druggies spreading MRSA
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
discusted

United States

#1 Dec 26, 2012
Drug addicts are going in stores trying on clothes and shoes spreading this!!!!
well

Galion, OH

#2 Dec 26, 2012
Mrsa is staff and 90% of us have it! I got it when bit by a spider. Almost all healthcare professionals carry it also! It is exchanged by open cuts or bites. You aren't going to get it from a piece of clothing being tried on or shoes!
Janice

Mansfield, OH

#4 Dec 26, 2012
Most cases of MRSA are contacted in the hospital. A few years ago the nursery at SOMC had an outbreak and many newborns caught it. You do not have to be a druggie to get or spread MRSA.
well

Galion, OH

#6 Dec 27, 2012
Honey I'm a nurse! I know what I am saying and it isn't through casual contact you've got to have an opening in you're skin for you to get the staff infection. Staff is everywhere!
wrong

Mansfield, OH

#7 Dec 27, 2012
If you are a nurse you would be able to differentiate between staph and mrsa. You are correct, staph is everywhere. The strain known as Mrsa, however, is not. 7 newborns ended up with mrsa that week. They did not all have open wounds.
Greed

Beaver, OH

#9 Dec 27, 2012
Janice wrote:
Most cases of MRSA are contacted in the hospital. A few years ago the nursery at SOMC had an outbreak and many newborns caught it. You do not have to be a druggie to get or spread MRSA.
Like the person above me said, there has to be a cut in the skin to get it. That's why surgery is so dangerous. It's a good reason to say no to the doctors when they ask if you'd like them to unnecessarily cut on your babies genitals. Many babies have died from this stupid custom. Many more will die before people wake up and realize that it's the 21st century, and it's time to leave barbaric practices in the past. In Africa, they often hide the bodies...
Africa, India, and the the U.S., are the only continents in the world that practice this above a %5 rate. The US is the only country to do it routinely under the auspices of medical 'treatment'. Preemptive surgery is almost as stupid as preemptive war.
We can safely eliminate the risk of breast cancer, but should we? Is it ethical to mutilate every little girl in the name of saving a few from a potentially fatal disease? Would it help if we lie and tell them that they're prettier without breasts?
Did you know that hospitals make big money from selling the skins of baby boys? In a lab, they can continue to grow them to the size of a baseball field, and then sell them to women to wear on their faces as a rejuvenating cream.
bologna

United States

#10 Dec 27, 2012
Greed wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the person above me said, there has to be a cut in the skin to get it. That's why surgery is so dangerous. It's a good reason to say no to the doctors when they ask if you'd like them to unnecessarily cut on your babies genitals. Many babies have died from this stupid custom. Many more will die before people wake up and realize that it's the 21st century, and it's time to leave barbaric practices in the past. In Africa, they often hide the bodies...
Africa, India, and the the U.S., are the only continents in the world that practice this above a %5 rate. The US is the only country to do it routinely under the auspices of medical 'treatment'. Preemptive surgery is almost as stupid as preemptive war.
We can safely eliminate the risk of breast cancer, but should we? Is it ethical to mutilate every little girl in the name of saving a few from a potentially fatal disease? Would it help if we lie and tell them that they're prettier without breasts?
Did you know that hospitals make big money from selling the skins of baby boys? In a lab, they can continue to grow them to the size of a baseball field, and then sell them to women to wear on their faces as a rejuvenating cream.
This thread is about MRSA, not if you think circumcision is necessary. If you want to spread your opinion then start a seperate thread. Comparing circumcision to cutting off a females breasts is ridiculous. I dont know where your getting your information from, but its absurd! I have been a pediatric nurse for 29 years and I can assure your that the hospital DOES NOT sell foreskin. Not only that, but growing them to the size of baseball fields to sell for face cream? Thats a stupid urban myth, grow up and think before you speak.
Greed

Beaver, OH

#11 Dec 27, 2012
Well, I wouldn't make such a claim, without first being prepared to back it up.

Circumcision is not necessary, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I get my information from doctors, and from medical journals.
This subject applies to this thread, because surgery is a primary cause of the spread of MRSA and other infections.
Explain if you can why the comparison to breast augmentation is ridiculous. I don't care how long you've practiced, I want to hear what you know.
Greed

Beaver, OH

#12 Dec 27, 2012
"Invitrogen Corp., a subsidiary of Carlsbad-based Life Technologies Corp., offers neonatal fibroblasts for $339 per 500,000-cell vial." Skinmedica is a company that makes facial creams from ingredients derived from those cells.
In the bio-tech industry, neonatal fibroblasts are the code words used for a baby's skins. It's reported that they can make $100,000 off of just one baby. Total, the industry is worth around 140 million dollars. Is it any wonder that hospitals don't disclose everything, and even seem to push this on us?
They say that the skins were obtained with informed consent, but I never consented; my parents unethically did that for me. It's something I've been upset about for most of my life. Every time I take a step, I feel the exposed glans uncomfortably rub against my clothing, and it makes me mad.
Now how do you figure that seeing women put that stolen skin, on their faces makes me feel?
well

United States

#13 Dec 27, 2012
wrong wrote:
If you are a nurse you would be able to differentiate between staph and mrsa. You are correct, staph is everywhere. The strain known as Mrsa, however, is not. 7 newborns ended up with mrsa that week. They did not all have open wounds.
Research is so easy! You have access! Look it up yourself! It can live on anyone's body but to actually be infected it must come into contact with open areas.
BioHazard

Beaver, OH

#14 Dec 27, 2012
Surgery is one of the best ways to catch it, and most likely, that's where the original infections started. However, once a few babies have it, their boils leak, and spread the bacteria. Once that happens, any small abrasion or even a pimple can easily become infected.
BioHazard

Beaver, OH

#15 Dec 27, 2012
"Individuals who are most at risk are seven to twelve days of age, and male." "MRSA infections in infants who have not been hospitalized except at birth, and who have had not had surgery other than circumcision..." http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease...
I love how they minimize the fact that circumcision is a co-occurring factor in most newborn MRSA cases. Note, that they don't deny its possible link to causation though.
bologna

United States

#19 Dec 27, 2012
Greed wrote:
Well, I wouldn't make such a claim, without first being prepared to back it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =gGnpdO4iKQ0XX
Circumcision is not necessary, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I get my information from doctors, and from medical journals.
This subject applies to this thread, because surgery is a primary cause of the spread of MRSA and other infections.
Explain if you can why the comparison to breast augmentation is ridiculous. I don't care how long you've practiced, I want to hear what you know.
You believe everything you see on youtube? If thats tge case, then there's a cure for AIDS, Santa Claus real cancer can be cured with baking soda, aliens live on Mars, in the Bigfoot just got a leprechaun pregnant last week, please don't be so naive
bologna

United States

#20 Dec 27, 2012
Greed wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the person above me said, there has to be a cut in the skin to get it. That's why surgery is so dangerous. It's a good reason to say no to the doctors when they ask if you'd like them to unnecessarily cut on your babies genitals. Many babies have died from this stupid custom. Many more will die before people wake up and realize that it's the 21st century, and it's time to leave barbaric practices in the past. In Africa, they often hide the bodies...
Africa, India, and the the U.S., are the only continents in the world that practice this above a %5 rate. The US is the only country to do it routinely under the auspices of medical 'treatment'. Preemptive surgery is almost as stupid as preemptive war.
We can safely eliminate the risk of breast cancer, but should we? Is it ethical to mutilate every little girl in the name of saving a few from a potentially fatal disease? Would it help if we lie and tell them that they're prettier without breasts?
Did you know that hospitals make big money from selling the skins of baby boys? In a lab, they can continue to grow them to the size of a baseball field, and then sell them to women to wear on their faces as a rejuvenating cream.
Oh and by the way I checked out your website, first page specifically says for research and not diagnostic procedures. And 1 more time I will remind you just in case you didn't catch it, this thread is about MRSA not about you being mad at mommy and daddy for having you circumcised as a baby. Whether it's right or wrong, plenty of males are circumcised and you don't hear them on here crying like a little child. Grow up and get over it I'm sure there's plenty of more important things for you to worry about in life.
bologna

United States

#21 Dec 27, 2012
Greed wrote:
Well, I wouldn't make such a claim, without first being prepared to back it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =gGnpdO4iKQ0XX
Circumcision is not necessary, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I get my information from doctors, and from medical journals.
This subject applies to this thread, because surgery is a primary cause of the spread of MRSA and other infections.
Explain if you can why the comparison to breast augmentation is ridiculous. I don't care how long you've practiced, I want to hear what you know.
If you really need me to explain to you why there's a big difference between having a woman's breast removed versus having a tiny piece of skin from the tip of a penis, then you my dear friend of are far more ignorant than I really thought. I am done talking to you because you clearly have an agenda here, and it is about circumcision not MRSA.
nocirc

Mansfield, OH

#22 Dec 27, 2012
Cosmetic surgery is cosmetic surgery, at least the adult can give consent. Anyone e who supports cosmetic surgery on children is a sadistic idiot.
BioHazard

Beaver, OH

#23 Dec 28, 2012
bologna wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe everything you see on youtube? If thats tge case, then there's a cure for AIDS, Santa Claus real cancer can be cured with baking soda, aliens live on Mars, in the Bigfoot just got a leprechaun pregnant last week, please don't be so naive
No, I believe it because it's a medical doctorate dissertation, and I've looked up all his references, and checked the sources. They're peer-reviewed, backed with research evidence, but you didn't watch even it. You're right because you think you are. But do this, cite one fact and a reference, that backs up something you're saying.
whatda?

Athens, OH

#24 Dec 28, 2012
well wrote:
<quoted text>Research is so easy! You have access! Look it up yourself! It can live on anyone's body but to actually be infected it must come into contact with open areas.
Well, first of all, it's "staph" and not "staff." Second of all, if you were a nurse, you'd know that staph is a contact bacterium.
DenialOfGuilt

Beaver, OH

#25 Dec 28, 2012
bologna wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and by the way I checked out your website, first page specifically says for research and not diagnostic procedures. And 1 more time I will remind you just in case you didn't catch it, this thread is about MRSA not about you being mad at mommy and daddy for having you circumcised as a baby. Whether it's right or wrong, plenty of males are circumcised and you don't hear them on here crying like a little child. Grow up and get over it I'm sure there's plenty of more important things for you to worry about in life.
You did not read the site, because none of my links said that, but which one are you referring to?
Why are you being so mean? Maybe that's why more men don't speak out, because of people like you calling them babies.

The day when American women let the nurses cut on their baby girls too, is the day that I'll at least not call you sexist for only protecting one gender type, instead of all of your children.

There are plenty of women, millions in fact, that are circumcised, and they are very happy too. It's called 'never knowing anything different','being in denial' and 'conforming to societal expectations'. The women want it done for their baby girls, and the men are happy to oblige.

This thread is about MRSA, so explain to me why the majority of newborns catching it are male and just had their genitals cut up. Then realize that any surgery is dangerous because of the risk of infection. Explain why the AAP even recognizes this link. Do you even know how many babies die from complications to this unnecessary surgery?

Why would any sane people continue? Britain stopped doing routine circs, and criticizes us for not stopping also. Their sentiments on the matter can be found in their journal of medicine.

BTW, I know of thousands of men who are very very angry about it. The most recent convention was last month in New Orleans. In fact, some of the men are so upset about it, they make threats to kill the doctors, and some even speak of doing worse.

Also, there are many cases where judges have sided with men, and they've won many lawsuits. Courts around the world are upholding the rights of a child to the integrity of his body, and are ruling against the sick wishes of parents and religious leaders.
DenialOfGuilt

Beaver, OH

#26 Dec 28, 2012
bologna wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a big difference between having a woman's breast removed versus having a tiny piece of skin from the tip of a penis.
First of all, it's not a tiny piece, it's a 5 x 20 inch section once fully grown. Number two, it's a protective covering for the glans/head, and once removed, exposes the head to abrasives, which over time leads to decreased sensitivity, and possibly impotence. Number three, it's not just skin, its dartos muscle, and once cut, the muscle loses it's tightness and its ability to hold the urethra in place, leading to urethritis in some cases.
Please explain that big difference, if you would. Isn't ending breast cancer a good enough reason for you? Why does it seem okay to you to cut on boys and not girls?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Portsmouth Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest: Minister: Slayings of 8 rocked Ohio... 1 hr just wonder 219
Megan Lancaster 1 hr New to area 43
Jenny's Giovannis 2 hr Brilliant and Bossy 21
when do welfare checks come out (Jan '12) 2 hr Whatiswrongwithyou 56
Will The State Of Ohio Drop up to 18,000 people... 2 hr sutterly 1
Harper valley 3 hr Perry T Mason jr 4
John jordan 3 hr White Rhino 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Portsmouth Mortgages