And that my friend is the definition of a carrier well done!

Unless microbiology has changed in the past 25 years then S aureus is still found where S aureus has always been found and so by definition carried by humans and also be definition some of these will be MRSA. This merely refers to what the bug is resistant to as a means of characterisation.
People are confusing infectious with the results of "opportunistic pathogenicity", they are not the same category but have the same (in gross terms) net effect.i.e an infection.

In the UK a fair percentage of all nosocomial infections (hospital acquired) may in fact be identified as being initiated in hospital, but are in fact given to the poor infected person by the visit of auntie Dorris or uncle Bert. Not necessarily by the hospital staff.

Washing hand of course helps, cleaning floors helps, in fact generally speaking removing bacteria is far preferable to eliminating them through the use of gross poisons or toxins.

Disinfection is or was my area of specific expertise and an area I both studied and worked in actively for many years. We have not yet seen the walnut resistant to the sledgehammer (bugs and disinfectants) but unless we start using these technologies more wisely and soon -we will. Now that is a time to be worried, MRSA will be as nothing compared to what may /will happen then.

Enjoy.....

I know about MRSA colonizing in noses, and I know the human body is a carrier for damn near every virus and bacteria imaginable, I was responding the fact that someone being diagnosed as a carrier for MRSA is absurd, and I have never heard of it. Being diagnosed as a carrier for an bacterium would be like saying deer are a carrier for ticks.

No problem, however you are using "diagnosed" and carrier in the same sentence as if they have a joint or linked meaning and they don't.
People may be tested and or confirmed or cleared of being a carrier but diagnosed is a phrase used to describe the illucidation of a disease state and carrier is not a disease state as there is no disease if you are a carrier, that is the whole point!
As a point of interest there are more bacterial cells on you and in you than mamalian cells that make up the entire human body. So what you say is correct, the breadth of human commensal flora (naturally non pathogenic - in most cases) is enormous, and normally totally harmless.

There are some individuals however who "carry" nasties on them and in them to no ill effect for themselves. I myself carry beta haemolytic streptococci, the fact of which I discovered in a microbiology practical at Universtity many years ago.

Discovered to be a carrier is a much more accurate phrase, diagnosis is the wrong word in the wrong context.

By the way I hope your research is successful, good luck......

I guess I was just taking it out of context. I have never heard of someone being told they are a carrier of MRSA before.

I have, and personally know someone who had it colonize in their nose and had no infection.

I think the OP was trying to get at the fact he would be contagious to his patients because he was a carrier of MRSA, which would be impossible, in many ways.

As far as my research, I am done with that project now and onto more 'nasty' things.

You should know that medical professionals who are discovered to be MRSA carriers in the UK have to undergo specific treatment regimes to rid them of it before they can return to routine duties.
Imagine an MRSA carrier on a surgical recovery ward... Ooops......

I'm jumping on the 'carrier' thread here; my fiance was diagnosed with MRSA after a hospital stay last June but after his lesions cleared up he's had no re-occurrence of his. About 3 weeks ago, I went to bed with an open wound/burn on my leg (didn't think to cover it since our household had been free of MRSA for months)... my wound continued to worsen with redness, swelling and my wound got uglier... went to the dr who gave me an antibiotic which didn't work, back again, different antibiotic and a culture and today a 3rd antibiotic and told it was MRSA.

I originally asked what the probability was that someone who had no active case of MRSA could transfer and she said 'rare' but I'm guessing mine came from him contact with him.

Maybe it wasn't from him but seems too coincidental. Anyone found any homeopathic remedies that help with the pain?

Look up on using Tea Tree Oil solution on google. I am not sure of the 1 part tea tree oil to whatever part carrier oil. Also, check with your doctor as it may not be recommended for deep sores.

Try taking oregano oil (oil pills) to see if it will help. Look up "natural or alternative antiseptic or antibacterial properties".

MRSA isn't a big threat as of now ....the Drug of Choice was considered to be Vancomycin ...now we have Vancomycin resistant SA ....but we have some drugs like linezolid , quinepristine daflopristine that are very effective against the bug ...i think there are far more dangerous infections that should be addressed ... for example TB , Malaria ....rather than MRSA ...the MRSA is basically a campaign by some pharma companies to sell their rarely prescribed drugs. You need to be a really bad doctor to let your patient die of MRSA.

Forgive me if the stuff I write here has been covered as I didn't read all of the replies here. Nevertheless, I felt I should add my 2 cents having only recently left a lab where I was working on synthesising a sugar based vaccine against S aureus.

Staphylococcus aureus is (and has been for a little while now) one of the most prevalent etiological agents for a wide array of infectious diseases. These afflictions may range from nosicomal infections (mentioned already I think), such as urinary tract infections, endocarditis and pneumonia, to other non-human diseases such as ruminant mastitis. Methicillin and multidrug resistance in S. aureus is fast becoming a common sight in infected patients. As such, the requirement for additional control tactics such as vaccines is becoming increasingly necessary. Unfortunately, host relation and the mechanisms contributing to pathogenesis of S. aureus infection is a mostly not well defined, complex and multifarious process, the clinical presentations of such often varying between patients. Furthermore, many staphylococcal products have redundant functions. Thus, if one of these compounds were to be targeted in the production of a vaccine and thereby be eliminated, its loss may be easily recompensed for by other molecules boasting the same functionality.

One step in the development of S. aureus virulence that has more recently become of interest is in the genesis of biofilms, also referred to as ‘slime.' Subsequent to their initial formation, these biofilms undergo a series of distinct phenotypic modifications, with the mature biofilm consisting of a sessile collective of cells embedded within a matrix of extracellular DNA, proteins and polysaccharides. An unfortunate consequence that is known to arise from the establishment of these communities is that they posses an inherently increased protection against host-mediated AB-independent phagocytosis, and can help facilitate resistance to a diverse range of antibiotics.

---

---

Well, from what Im hearing lately, they are just summing them all up as a staph infection that is constantly mutating and less MRSA or VRSA. Makes sense I suppose.

My sons best friend came down with what they believed to be some virus affecting his adnoids. In 5 days he was sent to Childrens Mercy because of a staph infection in his lungs. That caused the infection to spread through every organ in his body. He was there for 6 weeks. That child put up one heck of a fight, and is now out and doing well. Still not 100% but doing well.

I hope this doesnt become more common.

Thank you everyone for keeping this thread up to date with all the information you have.