01/17/2008
CDC Clarifies MRSA Staph 'Superbug' Story
The CDC yesterday issued a clarification to last week's story about the MRSA staph 'superbug' targeting gay men in urban areas after it was immediately picked up by mainstream news media and seized upon by right-wing religious groups as the latest threat to the general population from the gay community.
The CDC notes: "MRSA is a common cause of skin infections throughout the United States. These infections occur in men, women, adults, children, and persons of all races and sexual orientations, and are known to be transmitted by close skin-to-skin contact. In this issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, Diep et al looked at isolates of MRSA - USA300 strains containing a particular plasmid associated with additional drug resistance. The paper shows that multidrug-resistant USA300 has emerged as an important source of disease among men with have sex with men in 2 geographically distinct communities. The strains of MRSA described in the recent Annals of Internal Medicine have mostly been identified in certain groups of men who have sex with men (MSM), but have also been found in some persons who are not MSM. It is important to note that the groups of MSM in which these isolates have been described are not representative of all MSM, so conclusions can not be drawn about the prevalence of these strains among all MSM. The groups studied in this report may share other characteristics or behaviors that facilitate spread of MRSA, such as frequent skin-to-skin contact."
In a seeming effort to quell panic, the CDC goes on to say that the continuing study of these strains indicates that they are rare, and there are still effective antibiotic choices (including those taken orally) available to treat infections, but transmission prevention is still important.
They conclude: "MRSA is typically transmitted through skin-to-skin contact, which occurs during a variety of activities, including sex. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that it MRSA is a sexually-transmitted infection in the classical sense."
Diep's story and hysterical warning that "once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable" was quickly seized upon by right-wing religious leaders like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber as the latest threat to the general population from the gay community, and criticized by editors at gay newspapers across the country, as well as one heterosexual female medical reporter who called it "homophobic and looking to paint gay men as filthy carriers of infectious disease, who have too much sex."
And, Salon writes: "When it comes to spreading the bacteria, it is not homosexuals we have to worry about. It is that much wider swath of the male population examined in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the journal, the medical researchers were not studying gays, they were studying the St. Louis Rams. That is correct: football players; in particular, linebackers. 'In our investigation,' the journal noted, 'infection occurred only among linemen and linebackers, and not among those in backfield positions, probably because of the frequent contact among linemen during practice and games.' Those rug burns I mentioned are in fact turf burns. 'All MRSA skin abscesses developed at sites of turf burns," declared the journal.'"
Still, vigilance is important and the CDC does offer some transmission prevention tips with their release. I've also posted them AFTER THE JUMP...
CDC Statement on MRSA in Men Who Have Sex with Men [cdc]
Lies, Damn Lies, and So-Called Science: Gay Men and Bacteria [marc arendt]
3 gay editors question sensational staph stories [daily kos]
Staph infections: The right call [salon]
Previously
Officials: Staph 'Superbug' Spreading in Gay Community [tr]
You can prevent spreading staph or MRSA skin infections to others by following these steps:
1. Cover your wound. Keep wounds that are draining or have pus covered with clean, dry bandages. Follow your healthcare provider’s instructions on proper care of the wound. Pus from infected wounds can contain staph and MRSA, so keeping wounds covered will help prevent the spread to others. Bandages or tape can be discarded with the regular trash.
2. Clean your hands. You, your family, and others in close contact should wash their hands frequently with soap and warm water or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer, especially after changing the bandage or touching the infected wounds.
3. Do not share personal items. Avoid sharing personal items such as towels, washcloths, razors, clothing, or uniforms that may have had contact with infected wounds or bandages. Wash sheets, towels, and clothes that become soiled with water and laundry detergent. Drying clothes in a hot dryer, rather than air-drying, also helps kill bacteria in clothes.
4. Talk to your doctor. Tell any healthcare providers who treat you that you have or had a staph or MRSA skin infection.
Posted 6:25 PM EST by Andy Towle in Health, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hey Humanist,
I gotta say, I disagree right back at ya. Even though I find it hard to believe that Jordan really believes the stuff he posts, and could EASILY judge the shit out of it all, I believe that pointing the pointy finger doesn't help people learn very much. "You are an irresponsible shit" just makes people defensive. Judging doesn't accomplish the objective. I mean, consider how the judgement of the religious right makes some of us react.
The fact is, what I posted earlier is all well-researched, social psych stuff. People don't think that harmful behavior will harm if the consequences are not immediate. If we take Jordan's stuff at face value (before applying many grains of salt), we see a normal, human reaction. What you seem to want to do is judge a normal, human behavior. Which is sort of like judging homosexual behavior; another, albeit -and yes, I do like that word - atypical, completely normal human behavior.
Would I condemn those who would willfully and deliberately put others in harm' way? You betcha. But condemning those who lose sight due to passion of the moment just doesn't set right - as those who defend and argue in court might concur. I have no idea into which category Jordan falls. But at face value (which is how he has asked to be judged), it seems that condemning and judging is the less effective course.
Ideology has its place, but it is put into perspective by the study of sociology and psychology and other disciplines that temper the ideal with the possible and probable, given the influence of circumstance and nature.
What you are asking me to do is judge the love ones who, on their deathbeds, took responsibility (when applicable) for their condition; who realized that behaviors had consequences but, because of their humanity and therefore fallibility, realized this too late.
Sorry. Not gonna do it.
Posted by: JT | Jan 18, 2008 4:17:21 AM
The CDC has been complicit in demonizing gay sex and gay men for many, many years now. Since AIDS began in the early 80's, the CDC's chant has been "gay sex is risky" or "gay men are a high risk group". It's a load of crap. There is no logical reason why gay anal sex should be any more risky than heterosexual anal sex. There is no logical reason why the gay sexual identity of a person should put them at greater risk than a a person with a heterosexual identity. It's the promiscuity that's risky, not the sex act or the identity.
Posted by: brian | Jan 18, 2008 8:06:05 AM
Diep was a disgrace in the way he painted this as a "gay disease". An absolute disgrace. Most gay men do not have diseases and are perfectly healthy. Moreover, being gay or engaging in gay sex does not cause diseases any more than being straight or engaging in straight anal sex, which many straights do.
Posted by: jason | Jan 18, 2008 8:09:33 AM
Next time some researcher puts out a gay-centric story related to diseases, we have to be wary of the ways in which the story is framed by both the researcher and the media. Often these stories are designed so as to provoke controversy or to get attention for attention-whore researchers. This is usually achieved by propagating the notion that gays are somehow responsible for inventing all these calamitous diseases. This notion plays right into the hands of homophobes.
Posted by: tim | Jan 18, 2008 8:14:51 AM
From my own study on MRSA the main carriers are school children and dirty straight boys. We need to stop these two very dangerous groups and their agenda before they destroy us all!
Posted by: wetcnt | Jan 18, 2008 10:23:39 AM
I am the medical reporter referred to in this posting.
I'm not sure how it's relevant, but, for the record, I am not heterosexual. I am a lesbian.
Best,
Victoria Stagg Elliott
Posted by: Victoria Stagg Elliott | Jan 18, 2008 12:07:24 PM
JT and Humanist,
Feel free to debate, but be aware that Jordan isn't real. He's a character that someone apparently thinks is funny who makes the same "jokes" over and over and over (usually involving kissing and/or sleeping with "hot guys"). He'll probably (or, in his words, "prolly") come back with some tired post saying, "Why does everyone say I'm not real!? I get that from my mother, brother, doctor! It's not my fault I'm not smart!" Then he'll go on to talk about colognes, partying, or whatever other gay stereotype he decides to trot out that day.
So, feel free to engage in intellectual discussions. Just don't think that anyone as dumb as Jordan is reading Towleroad, and pray that no one would ever flaunt their ignorance like that. (Note that he recently changed his email address because his previous one used words far too sophisticated for someone who doesn't know "big words." He also used to write flawlessly, with no typos or abbreviations, until it was noted that incredibly dumb people would tend to make mistakes.)
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 18, 2008 1:48:42 PM
Brian, unfortunately that's not true.
yes, the transmission likelihood from an infected to a non-infected person (which is far higher from unprotected receptive anal sex than any other sex act) is not different based on the genders involved. HOWEVER, because so many gay men (and in particular so many highly promiscuous gay men) engage in lots and lots of anal sex, and average far more partners than straight men (on AVERAGE, mind you), gay sex IS in fact on average far riskier for HIV infection. not because of the sex itself, but because of the demographics from which the parties are drawn.
think of it this way. let's say your AVERAGE partner for gay sex has had 40+ sex partners, almost all of whom he has engaged in anal sex with (if you're finding sex partners in a club in the castro, these numbers would be conservative, in my opinion). if any significant fraction of those partners ever has unprotected sex (outside a monogamous relationship), then yes, your risk is much much higher than it would be if your average sex partner was someone who only rarely had anal sex and had fewer than 20 partners.
take a look here:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table1.htm
the bottom line is, of course, everyone needs to be careful if having sex with multiple partners. but we gay men need to be extra careful, no question about it.
Posted by: humanist | Jan 18, 2008 2:12:21 PM
hi Paul R,
thanks for clarifying. my "fake" alert did go off at the beginning, but i thought it was important to call him out anyway, since that's the sort of sentiment that can encourage unsafe rationalizations in other readers.
people on the internet are weird.... i'm not sure how playing that character would be entertaining.
Posted by: humanist | Jan 18, 2008 2:16:15 PM
Jordan is free to contract HIV like me, and find out for himself that most guys don't want him anymore. There will be no cock to put a condom on!!
Posted by: Ty Jones | Jan 18, 2008 2:30:35 PM
Hey Paul R (and Humanist) -
In our own fashion, aren't we all just characters?
Seriously. I know nothing about the "reality" of anyone here. I was responding to the "character" of Jordan, and, for that matter, Humanist. I hope that some of what I posted indicated a healthy degree of skepticism - I do recall posting something about "grains of salt" and taking "at face value".
However, the message remains the same. You may note that thousands view the postings to which comments are made without ever responding. If Jordan is merely a character being portrayed, consider that it is a character that sadly is representative of real attitudes. If some anonymous viewer ascribing to these attitudes read my responses and took something to heart, than my efforts have been worthwhile.
Similarly, if Humanist and anyone else ponders my comments about judgement, and has a change of heart or even just a second thought, then nothing has been in vain.
But thanks for caring. And, sincerely, have a great day.
Posted by: JT | Jan 19, 2008 2:24:17 AM
JT wrote:
Would I condemn those who would willfully and deliberately put others in harm' way? You betcha. But condemning those who lose sight due to passion of the moment just doesn't set right - as those who defend and argue in court might concur.
JT, my friend, you wrote some thought-provoking things in your exchange with Humanist. But boy oh boy did you drop a stink bomb with the comment above.
And whatever you are, you're no lawyer because, trust me, the "heat of the moment," "passion overcame reason" argument is no defense in a court of law. Passion might mitigate motive, but it does not suspend culpability.
If you don't buy that, then ask one of your women friends whether they feel "the suspension of reason in the face of passion" should be a justifiable defense of forcible sex, i.e., rape. If so, then what you're saying is, "no means no, but only until you get too far, and then there comes a point where a man can't be told 'no, stop'" because he's crossed a point at which passion is allowed to overrule reason. That's nonsense.
Despite what your "well-researched social psych" stuff might say, part of being human is enforcing our reason over our passion. Short of that, we're back to living like animals in a state of nature.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jan 22, 2008 1:00:46 PM
MRSA can be killed at the source. Check out www.worldwideoxide.com for the "green" EPA approved cleaner, disinfectant, odor eliminator,mold and mildew preventer AND MRSA killer.
Posted by: Tom Heller | Jan 22, 2008 1:50:32 PM