HATE SPEECH?: New Bacteria Strain Is Striking Gay Men

A new, highly drug-resistant strain of the “flesh-eating” MRSA bacteria is being spread among gay men in San Francisco and Boston, researchers reported on Monday.

In a study published online by the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the bacteria seemed to be spread most easily through anal intercourse but also through casual skin-to-skin contact and touching contaminated surfaces.

The authors warned that unless microbiology laboratories were able to identify the strain and doctors prescribed the proper antibiotic therapy, the infection could soon spread among other groups and become a wider threat.

The new strain seems to have “spread rapidly” in gay populations in San Francisco and Boston, the researchers wrote, and “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.

The study was based on a review of medical records from outpatient clinics in San Francisco and Boston and nine medical centers in San Francisco.

TerryRC wrote:(I wonder when someone will suggest that we pay reparations to all of those TB and Leprosy victims that we placed in sanitariums for the public's health?)

Leprosy has never been all that prevalent in this country.

It is my understanding that lungers went to sanitariums on a voluntary basis.

Do you agree with Huckabee thate we should put AIDS patients in concentration camps, even though it isn't contagious in the normal sense?

There is a known link between being ultra-religious and insanity.

Perhaps our streets would be safer if we locked folks like you up.

While some patients were forced into urban tuberculosis hospitals, countless others were willingly fleeing to sanatoriums in the country. The first TB sanatorium was started by Edward Livingston Trudeau, a wealthy New York doctor who himself was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1873. As his health deteriorated, Trudeau accepted that he was going to die and decided to spend his last days in the Adirondack Mountains. To his surprise, he got better. He became convinced that the climate there was the cause of his "cure," and started a sanatorium for other tuberculosis sufferers outside Saranac Lake in 1884. He started off treating just two patients, but soon the Lake Saranac Sanatorium grew to the size of a small town, with 36 buildings, including laboratories, patients' quarters, stables, and a post office.

Before long sanatoriums became a huge industry, particularly in the United States. They were built in places that seemed "healthy": on beaches, in the mountains, near lakes, in the desert. In fact, parts of the United States that were barely inhabited before suddenly boomed with the sanatorium craze; it is estimated that 60 percent of Colorado was first settled by sanatorium patients and their relatives.

No matter where they were located, all sanatoriums promised the same things—a place where tuberculosis patients could get fresh air, good food, rest, and exercise, all under the supervision of a medical staff. Like the urban TB hospitals, sanatoriums prescribed long stays—anywhere from two to 20 years. But the infected went willingly; many thought it was their last chance to recover, and often it was. But despite the resort-like setting, a stay at a sanatorium was not an extended vacation. The rules were strict and everything was regulated—when patients woke and went to bed, when and what they ate, who they spoke to, when they were allowed to go to the bathroom, even what they read. Different sanatoria had different theories on what kind of treatment would cure TB. Some swore by bizarre diets of raw eggs and cream, others believed that patients should be kept cold all the time—even making them sleep outside in winter.

Although none of those methods could be proven to restore health to tuberculosis patients, many did get well, and sanatoriums and tuberculosis hospitals proved critical to public health efforts—they took people who were sick with a contagious disease and put them in places where they couldn't spread that disease. The quarantining of patients was to be instrumental in the eventual decline of infectious tuberculosis. But while there is little doubt that the public health movement was good for society, questions still remain about how the movement affected the rights of the individual.

TerryRC wrote:
It is my understanding that lungers went to sanitariums on a voluntary basis.

Do you agree with Huckabee thate we should put AIDS patients in concentration camps, even though it isn't contagious in the normal sense?

There is a known link between being ultra-religious and insanity.

Perhaps our streets would be safer if we locked folks like you up.

Did CDC make Andrew Speaker a test case?

Some experts question whether alert over passenger was ploy for funding

http://www.ajc.com/wednesday/content/news/stories/2008/01/12/tbpublicity_0113_1.html

The rate of decrease in AIDS diagnoses slowed in the late 1990s. After reaching a plateau, the number of diagnoses increased slightly to an estimated 45,669 in 2005. In total, an estimated 988,376 people have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA.

The number of deaths among people with AIDS has remained relatively stable since 1999, and was estimated at 17,011 in 2005. Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 550,394 people with AIDS have died in the USA.

http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm

TerryRC wrote:Keli, I read your blurb.

Even if the disease was in its early stages, a minimum hospital stay of at least two years was prescribed; it often took much longer than that to get a tubercular patient healthy enough to leave.

Hardly the same as putting them in camps indefinitely. Also, there is no compelling evidence that these people were forced into thee hospitals at gunpoint. You source says "forced" and then doesn't go into it at all.

Even now, we can quarantine people that are a risk to the public, but not indefinitely. That was the case with Speaker. The fed has a duty to try and stop the movement of health risks across our borders. I wonder how much the greek authorities enjoyed us letting him fly there? It isn't as if Mr. Speaker was in jail or even under house arrest.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% right. I just can't find any evidence that it has ever been the policy of this country (or the individual states) to lock sick people up. If anyone has some evidence, I'll look at it.

By the same token, if it was anyone but gays (and possibly liberals), Keli wouldn't be talking about concentration camps.

Aaron wrote:Were the bird flu, or a disease like that, to mutate with a 25% to 35% mortality rate, would anyone really have a problem with quarantining the victims against their will?

Stephanie wrote:You haven't provided enough information to make an intelligent response, Aaron.

Aaron wrote:Were the bird flu, or a disease like that, to mutate with a 25% to 35% mortality rate, would anyone really have a problem with quarantining the victims against their will?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:You haven't provided enough information to make an intelligent response, Aaron.

Aaron wrote:Were the bird flu, or a disease like that, to mutate with a 25% to 35% mortality rate, would anyone really have a problem with quarantining the victims against their will?

Really. And here I thought it was pretty clear. HMMM


My premis is that if a highly contagious disease with no treatment or cure came along that was killing 1 in 3-4 people I don't think you'd find too many 'survivors' that would cry over victims being quarantined against their will.

Stephanie wrote:You asked if anyone would really have a problem with it. I'm saying that yes there would be people who would oppose it. Furthermore, I'm telling you that depending upon a lot of the details, I'm very likely to be one of those people.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:You asked if anyone would really have a problem with it. I'm saying that yes there would be people who would oppose it. Furthermore, I'm telling you that depending upon a lot of the details, I'm very likely to be one of those people.

Aren't you the one that doesn't have a problem with the government providing a safety net for the poorest and the weakest and believe they should provide a mininum amount of protection!!!

You want the big bad government to not allow porn on television or provide socialist programs for the poor but you're against them protecting the population against a killer disease with a mortality rate that kills one in 3.

Good to know you got your priorities down.

Aaron wrote:I'm talking to a contradicting woman.

Aaron wrote:I'm talking to a contradicting woman.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:I'm talking to a contradicting woman.

What you have here is a woman who has different priorties from you.

I value liberty more than security.

Apparently, liberty isn't your top priority.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote: My premis is that if a highly contagious disease with no treatment or cure came along that was killing 1 in 3-4 people I don't think you'd find too many 'survivors' that would cry over victims being quarantined against their will.

You asked if anyone would really have a problem with it. I'm saying that yes there would be people who would oppose it. Furthermore, I'm telling you that depending upon a lot of the details, I'm very likely to be one of those people.

And if Hillary gets elected President, ..... what all will she be feeling sympathy for?

TerryRC wrote:Nope, I value liberty. Thing is, I have some common sense.

Then declare martial law, as was done during the spanish flu pandemic.

To lock someone up who has done nothing wrong except have the misfortune to become ill goes against everything that this country stands for.

I'll take my chances with the diseases, thanks.

What is the old saying... "better to die on your feet than live on your knees".

TerryRC wrote:[i]
I like the insinuation that standing up for individual rights makes one a liberal or a teenager.