What Actually Went Wrong? Why This Misconception?

From the foregoing discussion, one can see vividly that Staphylococus aureus is never considered as a causative agent for sexually transmitted disease. The Centres for Disease Control has never documented such. However, there have been few documentations by some researchers that MRSA which was reportedly isolated from gay men in San Francisco, USA in 2008, was a cause of STD. The claim was refuted when they were not able to establish whether MRSA is transmitted via anal, oral or vaginal intercourse, even though we know that it is transmitted through skin to skin contact during sex.

Nonetheless, I still cannot understand why S. aureus is hyped as the causative agent for the deadliest STD in Nigeria. The media has done more damage to this issue by blowing the prevalence of this "STD" out of proportions. Thanks to them; Staph infection is now the deadliest, incurable STD in Nigeria. It is a household name. Some dubious individuals are making fortune for themselves by treating Staph infection. Every road-side "laboratory", native doctor, trado-medical practitioner, and "nurse-Eliza" across the country is now busy treating Staph. Sure, there are always accompanying gonorrhoea and syphilis. It goes by other names like toilet infection; and has an unending litany of clinical presentations. Some of the purported symptoms include: itchiness in the "private part", noisy stomach, skin rashes, frequent urination, hotness of body, headache & "malaria/typhoid", waist pain, vaginal discharge, moving sensation round the body, painful sexual intercourse, loss of sexual urge, zero sperm count, watery sperm, etc. The list is endless and sometimes whimsically funny.

Cracking the Enigma.

A mon avis, I would say that the slight laboratory error that later escalated into the widespread misconception that Staph causes an almost incurable form of STD must have started as a mere contaminant in a culture medium. Maybe a high vaginal swab or a penile discharge was not taken "cleanly". By this I mean that the skin was swiped while taking the sample. Knowing fully well that Staph aureus is found on the skin of about half of the population, by so doing, it finds its way into the culture medium. The organism was later extracted from the medium. Par hazard, whatever organism that was causing the infection ab initio was poorly treated or there might have been a re-infection which led to the persistence of symptoms and subsequent request for another culture. The sample must have been collected the same way as in the previous case and Staph aureus was again extracted from the medium. Assuming this vicious cycle had been repeated over and over again which led to the believe that Staph aureus is actually the cause of STD and it does not respond to orthodox medicine...(continued)

cc Lalasticlala


http://niceinfoportal..com/2015/11/does-staphylococcus-aureus-cause.html?m=1