCLH, exposed as fraud!

Breaking news – in a Journal of Hospital Infection article published August 16th, Prof Wilson of UCLH shows that the Ultra-V UV room disinfection system takes a whopping 1 hour and 19 minutes to achieve even BASIC levels of decontamination, requires multiple re-positioning of the unit during the cycle, does NOT decontaminate shadowed areas, and is particularly ineffective against C. difficile spores. (log 0.1 to log 1.1)

MEANWHILE – Hygiene Solutions claim a 20 minute cycle time, NO re-positioning, and log 4 to 6 efficacy.

FULL ANALYSIS TO FOLLOW – WATCH THIS SPACE!

Fentiman seeks court order to gag Deprox whistleblower

regina_courthouse

Regina Courthouse

On Wednesday 5th July 2017, Hygiene Solutions Ltd. will attempt to register a gagging order against Richard Marsh, a former Deprox engineer, in an attempt to close down the highly embarrassing deproxfraud.info website.

The hearing will be before The Honourable Mr. Justice B.A. Barrington-Foote, who had already rejected a previous submission from Fentiman on the same lines. The case is at 9.00am, at the Regina Court of the Queen’s  Bench, 2425 Victoria Avenue, Regina, SK  S4P 4W6, Phone: (306) 787-5377.

The hearing is open to the public, and the documents filed in connection with the case may be examined and copied at the Registrar’s desk in the Courthouse.

It is of note that after 9 months and (as of this afternoon) 35,634 views of deproxfraud.info, Hygiene Solutions has finally attempted this legal action by way of an obscure legal instrument called a “Tomlin Order”.  If the shocking allegations made by deproxfraud.info are false, as Fentiman and Co. maintain, why wouldn’t they have sued for libel and defamation in September when the website was first published?

While the application is expected to fail, deproxfraud.info will continue publication regardless of the outcome.

UPDATE: RECORD DAILY HITS ON COURT CASE BLOG POST

This post has broken the record for daily hits. Since publication yesterday afternoon, this post has received 553 hits and still rising fast. The daily total is expected to top 600.

fentiman