Gay Men Get New Flesh-Eating Disease

[Avatar]

^^hoping folks have a sense of humour....

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Avatar :

 

[imind]

You are very right -- this flesh-eating plague is so prejudiced that it only picks on gay men.

...

The articles speak for themselves. I did not misrepresent anything. It's limited to the gay male populations in San Francisco and Boston but it's expected to spread to the general population. That's what I got from the NY Times article anyway.

lol. unbelievable.

MRSA has been a problem for a number of years now. a study back in 2005 was yielding alarming results...

ATLANTA, Oct. 16 — Nearly 19,000 people died in the United States in 2005 after being infected with virulent drug-resistant bacteria that have spread rampantly through hospitals and nursing homes, according to the most thorough study of the disease’s prevalence ever conducted.

...

The study also concluded that 85 percent of invasive MRSA infections are associated with health care treatment. Previous research had indicated that many hospitals and long-term care centers had become breeding grounds for MRSA because bacteria could be transported from patient to patient by doctors, nurses and unsterilized equipment.

link

i wonder if the OP will return to apologize for misinforming us and to admit to poor judgement?

 

[MercyBurst]

lol. unbelievable.

It's little wonder that gays have trouble reading a bible as well.

MRSA has been a problem for a number of years now. a study back in 2005 was yielding alarming results...

yes indeed, but that isn't exactly what this article was about.

i wonder if the OP will return to apologize for misinforming us and to admit to poor judgement?

Well it was supposed to be a new strain of MRSA, but I see nobody can tell you anything. Indeed I apologize for trying. You have my humblest heartfelt apology. It was poor judgment on my part to expect this crowd to read something and understand it.

 

[imind]

It's little wonder that gays have trouble reading a bible as well.

rofl. never mind that i'm not gay.

what is the relevance that its a new strain? how does that make it a gay plague, as all of what is MRSA has killed far more heteros than homos? are the other forms straight plagues?

It was poor judgment on my part to expect this crowd to read something and understand it.

oh believe me, we're all well aware of where the OP is coming from and what motivates it.

thankfully, we have all seen through this ploy.

 

[Lisa0315]

It's little wonder that gays have trouble reading a bible as well.



yes indeed, but that isn't exactly what this article was about.



Well it was supposed to be a new strain of MRSA, but I see nobody can tell you anything. Indeed I apologize for trying. You have my humblest heartfelt apology. It was poor judgment on my part to expect this crowd to read something and understand it.

This crowd?

I am a Conservative Baptist Christian. I have been married for 21 years to the same man. I have two children.

YET, I still say your whole OP is bunk. So, sorry, but it is not gays or liberals that are not comprehending this garbage. You seem to be the one not grasping how srsly ridiculous your statements are.

MRSA, and new strains of it, are not targeting gays and it is not caused by sodomy. Got news for you. You are likely a MRSA carrier yourself. Everyone is. It has nothing to do with anal sex. It has to do with open wounds, hospital settings, and antibiotics being used to frequently.

Lisa

 

[MercyBurst]

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1

according to the Medical Journal article:

Whereas hospital-associated MRSA strains are resistant to multiple antimicrobial classes, USA300 and other community-associated MRSA strains are typically resistant to β-lactams and 1 or 2 other drug classes. Older generic antimicrobials, such as clindamycin, tetracycline, or trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, are recommended for treatment of less serious community-associated MRSA infections, such as uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections (3, 27).

In other words, it's harder to kill this germ than other MRSA strains.

Multidrug-resistant USA300 is the first widely disseminated community-associated multidrug-resistant MRSA clone. Emergence of multidrug-resistant USA300 in the community suggests that the USA300 lineage can overcome the presumed fitness cost of multidrug resistance. Data from this study suggest that multidrug-resistant USA300 has spread rapidly among men who have sex with men in San Francisco and Boston, and that having male–male sex seems to be a risk factor for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection independent of HIV infection.

I cut and pasted this stuff from the article.

The article tells me this is a new super-strain of this staff infection that is more drug resistant. It also tells me that MSM are more likely to get it than the general population through their sexual practices.

Am I the only person that reads the journal article this way?

Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections (41–43).

Revison 1: apparantly somebody's sockpuppet with a mere 12 posts wanted to shut down the truth from this medical study. I get the feeling there are several socks in this thread.

http://christianforums.com/t6747993

 

[MercyBurst]

This crowd?

I am a Conservative Baptist Christian. I have been married for 21 years to the same man. I have two children.

YET, I still say your whole OP is bunk. So, sorry, but it is not gays or liberals that are not comprehending this garbage. You seem to be the one not grasping how srsly ridiculous your statements are.

MRSA, and new strains of it, are not targeting gays and it is not caused by sodomy. Got news for you. You are likely a MRSA carrier yourself. Everyone is. It has nothing to do with anal sex. It has to do with open wounds, hospital settings, and antibiotics being used to frequently.

Lisa

Instead of calling the report bunk, you should read it, and give our hard-working health-care professionals a little credibility. Nobody on this forum is the expert on epidemic control, but these people are. So if you could give them a little well-deserved appreciation it would help your own credibility.

After reading several comments I have revised the OP:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42741114&postcount=1

When people try to ligitimize diseases I find this rather revolting. My true feelings on this matter can not be expressed on this forum:

The following blog has a much better discourse on this matter than I can express here:

http://scripturerefinersfire.blogspot.com/2007/09/gay-rights-plagued-by-health-issues.html

The article has been cited as a reference by "Real Proposal Magazine" with excellent reviews.

 

[Lisa0315]

[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Editors' Notes [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [SIZE=-1]Top[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Editors' Notes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Methods[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Results[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Discussion[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Author & Article Info[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]References[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Context

• Researchers have recently identified multidrug-resistant USA300, a clone of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that is resistant to multiple antibiotics.

Contributions

• These authors demonstrate that the incidence of multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is highest in the areas of San Francisco where more male same-sex couples reside. The infection frequently manifests as an abscess or cellulitis in the buttocks, genitals, or perineum, and male–male sex was a risk factor.

Cautions

• The data were passively reported or retrospectively collected and are therefore subject to bias.

Implication

• Multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA infection is especially common among men who have sex with men. It might be sexually transmitted in this population.

—The Editors

Read the Cautions. Also read who these doctors are funded by. Do you understand that research such as this prompts additional funding?

Below is a rapid response to the study:


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Other Communities at Risk as well[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]15 January 2008[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Arlen J Peterson,
Social Services
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: Other Communities at Risk as well

Email Arlen J Peterson
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
First, let me thank the dedication and development of understanding MRSA clone (USA300) from the medical community to the public. I work for a sexual health centre, which includes providing extensive education and treatment of STI's to sexually active individuals. I understand the relation between how the community of men who have sex with men increases the risk of MRSA infection (risky behaviors, more sexual partners, drugs, etc), Annals article highlights the risk is associated with skin-to-skin contact primarily by unprotected anal intercourse. My concern is the community of men who have sex with men are the only population emphasized in the article when anal intercourse is practiced fluently in men who have sex with women. Men who have anal intercourse with women do so for reasons mainly of pleasure and a form of birth control, usually unprotected for the latter. So, if an average person were to read a synopsized version in the news based on this article, particularly the young, they might get a message of: ‘It's a risk for men who have sex with men, I am not of this population, therefore I am not affected.’ Can this article emphasize that it is the unprotected anal intercourse causing the risk of MRSA infection and that is not limited to men who have sex with men? I appreciate it and thank you for your time. Conflict of Interest:

None declared

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Lisa0315]

Why don't you do your homework first before putting your foot in your mouth?

Please keep your tone civil with me.

Read the editors response and read the social worker's response. This article is cautioned as biased. Okay?

Many studies are published. Not all studies that are published are embraced by the scientific community.

Got it?

Lisa

 

[BAFRIEND]

Hopefully, this won't spread to the straights the way AIDS did when the homosexual community disregarded the dangers of that disease.

Everyone is at risk because of skin to skin contact, especially children.

Of course there will be more talking about their rights more than their responsibilities again. We learned nothing over the death of Ryan White.

 

[MercyBurst]

rofl. never mind that i'm not gay.

I'm not convinced, but ok if you say so.

what is the relevance that its a new strain? how does that make it a gay plague, as all of what is MRSA has killed far more heteros than homos? are the other forms straight plagues?

Well if you listened instead of talking you might find out.

oh believe me, we're all well aware of where the OP is coming from and what motivates it.

ok so the report means nothing to you -- fine then -- just ignore it -- you're not gay so there isn't much for you to worry about..

thankfully, we have all seen through this ploy.

Well, what can I say? I reported a medical story that nobody even seems to understand. I don't really want to see gay people die, but it doesn't matter to them. ok, then why should it really matter to me? Why should I even say anything at all to this group?

 

[MercyBurst]

Please keep your tone civil with me.

Read the editors response and read the social worker's response. This article is cautioned as biased. Okay?

Many studies are published. Not all studies that are published are embraced by the scientific community.

Got it?

Lisa

The USA300 study was partially funded by the CDC , and partly by university grants. I think the motives were well-intentioned. This is breaking news in 2008. It probably hasn't had time yet in the scientific community.

 

[Lisa0315]

Folks,
As I said previously, I have experience with MRSA. My husband acquired it in a 25 day hospital stay in Miami. He was admitted a second time when they discovered the MRSA. He was given antibiotics for a week via IV, then, I had to administer an IV twice a day for the next 8 weeks at home. My husband had Hospital Acquired MRSA.

The OP is talking about Community Acquired MRSA which is slightly different. The study was done in San Francisco, and only on gay men. The study was funded by an HIV foundation among others. Because their wounds were around the anal area DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A GAY DISEASE. Rather, the study was done especially on gay men to draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of this being a sexually transmitted disease.

However, in the general population, MRSA is contracted either in the hospital, or from someone who has been around or caring for someone with MRSA. After about 50 years of MRSA being around, just about everyone in the population is a carrier.

When you have a lower immune system, i.e., elderly, children, HIV positive, and the critically injured or sick, the MRSA ALREADY INSIDE YOUR BODY may attack.

It is NOT a gay disease and the article is NOT drawing that conclusion regardless of what the OP is trying to prove with it.

The only way to know if you are a MRSA carrier is for a doctor to literally test an open wound.

My husband had twelve surgeries after he was diagnosed with MRSA. The hospital would contradict its own policy by putting him in an isolated room, using disposable surgery equipment, but at the same time, shrug at the signs that required the doctors and nurses to be covered in gowns, gloves, and masks. They would shrug and say that it was likely that they were already carriers anyway.

MRSA is an epidemic, has been for some time. It has been around long before gay parades and demands for civil unions. The OP is trying use this article to point one thing to the other, but it is just not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/chambers.htm

Lisa

 

[MercyBurst]

Folks,
As I said previously, I have experience with MRSA. My husband acquired it in a 25 day hospital stay in Miami. He was admitted a second time when they discovered the MRSA. He was given antibiotics for a week via IV, then, I had to administer an IV twice a day for the next 8 weeks at home. My husband had Hospital Acquired MRSA.

The OP is talking about Community Acquired MRSA which is slightly different. The study was done in San Francisco, and only on gay men. The study was funded by an HIV foundation among others. Because their wounds were around the anal area DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A GAY DISEASE. Rather, the study was done especially on gay men to draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of this being a sexually transmitted disease.

However, in the general population, MRSA is contracted either in the hospital, or from someone who has been around or caring for someone with MRSA. After about 50 years of MRSA being around, just about everyone in the population is a carrier.

When you have a lower immune system, i.e., elderly, children, HIV positive, and the critically injured or sick, the MRSA ALREADY INSIDE YOUR BODY may attack.

It is NOT a gay disease and the article is NOT drawing that conclusion regardless of what the OP is trying to prove with it.

The only way to know if you are a MRSA carrier is for a doctor to literally test an open wound.

My husband had twelve surgeries after he was diagnosed with MRSA. The hospital would contradict its own policy by putting him in an isolated room, using disposable surgery equipment, but at the same time, shrug at the signs that required the doctors and nurses to be covered in gowns, gloves, and masks. They would shrug and say that it was likely that they were already carriers anyway.

MRSA is an epidemic, has been for some time. It has been around long before gay parades and demands for civil unions. The OP is trying use this article to point one thing to the other, but it is just not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/chambers.htm

Lisa

gee your report is from 2001. Mine is in the February 2008 edition.

I'm sorry your husband has it. My father died from hospital staph infection due to a botched surgery.

But the bug that killed him is not this particular bug. You can deny it's gay-related, but the article says it is. I don't see how this can be made any plainer:

Results: The overall incidence of multidrug-resistant USA300 infection in San Francisco was 26 cases per 100 000 persons (95% CI, 16 to 36 cases per 100 000 persons); the incidence was higher in 8 contiguous ZIP codes with a higher proportion of male same-sex couples. Male&#8211;male sex was a risk factor for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection (relative risk, 13.2 [CI, 1.7 to 101.6]; P < 0.001) independent of past MRSA infection (relative risk, 2.1 [CI, 1.2 to 3.7]; P = 0.007) or clindamycin use (relative risk, 2.1 [1.2 to 3.6]; P = 0.007). The risk seemed to be independent of HIV infection. In San Francisco, multidrug-resistant USA300 manifested most often as infection of the buttocks, genitals, or perineum. In Boston, multidrug-resistant USA300 was recovered exclusively from men who have sex with men.

It's amazing that I'm the only person here that's literate. Did anyone on this forum make it past high school? The report tells me that MSM are 13.2 times more likely to have this disease.

Conclusions: Infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population. Further research is needed to determine whether existing efforts to control epidemics of other sexually transmitted infections can control spread of community-associated multidrug-resistant MRSA.

 

[BAFRIEND]

...the bacteria seemed to be spread most easily through anal intercourse...

Case closed.

 

[Lisa0315]

I'm sorry your husband has it. My father died from hospital staff infection due to a botched surgery.

But the bug that killed him is not this particular bug. You can deny it's gay-related, but the article says it is. I don't see how this can be made any plainer:



It's amazing that I'm the only person here that's literate. Did anyone on this forum make it past high school?

I read the entire article which included a caution from the editors that the article was biased.

Second, if this study had been done on black school children, would you think that it was a black disease?

If Community Acquired MRSA was just a gay disease, no one else would be getting it. All the article is saying is that gay men are at risk for the disease, but then so are many, many other groups. That is the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn. It is not a GAY disease, but gay men are at risk. That is all.

You are making this into a gay disease and it is not. It did not originate with gays. It is not exclusive to gays. Gay men are at risk, but then, so are the other groups I mentioned.

In your title, you call it a new disease that is attacking gay men. It is not new and it is not exclusive to gay men. DEBUNKED!

Lisa

 

[BAFRIEND]

Second, if this study had been done on black school children, would you think that it was a black disease?

This is one of the most common and easiest ploys in homosexual debate to defeat.

We are not discussing race, we are discussing how disease is spread through sex.

Becuase this disease as STD is easiest spread through anal inter-course then the spread primarily through the gay male community is the issue.

Racial discrimination is not the issue unless you are using it as a ploy.

 

[Lisa0315]

This is one of the most common and easiest ploys in homosexual debate to defeat.

We are not discussing race, we are discussing how disease is spread through sex.

Becuase this disease as STD is easiest spread through anal inter-course then the spread primarily through the gay male community is the issue.

Racial discrimination is not the issue unless you are using it as a ploy.

My point is that anal sex is one of many, many ways in which the disease is spread. To say that based on this study alone that Community Acquired MRSA is a gay disease is the same difference as saying it is a black disease if found in the black community. It was no ploy.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

We are not discussing the sexual sin of homosexuality. We are discussing the OP's bias in presenting this as a gay disease.

Lisa