And it seems to me that locale had a lot to do with this decrease in randomness. They specifically targeted areas like Fenway and Castro. I don't think there was any ill-intent there; just that there was some oversight in planning.

You missed the entire point. Lack of education to ALL demographics caused serious outbreaks that could have been curbed. I never made any assertion speaking to the specific modes of transmission.

Not really if you look at their Mission Statement.

I suppose it never occurred to you that some people scratch their balls or wipe their asses after going to the bathroom.

I would venture a guess, an educated guess, that a lot of these men are probably going to the same gym, which has, historically, been a place of contraction for staph infections.

Then remind me to never stand close to you on the train without my noseplugs.

That's your opinion and nothing more. There has been no definitive evidence of sexual contact or, as you so delicately put it, assplay, being the mode of transmission in a significant number of these cases.

There is nothing politically correct about wanting all of the information before we rush to some judgment.

Then you either A) don't understand scientific methodology or B) don't understand the study itself.

Yeah, lets do pay attention to the good doc. Especially his last statement; this infection in people from all demographics for four or five years now. How many times has it mutated in four or five years? Here's a hint: this ain't the first time.

Good, then approach it from that angle and not the "gays are dirty disease spreaders" innuendo you have been making all along. I can look at history to tell you where that is going to lead: another strain in another gym/hospital/locker room/etc that is going to be added to the collective data and then dismissed. Unless its found in two or more gays.

If you are kidding, good play. If you aren't, please explain how you can say that.

Part of the issue is what that "substance" is, or means.

The article nails many things on the head that I have been talking about.

Although researchers have stopped short of declaring this form of staph a sexually transmitted disease, the infections are found where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity.
"Skin-to-skin contact". Same as always.
And the researchers "have stopped short of declaring" it an STD.
Calling it an STD would actually be a disservice, as it would make people think more about bodily fluid transmission and lead to false sense of safety.

The study estimated that 200 cases of this highly drug-resistant variant are turning up in San Francisco each year, mostly among gay men.
Notice, MOSTLY among gay men.
Straight people are catching it too.
How the heck does that happen if it's an "STD"?

Just why the new, more drug-resistant variety is concentrated among gay men is not yet known. Patients infected with HIV appear to run a higher risk of infection, but the study suggests that gay men are being infected with the staph germ regardless of whether they are HIV-positive.
The obvious answer is that infected with HIV gives a HIGHER RISK, but that doesn't mean those not infected have NO risk.
And if they are having sex with just a condom on and not a full body condom, the infected area makes contact and the "low risk" can still get infected.

One factor that could be in play is a medical history of heavy use of antibiotics, which creates conditions for breeding drug-resistant strains. Any patient, HIV-positive or not, who has had high previous exposure to antibiotics might be more susceptible.
Another huge indicator, and part of the reason these diseases go "drug resistant".
Interestingly enough, there is a thorough lack of anybody saying "because they are gay" as a reason for infection...

One of the paradoxes of bacterial infections is that using antibiotics to treat them is one of the quickest ways to promote antibiotic resistance. Although the drugs sometimes are essential, overuse is weakening their effectiveness worldwide.
Again, not an issue of being gay...


Don't get me wrong.
I'm not saying people should scoff at the disease.
I'm saying that some people trying to use it to wag their finger at gays are misrepresenting the issue.

I wouldn't have run if I wasn't kidding...

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

I figured, but I can see the case being made in opposition to what I posted. I just wanted a good argument here with someone who actually thinks.

If there is a head scratching club and it was a new species of lice on effecting that group. You might have a problem. Especially if you randomly test another school in another state and all of the kids that show signs of the new strain of lice also belong to a head scratching club. You would have to come to the conclusion that those head scratching kids are aggravating a condition.

Your analogy was simplistic and not adequately describing the situation we have here.

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

Before you can come to that conclusion, you need to find a mode of transmission in common with both groups. Just because there is a correlation does not necessarily mean there is a causation.

Your analysis is seriously lacking in any objectivity and does not adequately account for the relevant variables. You start with a conclusion and work your way backwards every time the word "gay" shorts out your ability to think clearly.

ALL of the cases there were gay men there. I'm sorry, that's more than coincidence IMHO. In fact, even when they discuss the retractions in the media, they neglect to mention that part of the study.

The doctor did in my last post. Skin abrading activity and such.

The lack of lesbians again points to something being amiss. Those are very "AIDSish" similarities. You pointing that out doesn't help your case. There were goose eggs for anyone other than gay men. Zero in Boston. If you think that 58% of 25% is a clear majority, why isn't this 100% significant?

But not many people then go and touch another man's twigs n berries. That's a pretty specific event.

Now you are assuming. Boy, I wish I could do that in our OTHER debates.

Whatever that means.

So a disease that spreads through skin to skin contact has mutated into a specific subgroup that is only at this time effecting gay men in the groin and ass area, and there's no definitive evidence? Wow, that's amazing. It's not only my opinion. Do I need a link? Another one I mean.

All they said was gay men have a 13 times greater chance of catching this new subgroup of MRSA. Considering it hasn't really spread into the general population yet, only shower areas and medical facilities, it's significant that a new strain seems to have found another outlet.

Then you either A) don't understand scientific methodology or B) don't understand the study itself.

I understand the study perfectly. I think you are going out of your way NOT to understand it. It seems pretty clear to me.

I know. And it's not the only "superbug". But this one seems to have found a particular host and a preferred mode of transportation. The other ones seemed to stay in the close institutional confines and weakened immune systems...No sign of that in this case.

Actually "I" just posted the article. If I wanted to say gays are dirty disease spreaders, I would just come out and say it. Even if they WERE dirty sexually transmitted disease spreaders, a promiscuous gay guy is only a risk for other gay guys. Like I said, ain't nobody doing any skin abrading mess around my ass.

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

The mode of transmission is that they all share each others combs. They have a technique that "abrades the skin". Obviously you never have had your scalp scratched.

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

Guess I won this debate without even trying, since no one has defeated this statement:



http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/new...html#post14972


Oh why must I always run where angels fear to tread

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog