Talk:Staphylococcus aureus
From Academic Kids
In 1997, physicians were alarmed to encounter staph strains that resist even vancomycin, Was that really 1997? IMO more likely 2002 or so. 141.83.15.155 13:13 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What can I say? Whatever kills the S.U. at source in hospitals is good. Notable is that infections start in hospitals. Revise the disinfection processes instead.
--203.15.122.35 04:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Orthomolecular
Recently, 203.61.130.245 and 203.61.124.91 have been inserting large amounts of very poor edits into this article. I feel the surest way to balance is reverting the whole lot, which is what I did.
There are many problems with the material. For one thing, the editor seems never to have heard about wikilinks. Furthermore, he/she does not state that all material inserted is from the POV of orthomolecular medicine, which may sound deceptively scientific but is considered quackery (or worse) by mainstream practicioners. If anyone disagrees, I'll retrieve the old version and hammer it into something sensible, but at the moment I feel nothing of note can be salvaged. JFW | T@lk 15:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reply
Apparently our estimated editor has left not time to complete the edit. Nor has he heard about the role of phenol's bactericidal properties (antiseptic), which are widely used in industry for disinfectation. Phenol much less referred to the academic papers on the properties of phenols on bacterial cultures. The reason for the addition on Phenolic_compounds was that Golden Staph specifically has developed high resistance to traditional antibiotic treatments and new line antibiotics such as Vancomycin. Alternative treatments would be useful to sufferers of Golden Staph after all alternatives have been exhausted.
I suppose it holds no credit? Much less when contained within Wiki's 'quality articles'(!?)
Can this be termed 'quack' or 'orthomolecular'?
I think items deemed POV should have been flagged for further editing rather than mere deletion without advice.
I think more editing needed. Please reply --203.61.128.108 12:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Firstly, I hope you are not advocating the adminstration of phenol to combat Staphylococcal infections. It may not be known as carcinogenic (while benzene is), but it is still poison. It may kill the patient before the Staphylococcus does.
- Secondly, please do not use articles as a notepad. Some users (including myself) prepare articles on an application like Notepad, then brush it up and finally insert it in the wiki. It may actually stop getting your work reverted.
- Your edits will also have a greater chance of survival if you do the following: (1) Indicate that what you propose is not commonly done in healthcare setting. (2) Provide references from peer-reviewed journals (internet links are second-best). (3) Tolerate that others modify what you write.
- Please do not construe this as suppression of your POV. This is an encyclopedia, however, and edits should reflect that reality. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mixed up your work here with your contributions to arthritis, which were indeed from an orthomolecular slant. I'm still not sure what you're trying to say about phenol in Staph infections. JFW | T@lk
Followed on to reply
Phenols are meant to be used as a hospital antiseptic/disinfectant to prevent the spread of G.S. given that infections are often acquired in those said places in high numbers and by extension, gyms and similar locations. I do not think there was an indication as to actual dosaging of patients with phenols to treat G.S. infections. Perhaps, the writing lent itself to misconstruction. Simply preventing the spread of Golden Staph in hospital settings and or medical equipment can greatly improve the chances of non-infection and thus bring death rates down.
A look at hospitals' sanitary proceduresand (http://w3.whosea.org/bct/hlm343/hospital_environment_cntd.htm) disinfectantsis (http://microbiology.mtsinai.on.ca/faq/cleaning.shtml) in order I think and probably an interesting future article.
Points taken on the notepad recommendation.
Thanks.
--203.61.124.92 15:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MRSA, can we have a discussion
Both this article and the MRSA article seem to suggest that MRSA is more virulent than MSSA. I'm really not sure if this is correct. The only real difference between the two is the antibiotic susceptibility. The only reason why MRSA should be more virulent is because it proceeds unchecked while non-MRSA antibiotics are administered.
Is there anyone who has different experience? I think we should go for some source material. JFW | T@lk 03:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
MRSA/ORSA more virulent?
The following may be of interest (the links are inefficient, but they do the job):
- Natural history of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection in soldiers. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15472848&dopt=Abstract)
- Is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus more virulent than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus? A comparative cohort study of British patients with nosocomial infection and bacteremia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14614667&query_hl=12)
- Nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: is it any worse than nosocomial methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11083180&query_hl=12)
- Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10917874&query_hl=12)
- Comparison of the virulence of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7799832&query_hl=12)
One of the problems with answering a question such as this is that the main drug effective against MRSA (vancomycin) is probably inferior to beta-lactam antibiotics (http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/42/6/2398). Randomized controlled trials in this area are difficult. It will be interesting to see the results after a broader experience with linezolid (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15917519&query_hl=18). Polacrilex 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
