Re: Re: MRSA control in hospitals should apply everywhere

[Guest guest]

I didn't say that either. I'm saying that nose swabs can provide crucial information regarding bacteria that a person might be carrying . What we've been saying all along but are continously told we're nuts because everyone knows that all those bugs, ESPECIALLY staph, in the nose are harmless and provide worthless information. Despite the fact that my experience and many others with osteomyelitis show just the opposite. What's in our bones, is also in our noses. If you grew the stuff in sick people's noses, noted which drugs they were resistant to and sensitive to, then treated accordingly, a lot more people would have a chance at seeing improvement. The only people getting that care right now are listless birds, and other pets. Listless humans don't rate. penny <usenethod@...> wrote: But, they're not saying the people that come in swabbing out MRSA are sick because of MRSA... they're just saying that they bear MRSA... and that they want to keep that MRSA under wraps, because it can spread from a person whether or not it is making that person sick.I'm certainly not denying that SA might be important as a cryptic cause of disease... but I don't think they are saying that... they are focused on preventing the various disease statuses already well accepted as being caused by SA, that are commonly acquired in the hospital.>> WHAT??? What about the decades of preaching that "nose swabs" are useless and staph growth should be discounted as contaminants and/or "normal" flora???> > What have Tony & I been saying for ages? Just because it's labeled "harmless" doesn't mean it is. Just because you don't have a 105 fever doesn't mean you're not sick either.> > Sheesh.> > penny> > p.s. I do give credit to the people who did this study. Now let's see if anyone pays any attention. > > By the way, anyone hear the big commotion yesterday all over the news about the latest scare of life threatening and/or permanently disfiguring bacteria coming from your local pedicure shop? Cosmetologists have all been ordered to stop using

spa foot baths. (Gee, you'd think they would have been ordered to give all their patients whey protein to boost their immune systems instead.)

[Guest guest]

The same organisms in both places. Bone and sinus swabs. I've based most of my bone infection treatment on sinus swabs (less dangerous than the bone biopsies). Doesn't matter when I get tested, sometimes they all show up, sometimes just one or two. If it's a commercial lab like labcorp, they'll say there's nothing there even when CT scans show massively infected sinuses (because they always throw out staph a. even when staph a. is the known bateria infecting the bone). So then the run-of-the-mill ENT says it's not a bacteria that's the problem, it's a "drainage problem". Bring in the knives. When surgery doesn't work, as it often doesn't, then they claim it's an allergy! Whatever it is, it can't be staph. It's a constant battle of wills, me against my bugs. (And me against stupid docs. :-) Tony's done massive numbers of tests of just about everything human,

and he consistently finds the same organisms and same resistances from sinus swabs, skin, hair and urine samples, that the patient's i.d. docs find in their "correct" testing. In fact, Tony found more organisms in my samples than the lab did originally, but later on a better lab caught them too. (more varieties of staph, psuedomonas, etc.) Seriously, this is one reason I have so much confidence in Tony, despite the fact that he sounds like a raving lunatic. ;-) There's a microbiologist here at UCSD who says it absolutely makes sense that whatever cronic infection is causing you problems will show up in your sinuses and elsewhere. She says why guess at treatment when you can see what the obvious bugs are resistant to, and try that first? Treating the bugs I have that are most resistant to abx in the petri dish has always worked better for me than any other approach. But Tony can tell you that if you

don't treat aggressively enough, those bugs adapt and become resistant, sometimes really fast, some times slowly. That's why we have to keep changing up drugs. Or take enough so that resistance can't develop. That's why I get so disgusted with the medical community. Their sheer negligence in treating infections is creating this monstrously dangerous problem of abx resistant organisms. When I first had my organisms tested, they were resistant to 17 antibiotics! And all I'd ever taken in my life was penicillin! So how did I get such resistant bugs unless I acquired them? I know for a fact that I got one from a YMCA pool. Started as a cut on my foot that wouldn't heal, and ended with the sinus infection from hell. Eventually the foot healed and I thought the sinus infection did too. Apparently not. It just learned how to hide itself really well. penny

<usenethod@...> wrote: > Despite the fact that my experience and many others with osteomyelitis show just the opposite. What's in our bones, is also in our noses. If you grew the stuff in sick people's noses, noted which drugs they were resistant to and sensitive to, then treated accordingly, a lot more people would have a chance at seeing improvement. The only people getting that care right now are listless birds, and other pets. Listless humans don't rate.Oh... I knew that you had

gotten sensitivities taken on isolates from the jaw... I didn't know really that you'd had sensitivities taken on sinus isolates. How well did the sensitivities match? How far apart were the isolates taken?I must admit... I'm a lot more focused on acquired genomic resistance now that I have worsened from September to Jan, right over top of a period of faithful use of my own personal tried-n-true drugs. Sometimes experience is the only teacher! At least I did always remain officially open to the potential importance of genomic resistance in the past - but I didn't really go around thinking about it as much of a threat to me personally.

[Guest guest]

This is one area where I really agree with Mattman. As I'm sure you know, scientists and doctors have long been taught that the blood is "sterile". and despite more and more studies to the contrary, a lot of people still believe it's true. I remember a few years back when there was an article out called something like "blood, a virtual bacteria zoo" which caused quite a lot of discussion. I do think this is why we sometimes get quick and big relief from a treatment, because it cleans up the blood short term But it can't get to the stuff that's buried, so inevitably the symptoms return. But my doctor is always advocating that I do various treatments to clean the blood for some relief. He knows they won't actually cure me, but will at least give my body a vacation. penny

<usenethod@...> wrote: Hmm interesting. One theme in Mattman's book is that she claims a lot of apparantly local infections are actually also in the blood, if you use the right culture methods. TB for example. I don't know if anyone else claims to have recovered TB from the blood, or only her. I am pretty sure, from what I've heard in class, that the official view is that it isn't found there. If something is in your blood, of course, it can get anywhere.> There's a microbiologist here at

UCSD who says it absolutely makes sense that whatever cronic infection is causing you problems will show up in your sinuses and elsewhere.