Posted on 07/07/2004 4:37:59 PM PDT by Grig
Antibiotic-resistant strain of syphilis is spreading
A fast-spreading mutant strain of syphilis has proved resistant to the antibiotic pills that are offered to some patients as an alternative to painful penicillin shots.
Since the late 1990s, doctors and public health clinics have been giving azithromycin to some syphilis patients because the long-acting antibiotic pill was highly effective and easy to use. Four pills taken at once were usually enough to cure syphilis.
But now researchers at University of Washington in Seattle have found at least 10 percent of syphilis samples from patients at sexually transmitted disease clinics in four cities had a strain resistant to azithromycin.
"That suggests that this mutation is pretty widely distributed geographically," said Sheila A. Lukehart, research professor of infectious diseases.
The percentage of samples from San Francisco with the mutant strain jumped from 4 percent in 1999-2002 to 37 percent in 2003, with the increase taking place largely among gay or bisexual men with multiple partners.
The study was reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
Experts say doctors should switch to penicillin or other antibiotics if azithromycin does not work. But some of those antibiotics can cause nausea and other side effects and must be taken for two weeks; some patients do not complete their treatment and are not cured.
Experts said the findings also show that syphilis patients treated with azithromycin must have follow-up tests to be sure they are cured. After syphilis sores disappear, the disease can silently attack the brain and cause dementia, paralysis and death.
Penicillin has long been the recommended treatment for syphilis. But it must be given in two buttocks injections much more painful than typical shots, because a large amount of the solution must be forced into the muscle.
Syphilis decreased in the United States through the 1990s, then climbed 19 percent from 2000 to 2003 to about 7,100 cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC attributed the spike to a twelvefold rise in cases among gay and bisexual men, many of whom are also infected with the AIDS virus.
Lukehart studied 114 syphilis samples from Seattle, San Francisco, Baltimore and Dublin, Ireland, finding 28 percent were resistant to azithromycin, including 88 percent of the Dublin samples.
Dr. John Douglas, director of the CDC's division of sexually transmitted disease prevention, said the agency is formulating a plan to test for resistant strains in some areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
How utterly surprising. Also in the news, "Sun rises in the East!"
Oh my no. That would leave individuals accountable for themselves. No, what we need to do is further tax those dirty rich people making $50,000 or more so that this STD can be studied, skimming off a portion to help promote the political causes of all sexual deviants.
We need some modern day 'black siph' colonies on remote islands
imo
The microbes won the "Sexual Revolution".
Ban dirty toilet seats. ;~)
Yep. It really is that simple. Works every time.
I understand this new starin is a real problem among black hookers in a section of New York City in Harlem, very close, in fact, to where Clinton has his "office." Public health officials are concerned that many of these same hookers may spread the problem to delegates at the political convention in Boston in August.
Anyway, some people should really keep their "stuff" to themselves. It's better than any medicine.
I say let the punishment fit the crime. :-)
I'm not scared. Now if they could only treat babies' ear infections with something that doesn't make them so poopsy ...
That, my friend, would be poetic justice.
It's Reagan's fault.
Guess Seattle needs more of these :
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/31166_toilets13.shtm
What I am amazed about is they actually admitted that the gay population had a lot to do with it. You just don't see that kind of truthfull reporting these days.
Just one more reason to be thankful that I'm married......and faithful :)
Thanks to the behavior of a small minority of gay men in the Seattle area, syphilis is at extremely high levels, HIV infections are spiking, cases of gonorrhea have doubled, and cases of chlamydia have tripled. What is the gay men's health movement doing about the problem? The Stranger asked local gay health leaders, and concluded they're making excuses and ducking tough questions as the problem gets much, much worse.
Fact: After years of decline, the number of syphilis cases among gay men in King County has recently risen to extremely high levels, according to the county's department of public health. The years of decline began in 1981, when AIDS scared gay men away from the orgiastic sex practices of the 1970s. By 1988, with AIDS devastating the gay community and safe sex or abstinence seemingly the only alternative to death, syphilis almost disappeared among gay men in this area. Eight years later, it had disappeared -- in 1996, there were zero syphilis cases among local gay men.
Then in 1997, the year that powerful new AIDS drugs became widely available, the number of gay men with syphilis began to climb. If the upward trend continues, there could be as many as 120 new cases of syphilis among local gay men this year. In other words, thanks to many gay men going retro in their sexual behavior, the rates of syphilis among gay men in this area are now at levels not seen since the early 1980s -- levels that are more than 100 times those found among the area's heterosexuals.
Fact: It's not just syphilis that's making a comeback in the gay community. King County's director of STD control, Dr. Hunter Handsfield, says that chlamydia and gonorrhea are also at extremely high levels. Between 1997 and 2002, Handsfield estimates, the number of cases of gonorrhea among local gay men at least doubled, and possibly increased as much as fourfold. In the same period, the number of gay men appearing in the King County STD clinic with chlamydia more than tripled. Syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia are all treatable, but their increased prevalence among gay men is alarming because the same behaviors that transmit syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia also transmit HIV--for which, by the way, there is still no cure. "Things are trending in a bad direction," says Dr. Bob Wood, director of the HIV/AIDS program at Public Health -- Seattle & King County, the county's public health department. "We know that people don't get these STDs without having unprotected sex."
Fact: A study of nearly 1,000 Seattle gay men conducted at health clinics between August 1999 and May 2000 found that more than one-third of the HIV-positive men and nearly two-thirds of the HIV-negative men had recently had sex with guys whose HIV status they did not know. Not surprisingly, this study found that many of the guys who were not asking for their sex partners' HIV status were also not telling. Nearly half of the HIV-positive men in the study reported being inconsistent in telling their sex partners they were positive. The nightmare scenario would be if these don't-ask-don't-tell men were having lots of unprotected anal sex, which is one of the most efficient ways to transmit HIV. And that's exactly what the study found: More than 80 percent of all the gay men surveyed reported having had anal sex recently, and more than two-thirds of the men who were HIV-positive reported using condoms inconsistently; one-third of positive guys said they never used condoms at all.
Fact: The department of public health estimates there are about 42,500 gay men in King County, and more than 2,500 of those men are living with HIV. Since the early 1990s, the county estimates, the rate of new HIV infections in gay men has remained stable at about 400 a year.
But this week, the county announced what had long been suspected, given the rising STD rates and the behavior gay men have been reporting: Over the last two years, there has been a spike in the number of people diagnosed with HIV in county health clinics. Between 2001 and 2002 there was a 40 percent increase in new HIV diagnoses. If this year's pace keeps up, the increase between 2002 and 2003 will be 60 percent.
This strongly suggests we are experiencing a wave of new HIV infections, health officials say. And with fewer people dying from AIDS thanks to the new drugs, and the rate of new infections climbing, more and more people are going to be living with HIV in our community over the coming years. Add to that the increases in reported unsafe behavior among gay men--both HIV-positive and HIV-negative--and health officials see what's coming: even more new HIV infections.
What does all this mean? It means that in 2003, more than 34 years after Stonewall, 22 years after AIDS was discovered, and after two decades and tens of millions of dollars have been invested in HIV prevention campaigns and safe-sex messages, the gay community is still a bastion of disease and unhealthiness. In Seattle and other gay centers, gay men are still getting infected with HIV and contracting other STDs at higher rates than any other group.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), gay men are largely responsible for the fact that syphilis, which seemed on its way out of existence in this country, is now resurgent. And although we have new drugs that help those of us with HIV live longer, many of us seem to be intent upon using the existence of these drugs as an excuse to re-create the conditions that allowed AIDS to flourish in the gay community in the first place: high rates of multipartnerism, high rates of unsafe sex, high rates of drug and alcohol use.
How did we get here? Amnesia on the part of gay men and irresponsibility on the part of gay men's health organizations. In the span of a few years, gay men seem to have forgotten how bad AIDS was (and is -- just ask the guys who have it) while at the same time neglecting to realize that our present behavior makes our future bleak. As gay activist Gabriel Rotello wrote in his book, Sexual Ecology, which was published six years ago, just before the new AIDS drugs became available: "Almost every researcher studying the [AIDS] epidemic is convinced of one overarching fact: that if gay men ever re-create the sexual conditions of the seventies, the same kind of thing will happen again with other microbes." Sure enough, earlier this year a mysterious, drug-resistant form of staph infection emerged in the Los Angeles gay community. Other new infections and illnesses are surely out there, waiting to wiggle into our disease-friendly group. Which, as Rotello wrote, raises "the grim, almost unthinkable possibility that for gay men, sexual freedom leads inexorably to disease."
You might expect a "gay men's health movement" to be outraged about this state of affairs. You might expect them to be shouting and stopping people on the street and shaking them and saying, "Do you realize what's going on? Do you realize what's going to happen to our community if we keep this up?" You might expect that people like me -- young, gay, single, and living on Capitol Hill -- have been told that there are extremely high levels of STDs among gay men in Seattle, and you might expect that we've heard this from the local gay health organizations that claim to serve us. Since the problem is so serious, you might expect these local gay health leaders to be responding seriously: making serious statements, promoting serious prevention initiatives, going to serious national conferences, and behaving seriously. Well, if you expect all this you will be disappointed.
cont'd
Thanks for the ping, Bryan. Sad news. tdadams - ping to #19... you may find this of interest. The entire article is long but informative. The last couple paragraphs under "THE CORE" sounds like something many of us here have been saying for a long time.
And the interesting thing about it is that the author himself is gay. And not in a Roy Cohn self-hating way either.
That is interesting. It's too bad non-homosexuals can't report the same information without all the name calling.
A little yogurt given several times a day will help clear this up.
Purely from a health-related standpoint, what will it take to convince people that this type of behavior is simply not a good idea? Did people not get the message from their mothers?
"Don't put that in your (fill in the blank)! You don't know where it's been!"
Sheesh!
Augmentin? I always groaned when they gave that to my son, but Amoxicillin stopped working.
lead article and this post by Bryan are solid.
I'm not inclined to interact with you on these threads anymore.
For one, you seem to consistently misattribute attitudes to me that I don't harbor. I've never implied that the homosexual community are the paragon of sexual virtue. Information like this should be heeded and hopefully will be heeded. The fact that a gay writer is bringing light to the subject disproves the implication that the gay community is indifferent to it all.
The overuse of antibiotics, and the bacterial resistence that goes along with it, has been a concern of doctors for at least 20 years now. That is a problem whose blame cannot be pinned on any one demographic. The blame lies with patients who demand antibiotics even when they have a viral infection, doctors who prescribe them simply to appease the demands of patients, and careless consumers who pass around antibiotics to others for whom they're not prescribed or don't follow the prescribed course of treatment.
Probably what disappoints me most, and I hope I'm wrong, is that you seem to take delight in any news like this, anything that provides ammo you can use to vilify homosexuals. That to me doesn't seem to embody the compassion of Christianity, it reflects obsession and vindictiveness.
He doesn't eat food yet. And the Augmentin is making him spew, too. I'll be calling the doctor again as soon as they open this morning.
I'm sorry to hear that. The CDC, as documented in Men Who Have Sex With Men supports what many of us have said in regards to the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle. How can I know your position if you refuse to comment on articles from the CDC or any article that cites the CDC?
For one, you seem to consistently misattribute attitudes to me that I don't harbor.
Please, sir. You were pinged here because the article supports a lot of what I've said the past couple of days that you don't want to talk about, not even when the source is the CDC.
The fact that a gay writer is bringing light to the subject disproves the implication that the gay community is indifferent to it all.
That's just more spin. Did you even read the article? The homosexual community apparently is indifferent to it all, as the homosexual writer states:
What does all this mean? It means that in 2003, more than 34 years after Stonewall, 22 years after AIDS was discovered, and after two decades and tens of millions of dollars have been invested in HIV prevention campaigns and safe-sex messages, the gay community is still a bastion of disease and unhealthiness.And on and on it goes.In Seattle and other gay centers, gay men are still getting infected with HIV and contracting other STDs at higher rates than any other group.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), gay men are largely responsible for the fact that syphilis, which seemed on its way out of existence in this country, is now resurgent.
And although we have new drugs that help those of us with HIV live longer, many of us seem to be intent upon using the existence of these drugs as an excuse to re-create the conditions that allowed AIDS to flourish in the gay community in the first place: high rates of multipartnerism, high rates of unsafe sex, high rates of drug and alcohol use.
One homosexual writer telling it like it is does not disprove the homosexual community is indifferent to it all.
Probably what disappoints me most, and I hope I'm wrong, is that you seem to take delight in any news like this, anything that provides ammo you can use to vilify homosexuals.
Please, sir. In the very post I pinged you to I said this was "Sad news" and I repeatedly state my position on the matter. But that doesn't seem to matter to you, as you're only interest appears to be denigrating anybody who doesn't accept the homosexual lifestyle.
When the messenger posts information you apparently don't want others to see, you attack the messenger.
The homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and even the CDC supports this fact.
That to me doesn't seem to embody the compassion of Christianity, it reflects obsession and vindictiveness.
I have absolutely no problem with folks reading my profile and your profile, along with my posts and your posts to see exactly from where we're both coming.
And you, a professing Christian, still refuse to comment on what the Bible says about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
It has been proven that gay men have a life expectancy 14-20 years shorter than other men, and that their sexual practices have led to several fatal diseases, at rates many times higher than in the general population. Prudent public policy would mandate a campaign similar to the campaign against smoking, but 2-3 times as vigorous.
Nonsense. If you knew anything about logic, you would be familiar with the principle that a single counterexample suffices to refute a blanket assertion.
No such thing has been proven and to say as much you only reveal your ignorance or naiveté. You're drinking the same Kool Aid and reading the same discredited reports as scripter.
You guys would be much more convincing, and certainly earn my respect, if you would rely on factual data rather than the urban legends propagated by Paul Cameron. You would certainly earn my respect if you would not be so intransigent and admit that their might be the slightest methodological flaws to Cameron's data (the flaws and methodological analysis is well documented). But no, you insist, quite laughably, that his data is squeeky clean and unimpeachable. It makes my eyes roll.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More on deadly diseases and the "gay" life. Sure is gay, isn't it?
Easy prevention, as mentioned in the first post. Such advice used to be considered basic guidelines for human behavior. Maybe there were good reasons for such moral absolutes...
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
P.S. If anyone thinks that "gay" marriage is supposed to promote similar chastity among the homosexual community, tell me, and I'll post the quotes from prominent homosexual spokespeople again on what they really think about "gay" marriage.
Ugh, Serenity Now. I've spent an inordinate amount of time with you the last few days doing nothing BUT talking about all this from every perspective imaginable. Your allegation is preposterous.
In the very post I pinged you to I said this was "Sad news"
With a diplomatic qualifier, you nonetheless seem to hear this news with glee.
When the messenger posts information you apparently don't want others to see, you attack the messenger.
Oh, that takes the cake. You guys, in the face of overwhelming evidence that your sources are faulty, that Paul Cameron even called for the extermination of homosexuals, continue to insist it's not true. You are the kings of self-delusion. And some have attacked me for posting a letter, the authenticity of which is not disputed, simply for posting a letter that they don't want seen.
Get a mirror, man.
For more elucidation on tdadams' comments, check out the debate on this thread, it's an education in itself, especially from the 300's on. The comments in the 400's really take apart td's arguments against Cameron.
Happy reading!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162993/posts
You said:
"...you seem to take delight in any news like this, anything that provides ammo you can use to vilify homosexuals. That to me doesn't seem to embody the compassion of Christianity, it reflects obsession and vindictiveness."
You're really tiring me with your position of being a pious Christian who supports the "gay" agenda, yet claiming you don't, and now bringing scripter's sincerely held beliefs into question, solely as an underhanded debating technique.
Of course scipter, EdRform and others who are opposed to the "gay" agenda are NOT happy by the bad news about disease. But to silence and hide bad news only encourages the illicit, immoral, and unnatural behavior that causes such diseases to spread.
Is it bad form to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there REALLY IS A FIRE? It's humane and compassionate to let real bad news be publicized, to warn people of real danger. It is false compassion, leading to more human suffering, to hide such bad news under the cloak of the "gay" agenda.
The CDC attributed the spike to a twelvefold rise in cases among gay and bisexual men, many of whom are also infected with the AIDS virus."
Once again, medical evidence shows sexual perversions do not go without consequence.
Un freakin believable. What alternate reality are you living in, man? The posts in the 400s are exactly the opposite of what you've stated. They thoroughly, finally show Paul Cameron for the fraud he is.
My allegations against Cameron HAVE NOT BEEN REFUTED. Not a bit, not in the slightest. Everything I posted in #400 is absolutely true and verified. The charges that it's not true are nothing more than that, charges. Not a bit of it has been disproven. Paul Cameron is a fraud, a liar, and in my opinion a sociopath.
You guys argue in bad faith and are absolutely shameless.
The report was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, a respected, peer-reviewed medical journal published by Oxford University. Cameron had absolutely nothing to do with this research. You will find an abstract of the article here:
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10
Your repeated attempts to blame all research and all medical facts that are inconvenient to the homosexual agenda on Cameron, and your repeated efforts to claim that those who disagree with you must be relying on Cameron, illustrate your panic and desperation.
I suggest the possibility that you are motivated more by your gay activism and your desire to bash those who disagree with the homosexual agenda, than by any belief in libertarian principles. For example, I don't recall seeing you espouse libertarian principles on the drug war threads, or the gun control threads. If I'm not mistaken, you have only claimed support for the noble libertarian ideal on gay rights threads.
Like scripter, I am very interested in your response, as a Christian, to I Corinthians 6:9-11.
And likewise Romans 1:24-32
I would think at least the homosexual sufferers would not be adverse to an injection in the butt.
if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortalityAs I said, fundamental dishonest will not win my respect.
More baseless charges. It's untrue when LJ says it and it's untrue when you say it. I take my position based on my libertarian beliefs and as Justice Louis Brandeis so eloquently put it, man's "right to be let alone."
For example, I don't recall seeing you espouse libertarian principles on the drug war threads, or the gun control threads. If I'm not mistaken, you have only claimed support for the noble libertarian ideal on gay rights threads.
ROFLMAO! Seriously, that one's a riot. An absolute riot. You really don't know my postings do you? Go ahead, search my name on the drug war threads and see what you find. Please. Please do it. Then come back and admit how completely wrong, and stupid, such a accusation is.
By the way: the "part" that you reference in your Post #42 is not a "part" of the original research published in 1997. Rather, it is part of a letter to the editor sent in 2001.
Fundamental dishonesty doesn't win my respect either.
Probably what disappoints me most, and I hope I'm wrong, is that you seem to take delight in any news like this, anything that provides ammo you can use to vilify homosexuals. That to me doesn't seem to embody the compassion of Christianity, it reflects obsession and vindictiveness.
....cough....denial....cough
My relationship with God is none of your business.
Deaths have declined because of drug cocktails, which have side effects, cost vast quantities of money, and the AIDS sufferers can still infect others, which they still continue to do.
There was a lull when "gays", to some degree, shunned some of the more egregious unsafe sexual practices they generally indulge in. But in the last several years (I started reading about this increase in the late 90s) many "gays" - especially youngers ones - increasingly practice very risky sexual acts, including promiscuous, anonymous anal sex, and even "barebacking" parties; all of which are likely fueling an upswing in not only new AIDS cases but other STDS, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, Hep C, and others.
There's nothing dishonest about that whatsoever, the letter to the editor is from the original authors. You need to read a little closer before you put your foot in your mouth, something you're apparently prone to do.
After a careful search of your postings, I have spotted a few in support of libertarian ideals on a drug war thread. Strangely enough, nothing supporting libertarian ideals on a gun control thread has emerged.
Could that be due to the fact that libertarian ideals coincide with dope-smoking, gay-loving, gun-hating left-wing ideals regarding the drug war and gay rights, but not regarding gun control?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.