Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA?

Question

The truth is out there- Having worked in the medical industry for years, most of the people in the industry know that MSRA have been around and jumping from patient to patient for years. I have a theory that is not the most popular but I feel may have some validity although the government may not support the theory. We use hormones to enhance our growth in meats and veggies, in support of the food industry antibiotics are used with treating all foods we ingest at some point including feeds for stock animals so cows, chicken and pigs may be getting a double dose before they become our next meal. As we ingest all these foods containing years of breeding stock hormones and antibiotics any hazards we come in contact with are already diluted or have also adopted or absorbed the antibiotics into themselves canceling out any effective qualities they may have at healing us. The media is putting all this out now, after MRSA has been for at least 10 years -

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is just that: S. aureus that has become resistant to the antibiotic methicillin.

The mechanisms of antibiotic resistance are well known. It is evolution at work.

The genetic basis of evolution is mutation. A mutation is a mistake in the genetic instructions to progeny. The vast number of mutations are lethal or they cause a negative impact on the organism and it is unable to successfully reproduce. However every once in a while a mutation occurs that provides the organism with an advantage that can be passed down to progeny. In the case of MRSA one can see how this happened. Because the generation time of bacteria is so short it would not take a long time (from a human perspective) for a beneficial mutation in the bacteria to occur.

In MRSA mutations occurred to make penicillin- type antibiotics ineffective by a modification in the beta-lactam portion of the penicillin (by an enzyme called beta-lactamase). Alternatively mutations in the cell-wall of the MRSA allow cell-wall integrity in the presence of penicillin-type antibiotics.

Continued inappropriate use of antibiotics (such as in the feedstock of animals) will continue the pressure for this evolutionary path.

However I cannot see a cause and effect mechanism for hormone use and the emergence of bacterial resistance.

Answer 2

MRSA isn't salmonella. One never says "never" in medicine, but livestock has basically nothing to do with methicillin resistance, which began as a nosocomial problem in hospitals and later spread to CAMRSA (community-acquired), which is a much lesser problem than hospital-acquired versions, in which some have even become vancomycin-resistant.
If you want to look at an area where the powers-that-be are not addressing the problem in the proper way, here's one for you. Suppose you're the doctor treating a simple boil. Keep in mind that the patient is going to pay a lot of money for your treatment, perhaps hundreds of dollars, and will be charged more every time you see him. It's perfectly appropriate treatment simply to recommend warm compresses and "watchful waiting," and if that doesn't work, you can lance the boil. Only if both of those don't work need you consider using antibiotics. But what patient can take off work/school for three or four visits, and what doctor can fit that into his schedule, even if the expense isn't a consideration? It's so much easier and "more efficient" (we're all under a lot of pressure to be "efficient") to lance and prescribe antibiotics all in one visit. MRSA, you see, is to a large extent a product of our entire society and lifestyle, but in a more subtle way than your hypothesis.

Answer 3

It is quite possible. Hormones are indiscriminately used to cows to increase milk production and meat production. The same with antibiotics. Our habit of half cooking for taste also contributes. Boiling ,pressure cooking ,and deep frying are of immense help instead of barbecue,tandoori, half fry and cold salads