New Deadly Flesh Eating Mrsa Bug Set To Sweep The World

[moldy]

Sorry for being naive... I don't really know what gay men get up to that makes them more vulnerable to be honest

Let me cure you of naivete, seonai. Gay and straight men put their penis inside the rectums of men and women. Gay men do it more often than straight men do it. The receiver of anal intercourse is at high risk of infections. But then, the straight woman who practices sex without condoms receives injections of diseased material in her vagina.

Gay sex can be monogamous, and often is. In fact, gay sex is often non-anal. But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

-------------------

Sorry for being naive too. If gay sex is "often" non anal what orifices are safer?

The mouth is quite vulnerable to a variety of STDs including staff.

What's left?

I thought that in order to suffer this awful illness you had to have a major tissue injury (or surgical injury), and probably be already immune suppressed to some extent (as happens in illness). Hence that's why hospitals are a prime source of infection. Clearly that's not the case, although the report is a bit coy about specific activities. I'm off to do a bit of googling. But if anybody can help here, it would be useful for me and many others.

[Maestro]

...Prof Enright said "flesh-eating" necrotising pneumonia was difficult to treat and half of all those infected in this way died.

This may be a cruel way to look at it but with a contagious infection, if an infection cannot be cured, the faster the infected person dies the lower the risk of an epidemic. The two quoted news articles do not address this aspect of the problem, ie the survival time of incurable patients, neither for the new MRSA strain called USA300 nor for the regular strain. It would be interesting to know this detail.

--

Maestro

[moldy]

...Prof Enright said "flesh-eating" necrotising pneumonia was difficult to treat and half of all those infected in this way died.

This may be a cruel way to look at it but with a contagious infection, if an infection cannot be cured, the faster the infected person dies the lower the risk of an epidemic. The two quoted news articles do not address this aspect of the problem, ie the survival time of incurable patients, neither for the new MRSA strain called USA300 nor for the regular strain. It would be interesting to know this detail.

--

Maestro

No it's not cruel, it's a simple statement of fact and an important observation, it would indeed be very difficult for the infected person to pass it on. But it seems that a significant number of people may be carriers. If the MRSA is present within them already, how is it they are not succumbing to it. Suggests that other unusual factors must be present, eg, specific types of injury, immuno suppression, or something else?

[moldy]

...Prof Enright said "flesh-eating" necrotising pneumonia was difficult to treat and half of all those infected in this way died.

This may be a cruel way to look at it but with a contagious infection, if an infection cannot be cured, the faster the infected person dies the lower the risk of an epidemic. The two quoted news articles do not address this aspect of the problem, ie the survival time of incurable patients, neither for the new MRSA strain called USA300 nor for the regular strain. It would be interesting to know this detail.

--

Maestro

No it's not cruel, it's a simple statement of fact and an important observation, it would indeed be very difficult for the infected person to pass it on. But it seems that a significant number of people may be carriers. If the MRSA is present within them already, how is it they are not succumbing to it. Suggests that other unusual factors must be present, eg, specific types of injury, immuno suppression, or something else?

Indeed I just found the following on a respected well known medical site (I don't like to use links):

"Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is caused by Staphylococcus aureus bacteria — often called "staph." Decades ago, a strain of staph emerged in hospitals that was resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it. Dubbed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), it was one of the first germs to outwit all but the most powerful drugs. MRSA infection can be fatal.

Staph bacteria are normally found on the skin or in the nose of about one-third of the population. If you have staph on your skin or in your nose but aren't sick, you are said to be "colonized" but not infected with MRSA. Healthy people can be colonized with MRSA and have no ill effects. However, they can pass the germ to others.

Staph bacteria are generally harmless unless they enter the body through a cut or other wound, and even then they often cause only minor skin problems in healthy people. But in older adults and people who are ill or have weakened immune systems, ordinary staph infections can cause serious illness.

In the 1990s, a type of MRSA began showing up in the wider community. Today, that form of staph, known as community-associated MRSA, or CA-MRSA, is responsible for many serious skin and soft tissue infections and for a serious form of pneumonia."

So back to the same old issue of prior immune suppression really, and I wonder whethether this will indeed not prove to be relevent with Aids, if research ever gets to grip with simple notions such as cause and effect. The thing is any virus, or bacteria is free floating until it meets the necessary conditions that enable it to grow. With colds, that's not too difficult clearly, MRSA not so it seems; we hope.

[Pepe']

Probably can google

....... or gargle.

--------------------------

With what?

[JacknDanny]

Sorry for being naive... I don't really know what gay men get up to that makes them more vulnerable to be honest

Let me cure you of naivete, seonai. Gay and straight men put their penis inside the rectums of men and women. Gay men do it more often than straight men do it. The receiver of anal intercourse is at high risk of infections. But then, the straight woman who practices sex without condoms receives injections of diseased material in her vagina.

Gay sex can be monogamous, and often is. In fact, gay sex is often non-anal. But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

-------------------

Sorry for being naive too. If gay sex is "often" non anal what orifices are safer?

The mouth is quite vulnerable to a variety of STDs including staff.

What's left?

The Ear.

Tried it this morning with the Mrs.

Tried to f### some sense into her.

Didnt work

[Pepe']

Sorry for being naive... I don't really know what gay men get up to that makes them more vulnerable to be honest

Let me cure you of naivete, seonai. Gay and straight men put their penis inside the rectums of men and women. Gay men do it more often than straight men do it. The receiver of anal intercourse is at high risk of infections. But then, the straight woman who practices sex without condoms receives injections of diseased material in her vagina.

Gay sex can be monogamous, and often is. In fact, gay sex is often non-anal. But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

-------------------

Sorry for being naive too. If gay sex is "often" non anal what orifices are safer?

The mouth is quite vulnerable to a variety of STDs including staff.

What's left?

The Ear.

Tried it this morning with the Mrs.

Tried to f### some sense into her.

Didnt work

---------------------------

That's funny. I've actually tried the nostril just playing around. It didn't work out very well...

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Probably can google

....... or gargle.

--------------------------

With what?

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Sorry for being naive... I don't really know what gay men get up to that makes them more vulnerable to be honest

Let me cure you of naivete, seonai. Gay and straight men put their penis inside the rectums of men and women. Gay men do it more often than straight men do it. The receiver of anal intercourse is at high risk of infections. But then, the straight woman who practices sex without condoms receives injections of diseased material in her vagina.

Gay sex can be monogamous, and often is. In fact, gay sex is often non-anal. But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

-------------------

Sorry for being naive too. If gay sex is "often" non anal what orifices are safer?

The mouth is quite vulnerable to a variety of STDs including staff.

What's left?

The Ear.

Tried it this morning with the Mrs.

Tried to f### some sense into her.

Didnt work

---------------------------

That's funny. I've actually tried the nostril just playing around. It didn't work out very well...

or work in very well.....

[Ijustwannateach]

Abstinence will protect me from STDs, but not from being crushed by a rock falling from the sky- or bird flu- or being run over by a car on the road. We all take risks, even in leaving home in the morning- and the reward versus risk equation depends on our individual values and behaviours. I'm quite happy with my own level of reward versus risk. Could people who have excessive fear of STDs risk unnecessarily low quality of life? Depends on them, of course.

Hi Ijustwannateach

This isn't bashing gays or anyone else...but the sentence I hilighted needs to be considered. The problem with this statement is that YOU may be "happy with [your] level of risk reward" - but doesn't someone else need to be involved to make you happy with your risk reward? And therefore doesn't that mean that this is not just about you?

I'm not flaming, it's just an interesting response that I feel needs more discussion/thought since this is not about an "individual's" RIGHT to anything - it involves others...

I understand exactly what you mean, and it is an interesting point to discuss- but part of the risk side for any person involves the unknown (or known) state of their partner(s)'s behaviour.

When adults consent to have sex together, that is an implicit agreement that their mutual risk level is safe. The only exception I would make to this is if one partner knows he/she is infected with an STD and does not tell the other partner- that is a kind of criminal behaviour. Otherwise, if someone agrees to have sex with me, by that consent they agree that whatever they know about me, however much or little it is, is enough for them to accept the risk. How can it be otherwise?

Some people need to know others very well before they do anything physical. They accomplish this by talking to them, going on dates, spending time together, and perhaps engaging in physical behaviour on a tiered basis- holding hands first, then kissing, then more intimate behaviours.

While this is a help in reducing risk, if the partner is infected with a non-symptomatic version of some disease, it will still not prevent transmission of that disease or obviate the need for concern over testing and safer sex. Even if testing and waiting periods are required (and some couples do employ these) it doesn't guarantee that at some point one partner will not be unfaithful and expose himself in a way that isn't detectable without another waiting period. Unless the partners are very honest with each other about these episodes, or very self-controlled, the risk is still there. In fact, ironically, close partners may be at higher risk with each other because they assume that their fidelity is an excuse for regarding riskier behaviour as "safe."

On the other hand, if one assumes the risk is always there, even with a very close partner, the focus becomes on protecting oneself rather than depending on the veracity of others. One assumes that there is always a risk and develops good habits and hygiene in order to minimise this risk (it can never be zero unless you practice total abstinence- fun, fun). And it is a way of taking responsibility for one's own safety- because we are the only ones who can be completely trusted to do so.

If someone feels they don't know enough about me to consider their risk level safe, then they are perfectly free not to do anything with me. Nobody's forcing them. That's what adult responsibility and consent are all about.

"S"

[moldy]

Abstinence will protect me from STDs, but not from being crushed by a rock falling from the sky- or bird flu- or being run over by a car on the road. We all take risks, even in leaving home in the morning- and the reward versus risk equation depends on our individual values and behaviours. I'm quite happy with my own level of reward versus risk. Could people who have excessive fear of STDs risk unnecessarily low quality of life? Depends on them, of course.

Hi Ijustwannateach

This isn't bashing gays or anyone else...but the sentence I hilighted needs to be considered. The problem with this statement is that YOU may be "happy with [your] level of risk reward" - but doesn't someone else need to be involved to make you happy with your risk reward? And therefore doesn't that mean that this is not just about you?

I'm not flaming, it's just an interesting response that I feel needs more discussion/thought since this is not about an "individual's" RIGHT to anything - it involves others...

I understand exactly what you mean, and it is an interesting point to discuss- but part of the risk side for any person involves the unknown (or known) state of their partner(s)'s behaviour.

When adults consent to have sex together, that is an implicit agreement that their mutual risk level is safe. The only exception I would make to this is if one partner knows he/she is infected with an STD and does not tell the other partner- that is a kind of criminal behaviour. Otherwise, if someone agrees to have sex with me, by that consent they agree that whatever they know about me, however much or little it is, is enough for them to accept the risk. How can it be otherwise?

Some people need to know others very well before they do anything physical. They accomplish this by talking to them, going on dates, spending time together, and perhaps engaging in physical behaviour on a tiered basis- holding hands first, then kissing, then more intimate behaviours.

While this is a help in reducing risk, if the partner is infected with a non-symptomatic version of some disease, it will still not prevent transmission of that disease or obviate the need for concern over testing and safer sex. Even if testing and waiting periods are required (and some couples do employ these) it doesn't guarantee that at some point one partner will not be unfaithful and expose himself in a way that isn't detectable without another waiting period. Unless the partners are very honest with each other about these episodes, or very self-controlled, the risk is still there. In fact, ironically, close partners may be at higher risk with each other because they assume that their fidelity is an excuse for regarding riskier behaviour as "safe."

On the other hand, if one assumes the risk is always there, even with a very close partner, the focus becomes on protecting oneself rather than depending on the veracity of others. One assumes that there is always a risk and develops good habits and hygiene in order to minimise this risk (it can never be zero unless you practice total abstinence- fun, fun). And it is a way of taking responsibility for one's own safety- because we are the only ones who can be completely trusted to do so.

If someone feels they don't know enough about me to consider their risk level safe, then they are perfectly free not to do anything with me. Nobody's forcing them. That's what adult responsibility and consent are all about.

"S"

It's a well thought out and precise piece but we still get caught in the trap only the other way round. I think it's simpler than this. What we've lost is just basic creature humility as exhibited by our so called dumb friends the animals who are healthily irresponsible and just assume a right to feel accepted regardless and live life unfettered. As children we just accept nature for what it is and are not entirely irresponsible anyway such is the pull of natural pleasure, but somehow in adult life we're encumbered with the notion of overbearing responsibility and it sure isn't getting any the easier.

I'm not in any way making a case for irresponsibility, recklessness, or just plain stupidity, but I do understand that people are just exasperated at not being able to do what should just come naturally without undue thought of consequence for themselves or others, perhaps the main disease of the 21st century is over-consciousness at the expense of the soul and just adding to it more won't help. There's a good chance that anyone born from the 60's onwards has had a charmed life so to speak, and may not be life hardened to the realities of disease and pain. So I think, there are lots of complex emotional angles to explore as well as the socio-political ones. It's only in my fifth decade that I'm beginning to understand the ramifications of mild and moderate illness let alone serious illness or death, so a counterpoint is the very real need to stress the danger in being overly brave about risk, as to be sure coming to terms with pain and loss is a steep hard learning curve that spoils our treasured youthful dreams.

One very big factor is the utter irresponsibility of health authorities in my opinion. Perhaps their motives are right, but they do rather overstress risks and the role of personal responsibility, even to the point of blaming risk groups. Frequently they just get it wrong, or just overkill, I'd cite the western experience of AIDS as an example but not a definitive one as again it is just my opinion , and this latest scare seems unfounded if the medical facts I quoted in an earlier posting on MRSA

[Naam]

Probably can google

....... or gargle.

--------------------------

With what?

for starters one could try 250 milliliters of H2SO4

[seonai]

What's going on 'ear then eh?

[lawling]

But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

PeaceBlondie

I found that an interesting observation - particularly as the situation seems to be borne out in practice - but I haven't been able to work out the reasons for myself. Could you spell some of them out for me?

[PeaceBlondie]

PeaceBlondie:

But there are fewer reasons for gay partners to be monogamous, than for straight partners.

I found that an interesting observation - particularly as the situation seems to be borne out in practice - but I haven't been able to work out the reasons for myself. Could you spell some of them out for me?

As someone who made my wife pregnant 9 times, I'd say the most obvious reason for straight people to be monogamous is to know who your children are; who their parents are. And, gay sex doesn't create a lifetime obligation to a child.

Second, in 99% of all jurisdictions, gay people cannot legally marry. By definition, unmarried people who have sex together don't commit adultery.

Third, in most cultures there is significant resistance to allowing public gay monogamy. You can't take your lover to a Baptist or Catholic church, as two examples. So, there's less public pressure to remain faithful to someone that the culture doesn't recognize as your spouse/partner in the first place.

There must be several more reasons. Also, single gays may not be notoriously more promiscuous than single straights, or even more than married straights. All groups of sexual orientation run the full range from total abstinence to mating with everything that moves.

[lawling]

Thanks, Peace Blondie. Those all make sense.

[moldy]

Thanks, Peace Blondie. Those all make sense.

It appears that this latest outbreak is not so rare after all. A similar outbreak occurred among a group of professional footballers in USA. The initial wounds were predominantly leg injuries and grass burns. The factors were the presence of the bacteria (of course), close physical contact, shared facilities, and possibly an unusually high use of anti microbial substances. Needless to say all the afflicted were otherwise in robust good health.

Kinds of makes any gay issues, and subsequent discussions on morality seem rather redundant. I doubt whether the footballers were the subject of any moral condemnation.

[PeaceBlondie]

Agreed, the less we focus on sexual behaviors (to the point of losing focus on other epidemiological factors), the better. How much danger does this bacteria pose to health in Thailand, the developed world, etc.?

[TommyGun]

What i find strange, i don't mean to sound like i'm jumping on the conspiricy wagon here, but the amount of new viruses that are around are incredible bearing in mind the advances we have made over the decades.

Aids supposedly spread throught the african nations, Sars a virus that supposedly effectd the Asian gene, which apparantley is in it's infancy and will generate into a more active an lethel virus over time. And this MRS virus that is spread via the gay community.

Who knows. Maybe the CT's are right and this is just the Global Elite's way of attacking the human race to reduce the population.

[moldy]

What i find strange, i don't mean to sound like i'm jumping on the conspiricy wagon here, but the amount of new viruses that are around are incredible bearing in mind the advances we have made over the decades.

Aids supposedly spread throught the african nations, Sars a virus that supposedly effectd the Asian gene, which apparantley is in it's infancy and will generate into a more active an lethel virus over time. And this MRS virus that is spread via the gay community.

Who knows. Maybe the CT's are right and this is just the Global Elite's way of attacking the human race to reduce the population.

Hey Tommy. Let's hold it right there. This is what happens. Maybe you were being ironic or just tapping away without thinking (as we all can do), but look at the words in red. It's not a virus and the gay community are not the primary source, it's been around for ages in hospitals.

[Ijustwannateach]

^Thanks for those corrections, Moldy.

Furthermore, most of these viruses are not "new." They had been around locally- VERY locally- for a long time and it is the wonders of that modern technology you mention, TG, that has enabled them to spread more globally- and the wonders of antibiotics mixed with human failing (overuse) that has bred resistant strains of Staph, which has got to be one of the oldest known problem bacteriums for human beings.

In most countries where AIDS presents the biggest problems, it is known as a straight-attacking disease, incidentally- look up Botswana for some truly sobering statistics.

Anyway, AIDS is no longer deadly enough to be considered a short-term life-threatening disease- which shows a normal progression towards our adaptation to it, as well as a serious challenge to its long-term eradication. In contrast, Ebola- a much more deadly disease- hardly affects anyone because it is so obvious, so immediate, and so easy to contain as a result.

Periodic outbreaks of new viruses are normal. We simply grew up in a luckily dormant era. I seriously doubt the "global elite" would release so many diseases which are so equal opportunity.

"S"

[geriatrickid]

Well, I am OK with wherever science leads us. But AIDs did start with monkeys, and it got helped along with monkey business, gay and straight.

The view is that the strain which was carried in chimpanzees was passed on to humans through the consumption of "bush meat" or basically the eating of animals similar to ourselves. The adaptation of the virus was easy since humans and chimpanzee DNA is recombinable at 98%. The HIV virus evolution is one of the reasons why avian flu scares the heck out of public health agencies.

[geriatrickid]

This gets my <deleted> open jaw stare;

Anyway, AIDS is no longer deadly enough to be considered a short-term life-threatening disease- which shows a normal progression towards our adaptation to it, as well as a serious challenge to its long-term eradication. In contrast, Ebola- a much more deadly disease- hardly affects anyone because it is so obvious, so immediate, and so easy to contain as a result.

You place too much faith in pharmaceutical advertisements for HIV drugs. The side effects of HIV medications are lethal for some patients and a living hel_l for others. On the whole they do improve the lifespan for infected subjects but they can bring on other serious illnesses such as hepatitis, pancreatis, diabetes, bone density disruption, GI distress,Lipodystrophy/lipoatrophy, lactic acidosis and dozens of other serious ailments. Humans have not adapted to HIV. Rather the virus adapts to the current medications and becomes more resistant to the chemotherapeutic agents over time.

Ebola is the most lethal of hemorrhagic illnesses with an approx. mortality rate of 90%. It's cousin the Marburg and Reston strains while not as lethal are just as deadly. The virus has a different mechanism than the slowpoke HIV which is why incubation is only 4-16 days and death usually follows within 2 weeks. Because the illness moves so fast, the outbreaks often kill off the hosts before it can spread. As well, the sight of its victims bleeding from every orifice and their incontinence keeps people away. If HIV had this characteristic, there never would have been an AIDS crisis. Same goes for alot of other chronic diseases such as TB. Public health officials have learnt from HIV though. The current approach is to quarantine and isolate suspected hemorrhagic virus carriers. It is a feasible strategy because the number of patients is usually only a few hundred so its manageable and it's in Africa where folks won't protest the restriction of the infected's civil liberties.

[Ijustwannateach]

Your point about Ebola is the same as mine. It kills so quickly it's not really effective as a virus (if one views the "purpose" of a virus as maximizing its progeny). HIV, on the other hand, is achieving longer and longer dormant periods and co-existing with its hosts for longer and longer periods. I think this trend is likely to continue over the long haul, barring some miracle breakthrough in medicine- it will become a more "successful" virus as it does so. I'm not trying to trivialise the human suffering involved in either case, just looking at things in a biological light. More people suffer from the common cold than from Ebola, and therefore more copies of the common cold are generated, and therefore the common cold is a "successful" virus and the Ebola virus is rather rare and unimportant by comparison- it either burns itself out quickly and leaves everyone dead and not producing more viruses, or it is detected because of its dramatic symptoms and controlled quickly.

And I stand by my statement- HIV-related problems are NOT regarded as short term life-threatening any more- at least not by the well-educated members of the gay community who know much more about it than I do with whom I have discussed it. That doesn't mean it's fun- it means it's not short term life-threatening.

In any case, the topic here is MRSA, which has been in a long evolutionary battle with us humans and has been very successful until recently- however, we seem to be better at dealing with bacteria than we are with viruses- or are we? This view may be too short term until we know if antibiotics will be with us medically for the long term or if we have simply had a brief reprieve.

"S"

[moldy]

Your point about Ebola is the same as mine. It kills so quickly it's not really effective as a virus (if one views the "purpose" of a virus as maximizing its progeny). HIV, on the other hand, is achieving longer and longer dormant periods and co-existing with its hosts for longer and longer periods. I think this trend is likely to continue over the long haul, barring some miracle breakthrough in medicine- it will become a more "successful" virus as it does so. I'm not trying to trivialise the human suffering involved in either case, just looking at things in a biological light. More people suffer from the common cold than from Ebola, and therefore more copies of the common cold are generated, and therefore the common cold is a "successful" virus and the Ebola virus is rather rare and unimportant by comparison- it either burns itself out quickly and leaves everyone dead and not producing more viruses, or it is detected because of its dramatic symptoms and controlled quickly.

And I stand by my statement- HIV-related problems are NOT regarded as short term life-threatening any more- at least not by the well-educated members of the gay community who know much more about it than I do with whom I have discussed it. That doesn't mean it's fun- it means it's not short term life-threatening.

In any case, the topic here is MRSA, which has been in a long evolutionary battle with us humans and has been very successful until recently- however, we seem to be better at dealing with bacteria than we are with viruses- or are we? This view may be too short term until we know if antibiotics will be with us medically for the long term or if we have simply had a brief reprieve.

"S"

Well I guess any discussion about one potential pandemic is inevitably going to draw comparisons with another, so I don't think we're off base in discussing Ebola or the alleged HIV virus.

Virology (doesn't sound right) is an assumptive science I think, at least much more so than other than bacterial science. Part of the problem is that virus are difficult to isolate because of their size and work by a more complex method of reproduction. Their effect on cells is more profound. I think bacteria just gobble them, but virus tend to infiltrate. So dealing with a virus is much more difficult.

Cures for viral conditions seem to come more by way of happy accident.

But please note the above could be codswallop as I haven't been through medical school.

[pumper]

gay high risk is obviously anal & multipartner.

monogimous non-anal gays would seem to be no higher risk than monogamous straights.

the rectum is not designed to be bi-directional + is 'dirty' so it presents assorted problems.

no doubt sexual organs can have bacteria in illness

.. but naturally have no bacteria in a healthy state

feces is contaminated in a healthy state. feces is naturally bacteria "packed"

high risk is multi partner no matter the mount chosen or sexual orientation

straight sex with a Thai pro is dangerous as heck!

us "straight" guys that prefer 'missionary w/ durlax' but with multi partner lasses are asking for disease

i was with what I though was a less than party animal (very homely) Sukhumvet working lass .. 2nd day I saw some pills in her satchel .. looked .. herpes meds ..

turns out she had recently been hospitalized with a hard to control herpes in her throat.

while my sexual preferences are rather meek & mild .. how many of her customers offered extra bt for "special services".

when i became intimate with her I became intimate with all of her customers & all of the customer's partners.

Edited January 22, 2008 by pumper

[Sheryl]

Virology (doesn't sound right) is an assumptive science I think, at least much more so than other than bacterial science. Part of the problem is that virus are difficult to isolate because of their size and work by a more complex method of reproduction. Their effect on cells is more profound. I think bacteria just gobble them, but virus tend to infiltrate. So dealing with a virus is much more difficult.

Cures for viral conditions seem to come more by way of happy accident.

But please note the above could be codswallop as I haven't been through medical school.

Viruses are difficult to isolate, but virologists do isolate them with what is hardly an assumptive science. It's hard, solid, methodological science that has produced preventives (vaccines) and treatments (various anti-viral agencts) through rigorous scientific work. I can't off- hand think of a single cure or preventive which was found by accident.

[Sheryl]

gay high risk is obviously anal & multipartner.

monogimous non-anal gays would seem to be no higher risk than monogamous straights.

the rectum is not designed to be bi-directional + is 'dirty' so it presents assorted problems.

no doubt sexual organs can have bacteria in illness

.. but naturally have no bacteria in a healthy state

feces is contaminated in a healthy state. feces is naturally bacteria "packed"

high risk is multi partner no matter the mount chosen or sexual orientation

straight sex with a Thai pro is dangerous as heck!

us "straight" guys that prefer 'missionary w/ durlax' but with multi partner lasses are asking for disease

i was with what I though was a less than party animal (very homely) Sukhumvet working lass .. 2nd day I saw some pills in her satchel .. looked .. herpes meds ..

turns out she had recently been hospitalized with a hard to control herpes in her throat.

while my sexual preferences are rather meek & mild .. how many of her customers offered extra bt for "special services".

when i became intimate with her I became intimate with all of her customers & all of the customer's partners.

Actually the high risk aspect of anal sex is not from the rectum being "dirty"or exposure to feces...fecal bacteria aplenty make their way onto genitals too.

The problem is that the membrane lining of the rectum is fragile and not designed to withstand the friction that comes from aletrnate uses of that orifice. So tiny tears occur in the mucosa, unfelt or noticed, creating a direct path into the blood stream. The vaginal membrane is much tougher and elastic, as is the penis. Hence the risk of transmission of any sexually transmitted disease is highest for the passive recipient of anal sex (regardless of their gender).

However that's just talking relatuve risk. It is possible for the active partner to also become infected and both men and women can and do become infected through heterosexual intercourse.

As you so eloquently point out, when you have sex with someone you are exposing yourself to anything their other partners may have transmitted as well.

Mutual monogamy or condoms, case closed.

[moldy]

Virology (doesn't sound right) is an assumptive science I think, at least much more so than other than bacterial science. Part of the problem is that virus are difficult to isolate because of their size and work by a more complex method of reproduction. Their effect on cells is more profound. I think bacteria just gobble them, but virus tend to infiltrate. So dealing with a virus is much more difficult.

Cures for viral conditions seem to come more by way of happy accident.

But please note the above could be codswallop as I haven't been through medical school.

Viruses are difficult to isolate, but virologists do isolate them with what is hardly an assumptive science. It's hard, solid, methodological science that has produced preventives (vaccines) and treatments (various anti-viral agencts) through rigorous scientific work. I can't off- hand think of a single cure or preventive which was found by accident.

Yes, I stand corrected the statement is too general and I meant presumptive (the presumptions frequently being right). I was in fact being a little shy in referring to one particular virus which I didn't want to name. Kosch's postulates are difficult to fulfill and don't necessarily establish there is not a virus but from there onwards other evidence has to be 100% and I mean 100%. Very often research on a cure that looks very promising falls flat, while others come good, this is what I meant by happy accident. Bacteriology is much more straightforward I'm led to believe.

[koto]

Abstinence will protect me from STDs, but not from being crushed by a rock falling from the sky- or bird flu- or being run over by a car on the road. We all take risks, even in leaving home in the morning- and the reward versus risk equation depends on our individual values and behaviours. I'm quite happy with my own level of reward versus risk. Could people who have excessive fear of STDs risk unnecessarily low quality of life? Depends on them, of course.

Hi Ijustwannateach

This isn't bashing gays or anyone else...but the sentence I hilighted needs to be considered. The problem with this statement is that YOU may be "happy with [your] level of risk reward" - but doesn't someone else need to be involved to make you happy with your risk reward? And therefore doesn't that mean that this is not just about you?

I'm not flaming, it's just an interesting response that I feel needs more discussion/thought since this is not about an "individual's" RIGHT to anything - it involves others...