[quote=foundit66;15006]Really?
How the heck aren't break-outs at seal training facilities, hospitals, day-cares, nursing homes, NFL football teams, ... not fitting under "outbreak of a particular strain of it effecting a particular subsection of the general population"?

Because, there is no real connection between just a few individual gay guys getting MRSA. Hospitals and nursing homes are similar. Day cares are known antigen incubators. And showers(seal training facilities, footbal teams etc) breed all kindsa stuff. No one is "born" a seal, lifetime hospital patient, or football player. Some homosexual dude, is a bit different IMHO. Just as it seems that some actions spread AIDS a bit easier than others. It's just curious that a new variant seems to effect gay guys in the genitalia. You are right though, maybe it's just coincidence.

Yes. It's a new strain subgroup. It has to start somewhere.
A subgroup of USA300 has acquired an additional genetic sequence, pUSA03, that makes it resistant to a greater number of drugs and hence more difficult to treat. It is known as multidrug-resistant ( MDR ) USA300.


Read above and get back to me.

Read above. There seems to be a new subgroup that has found it's way to a segment of regular society. It's mutating. Sound familiar?

medscape.com/viewarticle/568878
The vast majority of the infections (170) were caused by USA300, with 30 being MDR. MDR infections were more likely than other isolates to involve the buttocks, genitals, and perineum than other anatomical sites (30% vs 14%).

They are different from regular USA300. We can all catch it, but it seems there is one variant that is mutating into a way into the regular population. And it seems that gay men are the conduit. How do you interpret the information?

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

That gay men, especially ones living in one of the so-called "gay ghettoes, are a closed subculture by both association and physical proximity? I dunno, that's the only thing I can come up with.

It's boring how you try to work in the same tired and pointless non-topical rejoinders into any conversation you get.
And quite frankly, LOOK at how this disease was "discovered" in the original research.
There is no indicator that they have even TRIED to look for the common causal factor yet.
Perhaps this time it will be in a gym in a gay neighborhood, or at a clinic as was already mentioned. Or possibly even a bathhouse.
But there IS a common factor.

It's spread by the same ol' things. It hasn't jumped to "airborne". It's still spread by physical contact. It still thrives in the same way.


< rolls eyes >
It spreads by sexual contact.
It is well known that some gay men are prominently promiscuous.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put that together, especially since this disease is spread by human contact.


Precisely the point.
It has to start somewhere...

Is it news because it is a "new strain"? No.
New strains and drug resistant versions of strains have been popping up for a while without nation-wide attention.
But this is the first time we can pin the word "gay" next to it, so let's all give it national attention.


A subgroup of USA300 has acquired an additional genetic sequence, pUSA03, that makes it resistant to a greater number of drugs and hence more difficult to treat. It is known as multidrug-resistant ( MDR ) USA300.
Drug resistant is nothing new.
New strains have been seen before. Staph has been mutating long before this.


We don't even have any real information as to how it is spread.
If they find a gym in San Fran tomorrow that has it all over the place, are we suddenly going to lose interest?


What the heck are you even trying to say?
MRSA was spreadable long before this. There is nothing new about technique of spreading.
We "could all catch" the variants before.

You're trying to scare up an epidemic and it's the same ol' tactic time and time again.

What most boring is how long you can drag out a post. Let's hope there IS a common factor. But at this time the only factor in THIS subgroup is "gay".

You hope. Or it's mutated to being able to thrive in a "new" way. That's why it's a different subgroup. As you would tell me..."you got anything to support your statements". Because that's not the conclusion the researchers came to."

Oh so in this case gay men are prominently promiscuous. If that is the case, then wouldn't that mean they should be especially warned? And not just gay men, but any MSM's. The scientist still seems to have done the right thing for the general population to put out the warning worded the way he did.

And the best way to try and stop it is the warn those that are showing a propensity to spread it. Makes perfect sense to me.

It's news because it's a new strain AND particularly drug resistant compared to the others.

And none seem to effect a specified part of the general population. If a particular hospital or gym has an outbreak, that's not the same as a few individual gay guys with sores breaking out in a suspicious spot. Even if it's one guy spreading it, damn, that doesn't speak well for any argument about homosexual promiscuity. And do remember having that debate with you before in another forum.

That's true, but it hasn't mutated into a possible sexually transmitted more highly drug resistent version until now. So it's news.

No, because they would then have to find the connection between that gym and all the gay men in Boston that have this particular subgroup.

Not all of us obviously. And not this variant. We "could" all catch it. But it seems that some people have a particularly higher risk than others. Considering the etiology, I'm really not concerned about catching it right now. I'm pretty sure there will be very little same sex skin to skin contact with my a$$. And strange there's again no mention of women or Lesbians. Hmmm.

I didn't do the study or write the article. Maybe you ought to try and prove them wrong. I ain't buying what you are selling though. Just as I didn't buy the half ass politically correct retraction stories floating around. Bull.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

That's only because the study looked specifically at gay men with a higher scrutiny than other demographics. Just like other studies that looked specifically at sports teams with higher scrutiny. What I find bothersome is that the study didn't actually look at transmission mode at all but rather left an assumption that since they looked at gay men and found it, it must be because of gay sex in particular. That's just not good science.

In truth, men are prominently promiscuous. Straight men are just curbed by the coy nature of women.

Everyone should be warned once the mode of transmission is actually identified. We saw what happened last time a disease was labeled a "gay disease". Gays educated themselves while the straight community carried on like normal, resulting in high levels of outbreak among them that could have been prevented with a little honesty.

I won't disagree here.

Actually, in the context of this study, it is the exact same. The research was done in specific cultural pockets where the subjects were in a state of quasi-quarantine...they go to the same gyms, the same bars and restaurants, and socialize mainly with each other in these "gay ghettos". There is a lot more to this than you are seeing.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Please elaborate.

Staph infections have always been known to transmit through physical contact, not just sexual contact. Do you think gay men do not have any kind of physical contact that doesn't involve sex?

That wouldn't be very hard to do. Gay men are notoriously body conscious.

As enthralling as it is to hear about how you use your ass, that has absolutely no bearing on the reality that you are just as much at risk for getting a staph infection as anyone else. It takes contact and a cut.

Translation: I've made my mind up and despite the retractions that do prove them wrong, I will not change my mind because I want to believe the false information because it fits with my agenda of condemning gays.

My name is fxashun and I approve this message.

That's like noting it amongst football players when NO ACTUAL RESEARCH has been done to figure out it only affects on NFL teams locker room.
No conclusion can be drawn on ACTUAL existing evidence, beyond the fact that such things ARE the common factor for this disease.


ROFLMAO!
It's funny how you try to pretend that it's my "hope", when the truth of the matter is that it is YOU who are speculating when it comes to "thrive in a 'new' way".
There is absolutely no evidence of that, like many of your statements, but you pretend that its me who has no leg to stand on.


Show me any conclusion of the researchers showing a contradiction of my statements.
And then be prepared to be slammed by the CDC conclusion. Or did you forget about that...


1) I forgot how dishonest you can be.
I said SOME gay men and promiscuity.
And you turn around and drop the "some".

2) IP had it summed up best.
IP: "In truth, men are prominently promiscuous. Straight men are just curbed by the coy nature of women."
People like Magic Johnson obviously demonstrate that not all straight men are "curbed"...


And if the intent is PURELY to warn, then I agree.
But part of the problem is HOW many of these "news" articles come across. I've already pointed this out, but it was predictably ignored.
If the concern is "warning", don't you tell people HOW TO PREVENT transmission and infection? But many leave that out.
If the concern is "warning", don't you give ACCURATE information about the history of the disease and modes of infection? But many leave unfounded allegations regarding "STD".
If the concern is "warning", then why do it on the NATIONAL level when there are THOUSANDS of MRSA deaths each year across the nation with NO NATIONAL "warning"?


Oh yeah. Forgot about those on the "down low" who "aren't gay"...


My issue is with how some abuse this issue.


Again, I ask.
1) Is this the first "new strain" that we've seen from MRSA?
2) Is this the first "drug resistant" strain we've seen from MRSA?

The answer to both question is NO, so something else is going on here.


I have to laugh at your transparent efforts.
You talk about "one guy spreading it"...
HOW MANY people have this?

HOW LONG has it been around?

How many MRSA transmissions are there in the general population from person to person that has nothing to do with "gays"?

You're all ready to jump to conclusions to point the finger at gay guys with NONE of the facts.


So when I bring back the same ol' research proving that only a SMALL NUMBER of gays are promiscuous, it will just mean you've ignored that information before?


1) It's not "sexually transmitted".
It's transmitted by body contact. Body contact occurs when two people have sex. Hopefully I don't need to draw you a diagram on that.
And the absurdity of this fact, compared to the foolishness of some of these arguments, is exemplified when people talk irrationally and baselessly about claims that it's "sexually transmitted" but then they have fears it will go to the general population.
So the "general population" is having sex with gays?

"sexually transmitted" is an absurdly inaccurate label. If "warning" were the true purpose, they would label it AS IT IS.


I've seen one story about an east coast sufferer who regularly visited San Francisco.
People travel.

There are a few people in my company who regularly commute across time-zones.

Part of the problem with your comment is that they HAVE NOT EVEN TRIED to really find a connection yet. At least not in a general sense whereby conclusions can be drawn about modes of transmission and infection points.


You're demonstrating cluelessness if you truly believe that.
The disease is spread by contact. Even person to person contact.
Are you a bubble boy? Is that how somebody might be immune?


Yeah.
People who are in the NFL.
People who go to daycare.
People who go to the hospital...

This whole "people have a particularly high risk" crap is inane. The disease BREAKS OUT based on infection points.
And now an infection point has hit an area where gays are evidently more frequent.


Do you really think that's the only area it can be spread to?
That somebody shaking your hand is not a viable mode of transmission? Or dozens of other bodily contact means?


Yeah.
Just like Navy Seals showed no mention of the Blue Angels catching it...


It's the ways people apply the study that is the issue.
The way people misrepresent it.
You are a prime example of that.


I know you aren't.
The facts are documented, and you come to your own conclusion that condemns gays, demanding evidence from others while ignoring a lack of evidence of your own.

It's your M.O.

I'm beginning to think there's substance to this...

Of all places the San Francisco Chronicle itself put it in their headlines from their very own medical writer...

S.F. gay community an epicenter for new strain of virulent staph

Ths ain't from an "IhateGays" website or anything...The Chronicle isn't going to put this out there to go against the grain...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I am not doubting that there is relevance in an admonition for those that might be affected. However, there has been no evidence to suggest that it is behavior associative rather than locale associative so far.

Think of it like this: If there is a lice outbreak at Harlem Elementary, is that sufficient evidence to say "inner city black people are breeding lice"?

I didn't see anything where they specifically looked at "gay men". It read to me like the anomalous results stood out from the other ones. It seems the random samples they took started becoming a little less random for a segment of the population.

Obviously.

If skin/skin is the transmission mode, the place where the men were breaking out seems pretty obvious to me. That's what the handwashing thing is supposed to fix. As for the "other" disease. It's still a "gay, drug addict, promiscuous person, sexually adventurous" person disease. As a heterosexual male, if I wear a condom, I have no concern of AIDS. And being monogamous for the last 13 years to a nondrug addicted woman that was a virgin when we met, I have just about 0% concern. And even if a hetero male doesn't wear a condom, the chances of catching AIDS through vaginal intercourse is rather low. Drug addicts and MSM's are still insanely higher risk than plain jane dudes.
http://www.avert.org/media/images/US...WomenGraph.gif

Or you are looking for more than that's there. We'll see.

If it started from one guy or gym, that one subcategory seems to be pretty darn tenacious. And why would only gay men in Boston have specimens of the disease? If you would read the way they wrote the writeup...
We conducted retrospective chart reviews of 130 consecutive patients with MRSA infection treated at Fenway Community Health, Boston, Massachusetts, from April 2004 through March 2006. Fenway Community Health is a community-based organization that provides primary care to more than 10 000 patients annually (34). Reports have noted that a large proportion of MRSA isolates recovered from skin and soft-tissue infection sites of patients seen at Fenway Community Health were resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents (30, 31). Using the same standardized instrument developed for the SFGH HIV clinic study, we abstracted clinical data from medical records of each patient at Fenway Community Health.

They said they took 130 consecutive MRSA cases. I don't see how that could be interpreted as they concentrated on gay men. Do only gay men go to that clinic or something? That's a strange assumption based on the information available. All infections there turned out to be gay men.

In the pelvic and buttock area? If you say so.

Maybe not the ones with this infection. You know there are no things as absolutes.

I don't shower, I bathe. I don't go to a gym. And there's no activity around my ass. IMHO if this strain of MRSA needs assplay to spread, I'm good to go. If I catch it, it won't be THAT subgroup.

Translation: I've made my mind up and despite the retractions that do prove them wrong, I will not change my mind because I want to believe the false information because it fits with my agenda of condemning gays.

My name is fxashun and I approve this message.[/quote]

I'm still looking for the false information. It all still makes perfect sense. All I've seen so far is false assumtions and misdirection. The information is right there. We can choose to look at it for what it is, or we can bullshit our way into political correctness. I have yet to see single "fact" you've presented that isn't refuted in the actual study. Even if it isn't a "sexually transmitted disease", it's a disease that seems to be transmitted by assplay. Let's see what the good doc has to say...
The study suggests MRSA is spread by gay men through sexual acts. Because the bacteria can survive around the anus, skin-abrading anal sex can open a wound that can be infected.

“It's not the sex, it’s the close contact you have with other people,” Rosenstock said.

“I’ve been seeing these infections, not this particular strain, but this infection in people from all demographics for four or five years now," he said.


IMHO, the news about this is that they have a new subgroup of MRSA that seems to have found a better way to get around. You can minimalize this all you want, that's fine, but I'm concerned what the next evolution might be.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Yes...

cnredd runs out of the room ducking...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd