Gay Men Get New Flesh-Eating Disease

[MercyBurst]

The researchers who did the study decried those who sought to spin their results in order to promote an anti-gay agenda. And they apologized for not being clear about what their results mean.

OK Lisa, Ohioprof, et al.

There is apparantly a misunderstanding here, based more on perception than on fact. I personally would like to understand the truth in this report. Admittedly, I don't want to shake hands with somebody that has boils on them, and I think anyone can relate to that.

Point 1:

Whereas, Lisa says this particular brand of USA300 is your typical run-of-the-mill garden variety of MRSA that the world is full of. I get a different perception upon reading this report. I understand this particular bug, which is a community-based morph, acquired additional drug resistances making it exceptionally hard to treat. My concern: Is there an effective cure for this particular strain?

Point 2:

The report says men who have sex with men (MSM) are 13.2 times more likely to have this particular community based strain around the San Francisco area compared to the general population living in the same area. As the report noted, they found other people besides MSM that had this disease. The population sampling was taken predominately from AIDS clinics (where MSM are predominant), but a Chi-squared-based design-of-experiments was used to smooth out the bias this could present. The analysis used zip-code and US census data to this effect. In addition, HIV was nor correlated to this disease. This tells me the statistical analysis probably did a pretty good job of removing the confounding variables from the population samples that could introduce artificial biases and false conclusions.

In summary, the study says MSM have a 13.2 risk factor in this particular study compared to the general population. My point: Is somebody disagreeing with this statistical result?

 

[Lisa0315]

OK Lisa, Ohioprof, et al.

There is apparantly a misunderstanding here, based more on perception than on fact. I personally would like to understand the truth in this report. Admittedly, I don't want to shake hands with somebody that has boils on them, and I think anyone can relate to that.

Point 1:

Whereas, Lisa says this particular brand of USA300 is your typical run-of-the-mill garden variety of MRSA that the world is full of. I get a different perception upon reading this report. I understand this particular bug, which is a community-based morph, acquired additional drug resistances making it exceptionally hard to treat. My concern: Is there an effective cure for this particular strain?

Point 2:

The report says men who have sex with men (MSM) are 13.2 times more likely to have this particular community based strain around the San Francisco area compared to the general population living in the same area. As the report noted, they found other people besides MSM that had this disease. The population sampling was taken predominately from AIDS clinics (where MSM are predominant), but a Chi-squared-based design-of-experiments was used to smooth out the bias this could present. The analysis used zip-code and US census data to this effect. In addition, HIV was nor correlated to this disease. This tells me the statistical analysis probably did a pretty good job of removing the confounding variables from the population samples that could introduce artificial biases and false conclusions.

In summary, the study says MSM have a 13.2 risk factor in this particular study compared to the general population. My point: Is somebody disagreeing with this statistical result?

No one is saying that the statistics are wrong. Everyone is saying that the way you are spinning the statistics is wrong.

First, C-MRSA has been around since the 1970's, and was predicted in the 1950's. The only difference between C-MRSA and Hospital Acquired MRSA is that location. It is not a "new" disease. It is not a "new" strain of the disease, and it is not beginning or ending with gay men.

Second, the spin that you cannot seem to keep from doing is that other groups arn't just as high of a risk as gay men. It has nothing to do with anal sex. If it did, well, hate to tell you, but there would be alot of heterosexual couples contracting the disease as well.

Third, you have completely and utterly ignored the REST of the study which shows the OTHER groups that have an equally or HIGHER risk than gay men.

Fourth, The disease did not originate with gay men but originated in hospitals. It has mutated in the general population so that it no longer HAS to be contracted while staying in the hospital. This is because after 30 years of Hospital Acquired MRSA, practically EVERYONE is now a carrier.

Finally, blaming gays for this disease is ignorant. You have been provided with the main study as well as an apology from the authors of YOUR study stating that it is NOT a gay disease. Your choice to ignore these things tells me that YOU have a personal bias against gays and you will continue to spread this lie regardless of how many people prove that you are wrong.

That said, I see no reason to continue arguing with somone who will simply ignore the facts of the case in order to cling to their prejudice.

Lisa

 

[MercyBurst]

No one is saying that the statistics are wrong. Everyone is saying that the way you are spinning the statistics is wrong.

First, C-MRSA has been around since the 1970's, and was predicted in the 1950's. The only difference between C-MRSA and Hospital Acquired MRSA is that location. It is not a "new" disease. It is not a "new" strain of the disease, and it is not beginning or ending with gay men.

Second, the spin that you cannot seem to keep from doing is that other groups arn't just as high of a risk as gay men. It has nothing to do with anal sex. If it did, well, hate to tell you, but there would be alot of heterosexual couples contracting the disease as well.

Third, you have completely and utterly ignored the REST of the study which shows the OTHER groups that have an equally or HIGHER risk than gay men.

Fourth, The disease did not originate with gay men but originated in hospitals. It has mutated in the general population so that it no longer HAS to be contracted while staying in the hospital. This is because after 30 years of Hospital Acquired MRSA, practically EVERYONE is now a carrier.

Finally, blaming gays for this disease is ignorant. You have been provided with the main study as well as an apology from the authors of YOUR study stating that it is NOT a gay disease. Your choice to ignore these things tells me that YOU have a personal bias against gays and you will continue to spread this lie regardless of how many people prove that you are wrong.

That said, I see no reason to continue arguing with somone who will simply ignore the facts of the case in order to cling to their prejudice.

Lisa

I asked for a straight answer and you did not give one. How about showing us you can communicate instead of calling people stupid..

again:

My concern: Is there an effective cure for this particular strain not the ones that existed 30 years ago, 20 years ago, whatever and who cares? I did not ask for irrelevant information from eons ago, and I did not ask about the dinosaurs though perhaps they had some of it long long ago.

In summary, the study says MSM have a 13.2 risk factor in this particular study compared to the general population. My point: Is somebody disagreeing with this statistical result?


As everyone already knows quite well, it isn't just gays that get it and that's why we are concerned. If some food worker is working at the buffet bar with puss running out of boils, I think I'll pass on the custard.

 

[Lisa0315]

I asked for a straight answer and you did not give me one.

again:

My concern: Is there an effective cure for this particular strain?

In summary, the study says MSM have a 13.2 risk factor in this particular study compared to the general population. My point: Is somebody disagreeing with this statistical result?

Yes. There is still one antibiotic that can cure MRSA. It starts with a V. Sorry, I don't recall the whole name. The treatment is a course of this antibiotic for 6-8 weeks.

As for your second question, I did answer it. As I said previously, no one is saying the result is incorrect, but we are saying that your spin on the result is wrong and biased.

Lisa

 

[MercyBurst]

Yes. There is still one antibiotic that can cure MRSA. It starts with a V. Sorry, I don't recall the whole name. The treatment is a course of this antibiotic for 6-8 weeks.

As for your second question, I did answer it. As I said previously, no one is saying the result is incorrect, but we are saying that your spin on the result is wrong and biased.

Lisa

It's a disease anyone can get, so obviously it is not restricted to gays. However, that is the segment of society that is most at risk. The objective of the study was to identify risk factors, and MSM emerged way ahead of anything else, as the greatest risk factor.

Will you be a gay cover-up artist that trivializes the message where it's no longer effective, just the same as HIV awareness? Legitimizing diseases just doesn't help our health authorities.

 

[Lisa0315]

It's a disease anyone can get, so obviously it is not restricted to gays. However, that is the segment of society that is most vulnerable. Will you be a gay cover-up artist that trivilazes the message where it's no longer effective, just the same as HIV awareness.

Gays are not the most vulnerable. They are one of several groups that are vulnerable. No one is arguing that gays are vulnerable, only that you are spinning this into a gay disease in which heterosexuals may contract from gay men. If you were to wipe all gay men off the planet, and if you had done so before MRSA, there would still be MRSA and vulnerable groups. THAT is the point you seem to be missing.

Lisa

 

[MercyBurst]

Gays are not the most vulnerable.

OK, Gay men are the highest risk category at 13.2 times the average population in San Francisco. They don't know all the reasons why, but it has to do with skin contact.

They are one of several groups that are vulnerable.

Everyone is vulnerable if they encounter this bug. I don't want to encounter this bug.

No one is arguing that gays are vulnerable, only that you are spinning this into a gay disease in which heterosexuals may contract from gay men.

Like me shaking somebody's hand -- yeah pretty scary....

If you were to wipe all gay men off the planet, and if you had done so before MRSA, there would still be MRSA and vulnerable groups. THAT is the point you seem to be missing.

I don't care where it came from. I just don't want to get it. The rest of us would appreciate some protection as well.

And by the way, if you could come up with the effective treatment for the San Francisco morph, I'm sure there are some infected people that would greatly appreciate it -- the majority of whom are gay men.

 

[Lisa0315]

OK, Gay men are the highest risk category at 13.2 times the average population in San Francisco. They don't know all the reasons why, but it has to do with skin contact.



Everyone is vulnerable if they encounter this bug. I don't want to encounter this bug.




Like me shaking somebody's hand -- yeah pretty scary....




I don't care where it came from. I just don't want to get it. The rest of us would appreciate some protection as well.

And by the way, if you could come up with the effective treatment for the San Francisco morph, I'm sure there are some infected people that would greatly appreciate it -- the majority of whom are gay men.

Brick Wall.

I suggest that you do a bit more research, but it seems to me that you are going to believe what you want to believe.

Tell you what...Next time you get a cut or scrape, go to the MD and get tested for MRSA. I think you will find that you already have the disease, my dear. If you don't have it, then you would be the novelty, not the rest of the population.

The paranoia about this is really not necessary. Talk to your doctor since you do not believe anyone here.

Lisa

 

[naotmaa]

OK, Gay men are the highest risk category at 13.2 times the average population in San Francisco. They don't know all the reasons why, but it has to do with skin contact.



Everyone is vulnerable if they encounter this bug. I don't want to encounter this bug.




Like me shaking somebody's hand -- yeah pretty scary....




I don't care where it came from. I just don't want to get it. The rest of us would appreciate some protection as well.

And by the way, if you could come up with the effective treatment for the San Francisco morph, I'm sure there are some infected people that would greatly appreciate it -- the majority of whom are gay men.

Mercybust, I think you might benefit from reading this article:http://www.newsweek.com/id/96130

As Lisa already said most of us already have the bacteria somewhere on our bodies. That is why good hygiene is important and especially, taking care of any cuts you may get. This will cut down on your chances of getting an infection greatly, so you actually don't have much to worry about. Also, there are anti biotics that can still fight against this infection. So if you feel like you may be getting some early symptoms of the infection, just go to a doctor and they'll be able to hook you up.

 

[MercyBurst]

Brick Wall.

I suggest that you do a bit more research, but it seems to me that you are going to believe what you want to believe.

The risk is 13.2 times higher for gay men -- am I supposed to disbelieve that?

Tell you what...Next time you get a cut or scrape, go to the MD and get tested for MRSA. I think you will find that you already have the disease, my dear. If you don't have it, then you would be the novelty, not the rest of the population.

You say the prevalence is 100%, the study said this particular morph was 13.2 times more prevalent among gay men than the rest of the population. Next thing we know you're going to tell us HIV is just another virus like the common cold, and everyone has viruses so why worry.

The paranoia about this is really not necessary. Talk to your doctor since you do not believe anyone here.

Lisa

The doctors that prepared this report already spoke -- they said we should ALL wash our hands, or did they just pick on gay men? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[Lisa0315]

The risk is 13.2 times higher for gay men -- am I supposed to disbelieve that?



You say the prevalence is 100%, the study said this particular morph was 13.2 times more prevalent among gay men than the rest of the population. Next thing we know you're going to tell us HIV is just another virus like the common cold, and everyone has viruses so why worry.



A little puss on a hamburger would probably pass for mustard.... enjoy it she says.

Being vile does not win an argument although as weak as your argument has been, I do understand why you had to resort to such a tactic.

Lisa

 

[tulc]

A little puss on a hamburger would probably pass for mustard.... enjoy it she says.

mmmmmm....puss on hamburgers.
tulc(pass the leprous ketchup?)

 

[Ohioprof]

I asked for a straight answer and you did not give one. How about showing us you can communicate instead of calling people stupid..

again:

My concern: Is there an effective cure for this particular strain not the ones that existed 30 years ago, 20 years ago, whatever and who cares? I did not ask for irrelevant information from eons ago, and I did not ask about the dinosaurs though perhaps they had some of it long long ago.

In summary, the study says MSM have a 13.2 risk factor in this particular study compared to the general population. My point: Is somebody disagreeing with this statistical result?


As everyone already knows quite well, it isn't just gays that get it and that's why we are concerned. If some food worker is working at the buffet bar with puss running out of boils, I think I'll pass on the custard.

The previous poster answered your question, and you ignored her answer.

 

[Lisa0315]

MercyBurst,
I have a question for you. It is related to the OP although it may not be apparant initially.

What do you think is more dangerous to society:

Gays and Lesbians, Abortion, Sinners, or Christians?

Lisa

 

[ladyt28]

I don't care where it came from. I just don't want to get it.

Here's an idea dude - stay home and don't touch anyone. That way you'll be safe....and quite merciful for the rest of us.

 

[Lisa0315]

Here is a clue...

1. Crusades (1095-1291)
   • Estimated totals:
     • Wertham: 1,000,000
     • Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841): 2,000,000 Europeans killed. [http://www.bootlegbooks.com/NonFiction/Mackay/PopDelusions/chap09.html]
     • Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 5,000,000
   • Individual Events:
     • Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland
     • Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096.
     • Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6
       • 1st Crusade: 300,000 Eur. k at Battle of Nice [Nicea].
       • Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems
       • 1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.
       • 50,000 Pilgrims died of disease.
       • 1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred.
       • Siege of Tiberias: 30,000 Christians k.
       • Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks
       • Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.
       • 1291: 100,000 Christians k after fall of Acre.
       • Fall of Christian Antioch: 17,000 massacred.
       • [TOTAL: 677,000 listed in these episodes here.]
     • Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/]
       • Jaffa: 20,000 Christians massacred, 1197
     • Sorokin estimates that French, English & Imperial German Crusaders lost a total of 3,600 in battle.
       • 1st C (1096-99): 400
       • 2nd C (1147-49): 750
       • 3rd C (1189-91): 930
       • 4th C (1202-04): 120
       • 5th C (1228-29): 600
       • 7th C (1248-54): 700
     • James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992)
       • 1099: Crusaders slaughter 40,000 inhabs of Jerusalem. Dis/starv reduced Crusaders from 300,000 to 60,000.
       • 1147: 2nd Crusades begins with 500,000. "Most" lost to starv./disease/battle.
       • 1190: 500 Jews massacred in York.
       • 1192: 3rd Crusade reduced from 100,000 to 5,000 through famine, plagues and desertions in campaign vs Antioch.
       • 1212: Children's Crusade loses some 50,000.
       • [TOTAL: Just in these incidents, it appears the Europeans lost around 650,000.]
   • TOTAL: When I take all the individual death tolls listed here, weed out the duplicates, fill in the blanks, apply Occam ("Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"), etc. I get a very rough total of 1½ M deaths in the Crusades.
2. Albigensian Crusade (1208-49)
   • Rummel: 200,000 democides
   • Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History: 1,000,000
   • Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History: 1,000,000 Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians slain
   • Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (1998): 1,000,000
   • Individual incidents:
     • PGtH: 20,000 massacred in Beziers.
     • Ellerbe:
       • Beziers: 20-100,000
       • St. Nazair: 12,000
       • Tolouse: 10,000
     • Newton: 20-100,000 massacred in Beziers.
     • Sumption, Albigensian Crusade (1978): <5,000 k. by Inquisition [ca. 1229-1279]

 

[Lisa0315]

In American Holocaust, Stannard estimates the total cost of the near-extermination of the American Indians as 100,000,000.
The problem here (aside from the question of whether there were even this many people in hemisphere at all) is that Stannard doesn't differentiate between death by massacre and death by disease. He blames the Europeans for bringing new diseases which spread like wildfire -- often faster than than the Europeans themselves -- and depopulated the continent. Since no one disputes the fact that most of the native deaths were caused by alien diseases to which they had never developed immunity, the simple question of categorization is vital.

 

[Lisa0315]

Let us look for a moment at the number of victims sacrificed on the altars of the Christian Moloch:

• 1,000,000 perished during the early Arian schism.
• 1,000,000 during the Carthaginian struggle.
• 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters in Spain.
• 5,000,000 perished during the eight Crusades.
• 2,000,000 of Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives in opposing the introduction of the blessings of Christianity.
• 1,000,000 were destroyed in the Holy(?) Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots.
• 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered ere they could be convinced of the beauties(?) of the Christian creed.
• 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft.
• Total, 56,000,000.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm

 

[MercyBurst]

Being vile does not win an argument although as weak as your argument has been, I do understand why you had to resort to such a tactic.

Lisa

Whereas you accused me of being paranoid and forgot to apologize,

The paranoia about this is really not necessary. Talk to your doctor since you do not believe anyone here.

Lisa

The doctors that prepared this report already spoke -- they said we should ALL wash our hands, or did they just pick on gay men? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[Lisa0315]

Let us not forget that Hitler called himself a Christian...

How many Jews was that? Not to mention homosexuals?

Hitler [make link]:

• Extermination of the Jews:
  • Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
  • Brzezinski: 5,000,000
  • Chirot: 5,100,000
    • 3,000,000 in death camps.
    • 1,300,000 massacred.
    • 800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
  • Rummel: 5,291,000
  • Grenville: 5-6M
  • Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
  • MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
  • Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
  • Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
  • P. Johnson: 5,800,000
  • Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
  • Urlanis: 6M
• Country-by-country
• Individual Camps, Massacres etc.
  • Auschwitz
  • Babi Yar
  • Belzec
  • Chelmno
  • Majdanek
  • Mauthausen
  • Odessa
  • Sobibor
  • Treblinka
• Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
  • Urlanis: 3,912,000
  • 12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
  • Our Times: 3,300,000
  • Rummel: 3,100,000
  • MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
  • Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
  • Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
  • Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
  • Britannica: 2,600,000
• Roma (Gypsies):
  • Hammond: 250,000.
  • Rummel: 258,000.
  • Mazower, Dark Continent: 200,000-500,000.
  • Porter: 500,000
  • Brzezinski: 800,000
  • Ian Hancock, "Responses to the Romani Holocaust" in Is the Holocaust Unique? (A. Rosenbaum, ed.) cites these:
    • US Holocaust Memorial Museum: 250,000
    • "several published estimates": >1,000,000
    • Pauwels and Bergier: 750,000
    • Financial Times (London): 500-750,000 in death camps and another million shot outside.
• Homosexuals:
  • Chirot: 10-15,000
  • Rummel: 220,000
• Euthanasia of Handicapped:
  • Hugh G. Gallagher: 275,000, citing Breggin (in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
  • Johnson: 70,000 insane and incurable Germans k.
  • US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust: 70,000 k.in initial phase, 1939-41. 275,000 total k, acc. to Nuremburg Tribunal.
• Air Raids
  • Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
  • Belgrade
  • London
  • Stalingrad
• Victims of Wehrmacht:
  • Acc2 historical exhibit curated by Hannes Heer: The common soldiers of the Wehrmacht murdered 1.5M Jews, 3.3M POWs + 5-7M non-Jewish civilians (17 May 1995 Agence France Presse; 22 Feb. 1997 AP)
• [Let's make a rough calcultion of the number of Soviet civilians who were victims of excessive German brutality. In the Italian Campaign, for example, where the rules of civilized warfare were generally obeyed, there were some 90T civilians and 125T soldiers killed. The same ratio applied to the ca. 11M soldiers killed in battle in Russia would indicate that some 7.9M Russian civilians would have died if the laws of war had been kept in place, instead of the ca. 17M that did die. The difference of 9 million dead civilians is the cost of the added brutality.]
• General political prisoners:
  • Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (1998): over one million died in concentration camps, not counting those deliberately targeted for extermination.
  • Rosenburg, The Haunted Land: 26,000 political death sentences passed by German courts.
• HITLER TOTAL:
  • Courtois: 25,000,000
  • Rummel: 20,946,000 democides
  • Brzezinski: 17,000,000
  • Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs)
  • MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M
  • Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others)
  • Compton's: 12,000,000
  • Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children.
  • NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 28M civilians and 14M soldiers died in the European War. That's 42,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second