Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

World Threat?

It is not clear from the article whether a sensationalistic claim about MRSA being "the next AIDS and worse" is true. This presentation of MRSA as a world threat is part of the advertisements a new journalism-based talk show is using to promote their first episode which is airing roght now but doing little to inform... So I came to find out for myself and I see there's not enough data on how contagion occurs (The ads suggested sexual intercourse and mere shaking of a hand)... Rather than being alarmist I guess proper information on the plausibility of major outbreaks of MRSA could get a place in the article, after all, detailing about its spread to other countries and control and any other data that might be conclusive. But well, this was just a thought...Undead Herle King (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it transmitted?

Can someone with the knowledge add a section that specifically addresses how MRSA is acquired (like whether it can be acquired by shaking someone's hand or using the same bathroom or touching a doorknob)? I think there is a lot of conflicting information being thrown around by the media, and this is a topic that I think is important to readers. `68.248.159.57 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I know wikipedia is not a howto and that it's probably mostly med students writing this but a simply "Transmission" section would improve legibility and usefulness and still keep it encyclopedic. chochem (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't provide a reference for what I'm about to state but this is what I was taught. The general population has a nasal carriage rate of between 10-25% for S. aureus and microbiologists, hospital workerss, basically anyone that comes into contact regularly with the bacteria has a nasal carriage rate of between 10-40%. This does not mean that everyone that has it is sick, will ever get sick, and will spread it around and make everybody else sick. It simply means it lives happily in your nose with the other millions of bacteria stuck up there and colonising your body. It is part of the normal flora for humans, and it is meant to be there! Because this organism is part of the normal flora that means it is regularly exposed to antibiotics, and has developed resistance mechanisms through the transfer of plasmids to various antibiotics. Including methicillin. This is usually not an issue, unless the bacteria are also one of the strains that has various virulence mechanisms like surface proteins that promote colonisation, toxins that promote tissue spread, antiphagocytic capsule, immunological disguises, etc. Still usually not an issue. Then the S. aureus happens to colonise an area of the body which it doesn't normally live in, THEN you get the problems. So think of it as fine in your nose, fine on your skin, not so great in that open wound on your leg. That is when you get an infection. It's transmitted in the normal ways, skin to skin, surface to skin, etc. I've noticed a lot of panic and sensationalism in this article and thought it was important to state that this isn't the end of the world as we know it. You're more likely to pick it up in a hospital not only because hospital workers are carrying it, but also because YOU are probably carrying it. 131.170.90.2 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

This section does not cite the carrier rate of s. aureus. I thought every human carried s.aureus not just a third of the human population.


The "flesh eating bacterium" is most commonly Streptococcus pyogenes, not Staph.

http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic743.htm

I suspect that what you mean is that everyone is capable of carryinng S aureus should they experience an acquisition event, and most people above a certain age have probably carried the bug for a while in the past. Like many other bacteria, S aureus is carried for a limited period of time (in the order of months to years) but is is not carried for ever: so while some people acquire S aureus, others lose it, leading to a dynamic equilibrium of 30% prevalence. Will you buy that? Best wishes, Pietro Coen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietrocoen (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

--eukaryotica 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually S. aureus is carried by each and every person on the face of the planet. It is a part of the body's normal flora. What everyone does not carry is MRSA. This is an infectious form of the bacteria.

Most of what I've read cites 30% of the population carries staph on their skin or in nasal passages. (And, I've read a lot the past six months.) I contracted MRSA last fall after having only one sore on my back. My primary physician misdiagnosed me and sent me home with incorrect meds and no instructions to watch for rising fever. After my fever topped out at 104.3 the next afternoon, I called the dr. and was immediately admitted to the hospital. I required surgery to remove affected tissue, and I was in intensive care for four days--total time in hospital six days. New drug--Zyvox--helped tremendously once I was over affects of Toxic Shock Syndrome in the hospital. An unpleasant week for sure.

I've had one recurrent episode (after being otherwise healthy most of my life). This second go-round was much milder since I went straight to the doctor, and I knew what was wrong. My two rounds of MRSA both followed 3-4 weeks of penicillan use (connected with an abscessed root canal that is now being retreated/fixed). I'm convinced the penicillan usage was directly connected to both bouts of MRSA. The surgeon agrees; infectious disease dr. not so sure. (The 3 drs. who treated me in the hospital continually had differing opinions related to MRSA, so finding different views isn't unusual.) Time will tell cause I'm "done" with penicillan.

--MRSA Survivor 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)MRSA Survivor

Community-acquired MRSA is not the same as hospital-acquired MRSA. Most important differences include antibiotic-susceptibility spectrum (ca-MRSA more sensitive to additional antibiotics than hospital acquired antibiotics) and virulence. From a clinical perspective, I would rewrite most of this article. Reflects common lumping of all MRSA infections when, at least clinically, ca vs. nosocomial are very different entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rruggero (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have never heard of "multiple resistant" staph aureus? (to clarify: there is multiple resistant MRSA, but MRSA does not refer to this entity) is this editor confusing multiple resistant TB? i think someone at wiki with more medical/microbiology background should really review this entire article Rruggero 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

looks like someone has added some great info differentiating ca and ha MRSA in last section. thanks. Rruggero 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sensationalism

I don't know anything much about the subject, but it looks to me as though you've summarized and quoted from a sensationalistic tabloid article. Mkweise 19:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Did you follow the link, or is just that my writing reeks of POV? --Uncle Ed 19:59 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
I think you did a good job of summarizing a bad article. In particular, I think the comparison with AIDS is sensationalistic. If I'm not mistaken, MRSA is significant mainly as a secondary infection. Perhaps we can find some hard data at cdc.gov. Mkweise 20:18 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
Nonetheless , scary stuff this bug is. SniperSarge 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
90,000 people a year die from hospital acquired infections including MRSA. This has been happening long before the recent hysteria. It is a serious problem and executives in health care operations need to start acknowledging that a problem exists and putting the budget, knowledge and tools into play to stop it. The technology is available but the will is lacking. Chuck921 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck921 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Highly sexual active" vs "promiscuous"

"Highly sexual active" is a good euphemism for "promiscuous". Now let's try "idol worship" in place of "idolatry". --Uncle Ed 20:07 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

But "highly sexual active" does not in any way imply multiple partners, which is the key here. While promiscuity has gained some negative connotations, I don't know of a more value-neutral term with the same meaning or I would have used it. Mkweise 20:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=promiscuous&ls=a
I think the word definately carries negative connotations - it implies not just having many sexual partners, but being indiscriminate in choice of partner. As far as I'm aware, STDs correlate with the number of sexual partners one has, rather than whether or not one suffers from the beer goggle effect... :) Martin

Thanks, Martin. My first roll of the dice did not live up to its promise. I'm glad for anything that brings neutrality to our writing :-) --Uncle Ed

There's lots of information on MRSA in the Wikipedia, but somehow this article uses none of that background, none of the informative material, but rather chooses to emphasize a single report of increased incidence of MRSA in a sub-population of gay men. Yet another example of Ed Poor writing his anti-gay bigotry into the Wikipedia. (anon)

A search for MRSA reveals no mass of informative material:[1] [2]. Also, please note wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. Thanks :) Martin
Bigoted or not, the article certainly places undue emphasis on the bug's impact on gay people. Compare the following results from Google:
MRSA and aureus: 20,200 hits
MRSA and aureus and (gay or homosexual): 390 hits
Statistically that means that only 1.9% of pages about MRSA mention gay people. I think our article should reflect that proportion. Perhaps the New Scientist quote is OK per se, but just needs to be surrounded by much more clinical info to put it in perspective. I see someone has started to do just that while I have been writing this comment. -- Heron

Well, a mini-epidemic among prison populations and other groups certainly looks a lot less "anti-gay". The only thing left to consider is why prison populations would be catching the disease so much. There wouldn't be a lot of sex with multiple partners in prisons, would there? I've heard disturbing stories about male rape and a "protection" system wherein a young or weak man takes on a "daddy". Hmm, seems like the "prison" group may include (or primarily consist of) the homosexually active group. Maybe the term gay disease wasn't so far off after all. --Uncle Ed 21:21 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

One problem with using the word 'gay' is that it means homosexual, ie, a person whose sexual orientation is based on sexual attraction to one's own sex. But there is another non 'gay' category, men who have sex with men. Such people are not homosexual in the standard sense, but for various reasons, though heterosexual, engage in same sex conduct. This includes:

  • heterosexuals 'exploring' same sex experiences out of curiousity;
  • men in exclusively male environments (eg, prison, monasteries) who have no other sexual outlet and no contact with women, and so while in that environment, opt to have sex with men, but once able to associate with women again revert exclusively to heterosexual sexual acts and an exclusively heterosexual orientation.

In addition, there are bisexuals who have attraction to both sexes and may pass STDs between the sexes, from female partners to male ones, and vice-versa. Using gay ignores such groups and as such is factually incorrect. JtdIrL 21:38 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think I see your point, and it centers on the meaning of the problematic term gay -- which has been used for dozens of decades in the English-speaking world to describe extramarital sex of various sorts. It is difficult to give a single definition that will satisfy all parties. Hence, the appearance of such terms as queer, gay men (when one needs to be specific), gay and lesbian (when trying not to exclude the ladies), and so on.
For those people who use "gay" in the sense of "any sex between people of the same sex", the term gay disease will have an immediately recognizable and usefull meaning, such as the doctors referenced in talk:gay disease. But I can see why others may object.
Gay is generally used simply to refer to people of a homosexual orientation. The phrase men who have sex with men is used to describe men of a heterosexual orientation would do not have homosexual feelings but who find homosexual sex acts the only way they have in the environment they are in to have sex. I don't know about in the US but certainly in Europe, 'safe sex' programmes dealing with sex acts involving people of the same gender explicitly make that distinction, not least because 'men who have sex with men' generally baulk at being described as gay when they are not. Indeed the fear is that many would not pay any attention to safe sex messages if they are targeted simply at gay people, a category they do not identify with, or indeed match the dictionary definition of. According to dictionary definitions, a homosexual is someone with feelings for, or attraction to, other men. That does not describe 'men who have sex with men', because their sexual acts are not based on attraction or orientation but simply on need and a pragmatic solution to their sexual needs in an environment where their normal focus of sexual attraction, women, are not available.

BTW, stricty speaking homosexual does not simply mean men but men or women. The 'homo' is not from the latin for 'male' but from the greek for 'same'. That is why is should not be pronounced as in 'ho-mo-sexual' but 'haum-o-sexual'. JtdIrL 22:36 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

The challenge is how to describe ideas despite the shifting and problematic meanings of our chief encyclopedia tool: the written word. --Uncle Ed
The fact you both seem to be missing, is that the "outbreaks" referred to in that paragraph were spread by skin contact, not by sexual intercourse. Surely you don't consider every man who shakes another man's hand gay, now do you? Mkweise 21:46 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
Are you saying that male prisoners shake each other's hands a lot, and that is how MRSA is spreading in prisons? --Uncle Ed 17:03 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Surely you don't mean to suggest that the outbreaks among "Athletes, schoolchildren and newborns" mentioned in the paragraph you quoted were spread by gay orgies? Let's just stick to the facts: The infection is spread by skin contact, including indirect contact via shared towels and exercise equipment, and is not per se affected by which factors lead to skin contact. Mkweise 17:59 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • rm answered question - thanks Mkweise

Jesus - have you all gone nuts? Why are you so obsessed with being pollitically correct? Just READ the article! It's about GAY MEN - NOT about straight people! These are epidemiologists doing the research. Who are you to misquote what they have done and misrepsresent it? Really... here it is again for ya: http://www.reuters.com/article/health-SP-A/idUSN1337175820080115?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 Angelatomato (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

--Way to fill up a talk page with useless information. This is an article about the disease. Despite the fact that gays, or homosexuals, or "men who prefer to dabble in the less-common areas of sexual orientation" might take offense to the fact that a disease might prefer to be transmitted through unprotected anal sex, this article needs to reflect the studies that show that how MRSA is transmitted outsite the hospital or prison setting. I am totally sorry if your google searches don't reflect that the two are connected (due to the relative newness of the disease), but you need to at least show that the studies are taking place and report their findings. I often fail to understand why homosexuals oppose science that can help them combat epidemics within their communities, but I do think that it would be for the betterment of the entire wiki community if we get past the linguistic argument of semiotics and try to make the article relfect the true causes of transmition.

Whatever you do, keep this section in the article, because it's really interesting. We're watching bacteria evolve into a STD right before our eyes. I sure hope the evolutionary biology of MRSA is getting well funded, not just because it's a major threat to public health but because if we're lucky the opportunity to watch human disease evolve like this may never come again. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the semantic question, if there's a doubt just stick with the phrasing used in the source. Choosing a synonym is "original research" and can be challenged at any time, so that's actually the Wikipedia policy. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lesser infxns

In the US, out of hospital MRSA, or CA (community-aquired) MRSA are still remarkably sensitive to rifampin, tetracyclines, and TMP/SMX (TRIMETHOPRIM-SULFAMETHOXAZOLE, which may be the same as your co-trimox)Sfahey 20:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, rifampin is the USAN for rifampicin. -Techelf 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Although, Rifampin is not the only line of antibiotic used to treat MRSA. Vancomycin is the most widely used antibiotic for nosocomial aquired MRSA today. When a patient is in the hospital for MRSA, the line of treatment is IV Vancomycin. Vancomycin attacks the microbe at it's cell wall, interfering with the peptidoglycan layer synthesis by binding to a precursor. Because of this, Vancomycin is capable of killing the staphylococcus aureus (the microbe reponsible for MRSA).(Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Clinical Management and Laboratory Aspects; Mary T. Cafferkey pgs: 1,38-39, 107-116) Because Vancomycin is such a strong antibiotic, it is concidered the last resort to treating MRSA. ( NML 08:42, 22 November 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.142.157 (talk)

MRSA and ORSA

Hi. I just opened a discussion on the Oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus page to discuss whether or not the content there is duplicating this (MRSA) content. That page recently was edited, and this page has had a recent active discussion, so please give some input if you have some. Maybe a merge would be a good idea. Thanks. Art desk 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. the best way to find the oxacillin-resistant S. aureus page is to search "ORSA". ThanksArt desk 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Art desk, I've changed ORSA to redirect here. For all intents and purposes MRSA and ORSA refer to the same thing, since it the organism is resistant to all narrow-spectrum β-lactamase-resistant penicillins. I didn't move any new data from the ORSA here, however, because it was superfluous anyway. -Techelf 09:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks Techelf! Also thanks for separating this thread under its own heading. Art desk 18:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No worries. =) -Techelf 11:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Name MRSA

I thought Methicillin Resistant..... was being phased out to be replaced by "Multi-Resistant...."

But then again, Google hits for Multi - 290, for methicillin >450,000

Panthro 16:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Google vs Panthro 1-0.
But seriously, the resistance to methicillin is the defining characteristic of MRSA. JFW | T@lk 05:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the term 'Multiply-Resistant Staph Aureus' is used by some clinicians and academics. It is of course a more accurate name. However, as methicillin resistance is the test most commonly performed in a lab its current name has become widespread. It isn't really a worry; it might be wise top include a brief mention of the alternative name in the article. Rob cowie 11:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MRSA is specific to Methicillin/S.aureus, but has unfortunately evolved into shorthand reference to all multi-resistant pathogens, and is often simply referred to as "superbug" by much of the press. This enables some in authority (i.e. NHS) to disingenuously claim that "MRSA rates in such and such area have decreased over such and such period" when in fact, those cited infection rates (of multi-resistant pathogens) have indeed risen, and not declined - in some cases simply because more MRSA are showing Vancomycin resistance as well and are recorded as VISA and not MRSA. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand is not only confusing, but ultimately deadly; that's why its important to keep the terms clear.Istvan 20:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is a name used under Discovery and History: "MRSA/Multidrug Resistant Staphylococcus aureus was discovered in 1961 in the UK. " but not used in the introduction? Should that be deleted? Jgiam (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

US vs British Language

The article contained a mix of US and British spellings. Inconsistency is of course to be avoided so I've standardised on British spellings. To save argument - I counted the occurences of British and American spelling variants. Britain 5, US 1. So, British it is. Rob cowie 11:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References

It doesn't do much harm to the article, but is the 'Cultural References' section worth keeping? It just ends up as a list of games and films which happened to mention MRSA. Rob cowie 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't really seem relevant. -Techelf 08:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss it. Rob cowie 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Botanical extract

An anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting material about a botanical extract combined with electrical current as a therapy for MRSA. The inclusion of this in the article seems to be mainly for advertising, and since the treatment seems to be quite dubious, it should not be incorporated into the article. Andrew73 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed broken link

I removed the link to a CNN story about MRSA found in illegal tattoo customers. CNN did not have that story anymore. Jdominguez 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MRSA mortality

The study by Wyllie is quoted as showing an excess mortality of 49% in patients with MRSA. This is untrue. In fact, the statistics cannot be analysed in this way (it is a cohort study and MRSA and MSSA patients are not matched or compared with each other); AND the authors of the study conclude that the rates are in fact SIMILAR between patients with MRSA and MSSA. The figure of 49% does not appear anywhere in the article (they quote an odds ratio of 1.49 but do not intend it to be interpreted in this fashion and it is not interpreted in this fashion in the accompanying editorial either). --Gak 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a poor paragraph in the main article. One study talks about MRSA vs. nothing, the other MRSA vs MSSA. Sfahey 13:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Duration

How long does the associated skin boils condition typically last? I've had a bunch of frickin' boils all over my face for over a year, and it still doesn't seem to be showing any signs of leaving! Scorpionman 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

MRSA usually becomes invasive rapidly. Other Staph more likely to linger. Sfahey 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Death rate

Wyllie et al. report a death rate of 34 percent within 30 days among patients infected with MRSA

As a layperson, I'm assuming that this doesn't mean that 34% of people diagnosed with MRSA will die within 30 days, but maybe just in this one hospital in this one study. Am I right? If so, perhaps we should point this out. Otherwise, people will be told by their doctor that they have MRSA, come home, look it up in Wikipedia, and go, "OMG I'M GONNA DIE". Marnanel 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence leaves out a key word. The death rate was reported to be 34% among patients with MRSA bacteremia (MRSA infection of the bloodstream). The study excluded patients with other types of MRSA infections, such as MRSA infections of the skin. NighthawkJ 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stealth Spam

Hi, I'm just a wandering lurker, but when I see something blatantly wrong (egregious misspelling, obvious spam, etc) I'll just fix it. However, this spam is strange. When I look at the page, I see:

"HARRO CLASS Men Resist Smelly Apples (MRSA) (a.k.a. Golden Staphylococci) is a specific strain of the Staphylococcus aureus bacterium..."

...but when I go to edit it, it looks normal, i.e.:

"{three apostrophes}Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus{three apostrophes} ({three apostrophes}MRSA{three apostrophes}) is a specific strain of the {two apostrophes, two brackets}Staphylococcus aureus{two brackets, two apostrophes} {two brackets}bacterium{two brackets}..."

Even if I don't do a thing, when I hit the "preview" it looks normal again.

Such stealth spam is beyond my ability to fix; I shall leave it in your capable hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.231.166 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Strange - I can't get any text like you describe to appear in my browser.... So you only see this when viewing the article, but not when editing it? -- MarcoTolo 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's probably due to spy/adware on your computer, such as Gator, see Category:Spyware_removal. --MyOwnLittlWorld 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Home Remedies

Is this really the place to list homeopathic treatment for boils? The last edit contains a large list of treatments/testing tips in the "Treatment" section that might be helpful, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? Wushupork 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had the same thought as above. Not only is the "Treatment" section poorly written and repetitive, but its also a poor contribution to a good article. As a pharmacy intern in a hospital I can tell you that MRSA is not a bacteria to mess around with and there is no at-home diagnosis kit. If this sort of information needs to be presented somewhere let there be a "Home Remedies for Boils" article. Etherealmuse 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Etherealmuse 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates

"Very recently the Dutch food association has discovered strains of the MRSA bacterium on pork meat." I've marked this with a "when?" tag on the grounds that using words like "recently", "currently" etc is a bad idea as they get old fast. It would be much more useful to write "In [month] [year], the Dutch food association..." 86.132.138.205 15:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed your {when} template and replaced it with a "citation needed" for the entire sentence. If a proper reference were provided then we would know when this occurred. On a somewhat related note, I do not like templates of that sort that exposes commentary and instructions meant for editors to the general reader. --Dan East 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly worded statement

Can someone more familiar with this topic please clarify the following statement from the article: "Because cystic fibrosis patients are often treated with multiple antibiotics in hospital settings, they are often colonized with MRSA, potentially increasing the rate of life-threatening MRSA pneumonia in this group."

To me this is stating "treating someone with multiple antibiotics often colonizes them with MRSA". Obviously that is not the case literally. Does it mean that treating someone with multiple antibiotics increases their susceptibility to MRSA? This needs to be clarified, but I do not know the intended meaning. --Dan East 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, after reading it a few times I think this makes sense: Cystic fibrosis patients may have to visit hospitals often to receive treatments of multiple antibiotics, and the extra hospital visits simply increase exposure to MRSA. I've reworded the article accordingly. --Dan East 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused...

The boy who died of staph in Bedford a few days ago (mentioned in the article) has been big news here in Virginia, the news stations are still talking about it, and the school system of that county being shut down.

How can this reaction possibly square with 19,000 deaths a year? If it were that common, people would surely be much more used to it by now -- that's an average of almost 400 annual deaths per state - or 50 people a day, every day. If reactions of this sort happened for each mortality, wouldn't the whole country be shut down? Slide Maintenance 02:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Common occurrences do not make news. If a person is already quite ill and thus hospitalized, it is not newsworthy that he becomes infected with MRSA and dies. This is a known risk of hospitalization. But healthy (even athletic) school children are not expected to die from MRSA. So when it happens, it makes news and parents (i.e. virtually everyone) pay attention and consider removing their children from school. JRSpriggs 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Lexington, KY and Woodford County Jail

Possible cases of resistant Staph: http://kentucky.com/181/story/210416.html

Copy of the letter they sent home with students http://www.lafayette.fcps.net/

74.131.225.55 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Allicin

Is allicin, as found in garlic, still of interest for MRSA treatment? Horatio 08:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It might be worth including that in the UK it's pronounced M-R-S-A but in America it's pronounced "Mersa" like a word. Don't know about Canada etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.27.191 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

People call it Mersa here in the state of Washington.209.91.61.223 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Panic in Washington state

I've been watching the news recently, and many people are concerned about preventing MRSA. It's not so much the hospital kind, but the community spread MRSA. The news encourages better health standards and safe practices, such as washing hands regularly, using hand sanitizer(as long as children do not swallow it), clean shared equipment, and avoid touching other people's wounds. A school even shut down for a day to wash out the locker room. Today I remember a teacher and a highschool football player being diagnosed with MRSA. This is also currently the talk of the day at schools. People are finally being better about their health when only a danger is present.209.91.61.223 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting story on CNN that shows that MRSA actually explodes immune system cells

I found an interesting story about MRSA showing that this strain actually attacks the immune system itself. This would be valuable information for this article, but could someone find the source paper for the actual study? I believe that this information should be incorporated into this article, but something sourced to a medical journal would be a better source than an article written by the Associated Press. Jesse Viviano 03:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Colloidal Silver and the FDA

Since "maggot" and "phage" therapies were mentioned, I see no reason why colloidal silver wasn't, especially since independent lab tests indicate that the silver colloidal solutions tested eliminated both MRSA AND VRSA, which is the end of the line for synthetic antibiotics. Rather than include it in the mainstream treatment section, I decided to add a separate paragraph and mention some of the debate/controversy, which is actually quite extensive.

If Vancomycin resistance becomes common and other options start running out, this information could very well save lives, so I trust that it's not gonna be messed with, especially without some serious discussion and certainly not by anyone who's even remotely related to the criminals who foisted billions of dollars of Celebrex/Vioxx on the public before it killed an estimated 60,000 people.

Thank you in advance. BTW, if you've got good nutrition and a strong immune system -- like most Americans don't -- you'll never have to worry about stuff like this.

68.108.29.239 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At the least, the marketing speak needs to be purged from the addition. From a Google search, the primary research mentioned in the addition appears (although not confirmed at this stage), to be paid by the marketer of the trade-named produyct listed, no independant research is listed. I'm purging the majority of the added content as it's clearly marketing material. With what remains, I'll add a linkk to the colloidal silver article, but I question if even that much should still be in this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


An entire paragraph of pertinent, well-cited material was eliminated and condensed into two lines directly beneath the "maggot" and "phage" therapies. This edit was solely based on an accusation of "market speak", which it certainly wasn't except for an attempt to quote the exact language of the research results. I notice this line didn't bother anyone:

"On 18 May 2006, a team of researchers from Merck Pharmaceuticals reported in Nature that they had discovered an entirely new type of antibiotic, called platensimycin, and had demonstrated its successful use against MRSA."

So why is Merck's new product mentioned and where's their research? Is it not true that EVERY penny of research for EVERY pharmaceutical is paid for by Big Pharma? Is it also not possible that this somehow represents a dual standard?

And based on nothing but a Google search, it appears (although not confirmed at this stage), that the research cited was paid for by the marketer of the product? Setting aside these extraordinary powers of perception, that would justify removing the name of the product, which I felt uncomfortable about and should have done. What's your justification for removing the rest of the paragraph?

I would like to hear an explanation why this massive unilateral edit isn't a massive violation of Wikipedia's Information suppression policy?

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:

Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.

Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).

Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.

Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).

Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability?

68.108.29.239 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Background on colloidal silver belongs in the article on collodial silver. That in itself justifies a large amount of the data removed. A link to that article was added when that background material was purged, allowing for what wiki's do best - links to secondary articles on related but different subjects.
The remaining edits made summarized the remaining relevant content - the paragraph cited specific tables and confusing dosage information, which was not meaningful as a direct quote - those are more meaningful within the study itself. The source links to the study remained completely untouched. While I questioned its suitability above, I did not purge those references. I also removed the reference to the specific marketed product, which you acknowledge questioning yourself.
I do not believe that my summarization of the test results altered the meaning of the findings - if you believe otherwise, please explain what you mean, as it certainly was not intended to alter the meaning of the stated results, only to simplify readability by making the fixes I mentioned above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I didn't want to intrude on the existing treatment paragraph and felt it would be better if I added a section that explained the background and controversy, which as I said, is more extensive than I realized. I thought this in itself justified a separate paragraph, which is probably what led me to add information that you consider more appropriate elsewhere. But I was taking my cue from the amount of detail contained in the CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA explanations in the first paragraph. Can you honestly say that level of detail is justified? Even the maggots have more space than what was left. My argument is, if you're gonna crack down on the name of a product quoted in a study, how can you leave what sounds like a sponsored ad for Merck? I think the overall weight of that paragraph leans heavily toward technical explanations of CA/HA-MRSA that are even less interesting or informative than what I quoted.

I'm not pushing for anything except to make sure a leading source of information doesn't leave anything out that might reduce people's options if the mainstream antibiotics suddenly become useless. During my research, I never found any information about maggot or phage therapies. Not even about any new antibiotics in the pipeline. This hasn't been reported in any MSM either. I did however, find a lot of websites with a whole lotta accusations about the relationship between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. I felt that if a significant controversy like this was reported fairly and accurately, it would certainly end up with more exposure than beneath therapies which could only be considered fringe. If the amount of space is proportional to the number of websites who claim there's something to this, then that would be a significant discussion -- way more than the nothing I found when I got here.

As in anything, I guess it comes down to who or what Wikipedia represents. You'll have to excuse me if I still get confused and think it's the people. Old habits die hard.

68.108.29.239 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


You appear to be trying to justify a detailed description here about colloidal silver based upon the information provided about CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA. I find this a confusing argument, as this article's subject is MRSA and CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA are strains of MRSA. If you wish to take up how WP discusses colloidal silver, then it appears to me that it would be more appropriately discussed in the colloidal silver article. Have you checked the link, do you feel its portrayal is fair? If not, that discussion belongs on that article and related talk page.
If this article were to add detail about what is cooloidal silver, then to be fair it would also need to include explanations on what is doxycycline or minocycline, clindamycin, and all the other clines mentioned, not to mention explaining what are maggots and their historical relevance to medicine. Naturally, these are all discussed in their own articles, as should colloidal silver.
The study that you referenced appears most relevant to the treatment section, which is why I moved a summary of the study's results to within the treatment section. While multiple pharmaceutical products remain listed, no single one has as much listed as still remains about colloidal silver. I agree that the reference to Merck Pharmaceuticals could easilly be edited out while maintaining the reference and relevancy to the study listed.
As for the claim "Even the maggots have more space than what was left", just a quick word count shows this claim to be false.
The remaining paragraph on the colloidal silver study appears a fair statement to me about what the study showed. You have not challenged that, is it fair to say that you agree? Beyond that, reference to what is colloidal silver and any potential medicinal uses belongs in its own already existing article, just as is done with the other treatments listed - although I could certainly agree that adding a one-sentence summary of past use (similar to the summary of past maggot use) could be relevant - but certainly not the large two paragraphs of detailed historical information on it that existed previously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: I've made the additional modifications that I mentioned above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


As have I -- minor rephrasing and the brief background history you offered. 68.108.29.239 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the short summary of historical use of Silver would be better placed after the mention of the study, that way there's relevant context leading into why it's being mentioned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see it as just the opposite. Is all that pig correlation material yours? Never heard that anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.29.239 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I was actually thinking of trying to cleanup that stuff next, as well as a few other sections in the article - but got sidetracked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on that one. Crazy-sounding stuff doesn't serve Wikipedia and people are confused enough with all this bird flu/pig bacteria transmission silliness. 68.108.29.239 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at it now today - so hopefully you or someone else will have time.
Oh, and if you have a chance, as you appear to have an interest in it, please take a look at the colloidal silver article. I think it already covers most if not all of what you had originally added here, just using alternate sources. But you seem to know that material better, so you would be a better judge of if anything is missing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It definitely needs improvement. I'll take a stab at it, but this is something I kinda stumbled on. There are lots of true believers along with some real skeptics and conflicting claims from both sides. What impressed me was the sheer number of websites and vehemence of the believers. When there's that much smoke, there's usually fire, which is why I was pushing so hard to get some credible info on here so everyone could decide for themselves. BTW, I removed all the swine transmission stuff for now. If that turns out to be a conclusive factor, it can be reinstated, but it's too early.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.29.239 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

controversy y/n?

The anon above had removed reference to silver being controversial, yet from the provided link which the user removed, there is controversy about its use. I restored the mention and the link. --71.227.151.51 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the link and mention. The fact that the brackets that link colloidal silver keep getting removed demonstrates a definite non-NPOV by the user above. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the use of colloidal silver. Not being approved by the FDA and controversial are two entirely different things. Controversial is when the FDA approves Vioxx and it kills 60,000 people. Controversial is when the FDA approves Avandia, discovers that it increases the risk of heart attack by 43% and still allows it to be sold. Colloidal silver has never killed anyone. It has been repeatedly proven that the FDA is not an independent entity that works on behalf of the public. 68.108.29.239 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion yet either way - still considering the views ... but I wanted to comment that the anon who added the controversy link did not remove the link to colloidal silver. He/she moved it to the sentence that mentioned a controversy. That particular accusations of non-NPOV is baseless. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand. But if a new sentence that mentions colloidal silver replaces one where it was linked, the effect is the same. Everything I've read suggests that colloidal silver is the least toxic substance in this entire article. But everything I've read also leads me to believe that it will be the most attacked. Every sentence in that short paragraph is cited and provable. I hope as an independent observer, you'll use your administrative authority to prevent information that threatens powerful economic interests from being discredited or removed. That's one of the things that makes Wikipedia unique. 68.108.29.239 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin here - but when there's disagreement on article content I try to help resolve to a neutral point that all contributors may not be thrilled with, but can at least accept. I was an admin on two other wikis, but I resigned from that position on both of those - if you knew me from those, that status does not carry over. If anything from our prior discussion came across as admin-like, I appologize for giving you that impression. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it more, I agree with it being controversial, so I re-inserted the text (copied from the anon's earlier version). HOWEVER, I do feel that the wording could be cleaned up or moved elsewhere in the paragraph (maybe to the end of the paragraph). For now, I've re-inserted it to the start until it can be cleaned up.
Note that the link to colloidal silver does still exist, it's in the earlier sentence that was inserted, which fits wikipedia standard of wikifying the first occurance, not every occurance of a wiki-linkable term.
I base this opinion on the multitude of debate that I've found on if it's an accepted treatment. The reference link could likely be more to-the-point, but it does adequately express the opposing view (which isn't spelled out in the article, only mentioned to exist). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Continual use of colloidal silver results in irreversible skin damage. I believe user 68.108.29.239 20:09, 15 November 2007 is a merchant of this product. Which IS harmful, and DOES cause harm. read this article Argyria then view the discussion page as much scientifically relevant information on this syndrome caused by colloidal silver is periodically stripped from this page. Any pubmed search will also give you plenty of well researched scientifically proven articles that show the damage this product causes. 131.170.90.4 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC) [3] this is a link from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Association (Australian version of FDA) with reports of adverse reactions caused by taking colloidal silver. Note the 5 year old boy with abnormal hepatic function. That's liver damage. 131.170.90.2 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above IP is correct. We don't want to be sued because some guy decided to use silver and got argyria! DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gays hit by MRSA infection spread

A DRUG-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria is being transmitted among gay men during sex in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.218.222 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I just added that to the epidemiology section per this article. I noticed that it was previously written to say that MRSA has become a general STD... when the article only said it was spreading among gay men in 3 cities. Was someone trying to distort the facts to sound pollitically correct? That's kind of sad. I think facts are more important than your fear of appearing homophobic. The study demonstrated that MRSA is spreading among gay men... generalizing it weakens the message for people who really need to be concerned. I am sure my edits will be reverted as they usually are when something is not politically correct (though 100% factually accurate) on here. Thank god for google so people can actually read the truth.Angelatomato (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/health-SP-A/idUSN1337175820080115?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 Angelatomato (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of being politically correct, but I did slightly reword your version (which was indeed more accurate than mine)to reflect the conclusions of the authors (who noted the limitations of the data at this early stage of research. Their conclusion was " Infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population." Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks - sorry didnt mean to sound bitchy...lol. i have just noticed a lot of PC editing on here that distorts facts. i appreciate your work!! :) Angelatomato (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice for boils?

The Texas Department of State Health has a beautiful (and ugly) set of MRSA pictures. [4] Some of them are truly terrible infections, but some are just one or two ordinary looking boils. Of course, Wikipedia cannot give advice, but it should report on advice -- what course of action has been recommended for people who have one or a few small boils, if they burst and resolve normally, but perhaps repeat every once in a while? Should a person like this think of himself as a Typhoid Mary or is he not much worse than one of the 25% asymptomatic carriers who picks his nose? I'll come back and see what I can do to answer this but just wanted to see how the question is received. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this about manuka honey-

http://www.accessscience.com/content.aspx?id=SN13350&searchStr=MRSA#searchTerm

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)