Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View you all becareful out there
7 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2008 - 3:40PM #31
The_Maven
Posts: 372
Larcman

I could only find one use of the word "gay" in your article and it was in a foot note for a source. 

Apparently, you chose to introduce the term "gay."  Why was that?  Why didn't you use the term "men who have sex with men" in your posts?

It does make a difference.  Ted Haggard says he isn't gay.  We might argue that, but he is clearly in the group "men who have sex with men." 

As to the "study," there are a lot of interesting assumptions.  Do you think that all same-sex couples in all locations are equally willing to declare their status on census forms?  Do think that living in a liberal neighborhood like the Castro might make it more likely that a same-sex couple would declare themselves a couple on a census form? Do you think it's likely that single gay men might be more attracted to living in a neighborhood like the Castro than somewhere else?

The "study" didn't even consider this. 

I found it interesting that study reports a higher risk for Hispanic men over 45 in San Francisco and a higher risk for black men 36-45 in Boston.  Are we supposed to assume that older Hispanic men are more at risk only in San Francisco and being black and middle-aged puts men at risk in Boston?

Since it's your link - maybe you can explain the above.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2008 - 5:43PM #32
larcman
Posts: 63
I dont have to explain the anomolies, i didn't do the study.  Perhaps you might want to do an additional study in this area to refute the findings of this one.  I would be interested to see what you come up with.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2008 - 9:11PM #33
REteach
Posts: 15,016
Sigh, Larc, you just don't get it, do you?  MRSA is not a gay problem, it is a humans in close contact problem.  I have been around enough of it, I could very well be colonized.

Staph aureus is ubiquitous.  It is all over our skins.  Due to overuse of antibiotics and the joy with which bacteria can share their "information" about resistance, some strains have developed resistance to our most common antibiotics.  It used to be mostly a hospital thing, now people are picking it up out in the community as well.  Hence "community acquired MRSA."  It is a royal pain in the tuckus if someone comes in known to be positive because we have to use isolation precautions until they have 3 negative cultures at least 24 hours apart. 

In the Netherlands, they are screening and aggressively treating all patients, and their rate is actually pretty low. 

The only real take home message here is that health care providers treating MSM with sores in the buttock or genital area should consider MRSA instead of an insect bites or a typical susceptible staph infection. 

Of course, we are also supposed to consider that possibility for athletes, prisoners, recently hospitalized patients or their close contacts, veterans, etc, etc, etc.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 12:23AM #34
JoeRoyce
Posts: 75
Furthermore, from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel … 080116.htm
CDC Statement on MRSA in Men Who Have Sex with Men

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.
...
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.


I hope this clears things up for those who would insinuate that this is a sexually-transmitted disease that gay people are spreading.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 11:42AM #35
larcman
Posts: 63
Joe,

you need to forward your concern about the insinuation to the authors of the study.    All the CDC release did was point out that there needed to be more studies done and that this one might not be inclusive of the entire nation.  Everyone new that already.

This CDC press release is just the politics getting involved.  As I said in my first post it will be interesting to see how that plays out.   i expect a press release from the AFA or some other group soon. 

"MRSA is not a gay problem, it is a humans in close contact problem."
The results of this study indicates that this particular variant is prevelant about MSM in SF and boston.    I realize MRSA is problem for everyone, but certain activities put different groups at risk, ie wrestlers.   To my knowledge this is the first time it has been studied for the risk of MSM, hence the title, "be careful out there".    I have been searching for some other studies about this being sexually transmitted, but I havent had a lot of free time to research it, work is crazy these days.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 12:12PM #36
JoeRoyce
Posts: 75
If the authors of the "study" had presented their work here, I would have.  However, they didn't; you did.  Hence, my response is directed to this thread.

As far as "this is just politics getting involved", are you implying that the CDC statement is false?

As was pointed out in the statement, this variant is prevalent in some MSM in those areas but it is far from a given that MSM is all they had in common and it has been found in non-MSM as well.

So, spinning this as a consequence of supposed rampant promiscuity in gay men, as you have done, is inaccurate on several levels.

Also, do you really feel that the American Family Association is as authoritative a source as the Centers for Disease Control when it comes to discussing the facts about a disease?  Now that's just politics getting involved.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 2:02PM #37
larcman
Posts: 63
"are you implying that the CDC statement is false?"
Nope, but it is spin, just like you will get from any other organization.  The CDC repeated the obvious for people who didnt or wont take the time to read the article.

"spinning this as a consequence of supposed rampant promiscuity in gay men"
That was an observation of the authors of the study, that wasnt spin from me.


"do you really feel that the American Family Association is as authoritative a source as the Centers for Disease Control when it comes to discussing the facts about a disease?"

You are right that is politics, I am sure we will see statements and spin from the Advocate, HRC, etc too.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 2:27PM #38
JoeRoyce
Posts: 75
Nope, but it is spin, just like you will get from any other organization. The CDC repeated the obvious for people who didnt or wont take the time to read the article.

It apparently wasn't obvious enough for the authors of your "study" or you to pay much attention to it.


That was an observation of the authors of the study, that wasnt spin from me.

So, do you disavow that take on it, or are you just hiding your own spin behind the authors?  I recall you mentioning your opinion that gay men (implying as a whole or at least for the most part) are not monogamous.

Do you own up to the opinion that the spread of this disease is a result of rampant promiscuity among gay men, because that is the message you (not just the authors) put forth with your words.


You are right that is politics, I am sure we will see statements and spin from the Advocate, HRC, etc too.

You didn't answer my question.  Do you see the AFA as an equally authoritative source on diseases as the CDC?

None of the organizations you mentioned study diseases so I would not give them the same weight as one that does.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 3:35PM #39
larcman
Posts: 63
"Do you own up to the opinion that the spread of this disease is a result of rampant promiscuity among gay men"

this disease?? that remains to be seen.  Other STD are spread by promiscuity and MSM lead the pack in most of the ones they can spread.  you can check the CDC for that information.

"Do you see the AFA as an equally authoritative source on diseases as the CDC?"

not hardly.  I rarely go to their website or read what they have to say, that was just an example.

"I recall you mentioning your opinion that gay men (implying as a whole or at least for the most part) are not monogamous"
There is plenty of research to point that out.  Suprisingly many of the studies and surveys were done by Gay organizations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2008 - 4:08PM #40
JohnQ
Posts: 5,676

larcman wrote:




larcman-

I agree with you.  Many gay men are not monogamous.

Of couse, many gay men are monogamous.  Just like straight people....there are some that choose to be monogamous....and, many do not.

I personally think that monogamy is a personal choice.

Peace!                 
------

Christian LIES wed Christian HATE......Begot a child....it’s named Prop 8! 

Supreme Court let it stand.....which means we can vote away the rights of others in our land.

Sad as that may be...it hurts all of us.....not just me.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook