Flesh-Eating Bacteria Striking Gay Men - spread primarily through anal intercourse (MRSA USA300)

Life Site News ^ | January 15, 2008 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

[dfwgator]

I know quite a few heterosexual girls who spend lots of time with flamboyant gays.

They're called "fag hags."

[FrdmLvr]

LOL!!! This might be the best one of the day.

[Between the Lines]

I am sure Life Site intended to sensationalize the headline and fully aware that it was misleading.

Personally I have no problem with this. Perhaps it should have been done long ago. It is important (especially to gays) that this message get out. We have known about this for some time:

Staph Infections Hit Atlanta Gay Men March 5, 2003

And mild warnings have been put out to the gay community:

MRSA & Gay Men 19 November 2004

But they only started truly studying the problem in late 2005:

Research center seeks gay men for MRSA study December 09, 2005

And only today are we finding that it a new strain of MRSA called USA300.

Perhaps had it been sensationalize back in 2003 when there were only dozens of cases we would not have this epidemic we have today.

[steve86]

I for one don’t necessarily see the great incongruity in referring to a newly discovered staph strain to be “flesh eating”, even if the moniker has been used most often in recent years in reference to Group-A Strep. An aggressive bacteria, leaving behind a trail of necrotizing fasciitis, along with abscesses and ulcerations, seems a reasonably good candidate for a slight generalization of the term “flesh eating”.

[newzjunkey]

It reads like the Weekly World News.

I read the WWN ceased print publication, perhaps we no where its story writers moved to?

This story, in all its misleading gross-out propaganda is bring replicated by the usual cast of "ultra-conservative" media. Seems to me the courtships and foundations leading to *marriage* would help resolve such outbreaks. I've argued here for years that "homosexual marriage" could be a very good thing for public health.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Seems to me the courtships and foundations leading to *marriage* would help resolve such outbreaks. I've argued here for years that "homosexual marriage" could be a very good thing for public health."

I've wondered the same thing. You might have a case to make, if marriage actually led to monogamy --- for the gay men, that is. But have you any evidence that that would be the case? There are plenty of gay marriage advocates (including the man who could be considered the founder of this movement, Andrew Sullivan) who have made it clear that, to them, marriage has a great deal more "flexibility" and does NOT mean monogamy.

[gesully]

Revenge of the Rump Rangers

[cammie]

MRSA, in its many strains, is a huge problem for the medical community and for the community at large, not just for gays. Nearly everyone at some point in their lives is colonized with some strain of MRSA; 30% of the population is at any one time colonized with MRSA in their nasal passages, some are permanent carriers and never know it; 50% of people who are in a hospital for over 2 weeks are colonized with MRSA; and almost all medical professionals are colonized with MRSA. The open question is always who will become infected by the colony, and who will just remain colonized.

Likely HIV infected individuals with their reduced immunity are more likely to get a full-blown infection, but so are those who are immune-compromised by virtue of being very young, old, sickly, or just having had surgery...or in some cases just unlucky, as evidenced by the high school athletes who have died from MRSA-infected cuts. Whether or not this is a new strain of MRSA, MRSA is not a gay disease; anyone in close physical contact with a MRSA-colonized person is likely to have colonization as well, and LifeSite's attempt to make it so is pathetic, as is the handwringing about the need to use Vancomycin for it. Vancomycin is needed for all MRSA infections.

[cammie]

edit: Anyone in close physical contact with a MRSA-colonized person is likely to have colonization as well. MRSA is not a “gay” disease, and LifeSite’s attempt to make it so is pathetic, as is the handwringing about the need to use Vancomycin for it - as if this is something new. Vancomycin is needed for all MRSA infections.

[Coleus]

Syphilis

 

 

[beckysueb]

I meant the high taxes on cigarettes plus all the settlement money the government is collecting. Good one on the “coffers”! LOL

[Between the Lines]

MRSA is not a “gay” disease, and LifeSite’s attempt to make it so is pathetic

You might just want to look into the study that this article references. It is they, not LifeSite that make the gay connection. Even the title of the study makes this connection.

FULL STUDY TEXT: Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community-Associated, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in Men Who Have Sex with Men

[cammie]

I repeat: MRSA is not a gay disease; LifeSite’s alarmist article about this one strain that was studied and found to be more prevalent among gay men in San Fran notwithstanding. MRSA is a public health problem that is everywhere.

[Between the Lines]

MRSA is a public health problem that is everywhere.

MRSA USA300 is a public health problem that is unique to the gay community.

From the study:

A single clone of community-associated MRSA, USA300, was not seen before 2000 but is now widely disseminated in 38 U.S. states, Canada, and 9 European Union countries (1–17) and can cause unusually severe human diseases, including necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, endocarditis, and pneumonia (18–23). Infections occur predominantly among healthy, community-dwelling persons lacking traditional risk factors for MRSA (9, 18, 24–26).

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). However, increased use of these antimicrobials could drive the emergence of new subclones of community-associated MRSA that are multidrug resistant. Recently, Diep and colleagues (28) described a multidrug-resistant USA300 isolate that had accumulated multiple resistance genes, rendering it resistant to β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, tetracycline, macrolide, clindamycin, and mupirocin. Two of the resistance genes from this isolate, ermC and mupA—which determine constitutive resistance to macrolides, clindamycin, and mupirocin—are carried on a large conjugative plasmid called pUSA03 (28). Researchers have identified clusters of infections due to multidrug-resistant USA300 in San Francisco and Boston (29, 30), which could complicate disease management and contribute to development of persistent or recurrent community-associated MRSA infections (31, 32).

We report the incidence of multidrug-resistant USA300 in San Francisco and Boston among men who have sex with men, and we describe factors associated with its spread in this high-risk population, based on 4 studies: a population-based survey to estimate the incidence and spatial clustering of multidrug-resistant USA300 in the city of San Francisco; 2 clinic-based, cross-sectional studies to identify risk factors for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection; and a post-hoc analysis of multidrug-resistant USA300 isolates previously collected from emergency departments (1).

[MatthewCullinanHoffman]

I am the author of the article in question.

Your statements are seriously wrong and are at least morally slanderous against me and against LifeSite. MRSA USA300 causes, in the words of the study’s authors, “Necrotizing fasciitis” — that it, it manufactures toxins that kill body tissue. To verify this, simply go to the first paragraph of the main body of the study in the Annals of Amerian Health, which can be found at:

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

“Necrotizing fasciitis” is the very thing that makes a bacteria “flesh eating,” as this WebMD article makes clear:

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/necrotizing-fasciitis-flesh-eating-bacteria-topic-overview

According to WebMD, and numerous other health sites, “Necrotizing fasciitis” and “flesh-eating” are synonymous. The title of the WebMD article itself makes that clear. It doesn’t matter if the bacterium is a staph or strep bacterium. For other sites that confirm this, consult the following Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Necrotizing+fasciitis&btnG=Search

It was ironic that you claimed our headline was like a Weekly World News article when in fact the same phrase is used in the New York Times story on this study. Are you claiming that they are sensationalist? I found that “gay.com” also used it. Are they sensationalizing it?

Here’s the NYT article: www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?ref=science

Here’s the “gay.com” article: www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/01/15/7

I am always open to constructive criticism and am grateful to anyone who corrects my articles because I always want to be accurate. However, your criticisms are faulty, and moreover they represent a really ugly attack on our website. LifeSite has a very strict policy of getting the facts right and of providing sober, accurate reporting on human life and family issues. I ask you to retract your statements.

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
LifeSiteNews

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm pinging the following message to your attention. It was written by the author of the article, defending the accuracy of his facts and the soundness of his conclusions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm pinging the following message to your attention. It was written by the author of the article, defending the accuracy of his facts and the soundness of his conclusions.

[Antoninus]

I am always open to constructive criticism and am grateful to anyone who corrects my articles because I always want to be accurate. However, your criticisms are faulty, and moreover they represent a really ugly attack on our website. LifeSite has a very strict policy of getting the facts right and of providing sober, accurate reporting on human life and family issues. I ask you to retract your statements.

Well done, Mr. Hoffman.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I just need to hear someone tell me they are libertarian and I know they are wrong about a great many things. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Between the Lines]

Very interesting. Thanks for the ping!