Greetings Walter!

I was trying to make the point that just because a vet uses homoeopathy, doesn't mean he/she rejects all of conventional medicine. You and I are on the same side, but firing different weapons some of the time, that's all. Although I now specialise in non conventional therapies, I still see cases where I advise the use of antibiotics, or even (occasionally) steroids, or surgery, or any of the arsenal of conventional medicine. It's simply that there are other therapies that can help pets and (in my view) we should use them all.


As to Manuka honey, I believe trials are under way and (like the increasing use of maggots to clean wounds, leeches to promote revascularisation of tissue, etc.) such 'natural' therapies will be used more and more in hospitals.

Incidentally I'm impressed by your regular and speedy answers to questions on the forum - you are obviously far from taking your well earned retirement easy!

Richard Allport BVetMed, VetMFHom, MRCVS

Bob Partridges BVA press release, does he mean that vets haven't been wearinf scrubs or disposable gloves and masks to preform operations?. Do you think that by asking vets to start operating thinking of infection control will make any difference now MRSA has been recognised in vet surgeries?.

Actually the press release was written by my PR company
who then conatced the BVA for a quote

I am the one who has been consistantly that vets should be wearing masks and gowns and gloves

Bella had the human strain of MRSA in her wound

This could onyl have been transmitted by a person during surgery which M......have admitted to live on air on BBC2

But delighted that Bob agrees with my suggestions

Tommy yes it will make a difference - Professor David Lloyd at the RVC has done extensive research and 20% of the veterinary staff there have been tested positive for colonisation

Watch ITN London Tonight 6.00 to see comments from myself and the BVA
on this matter

My Forum discussion on www.pets-mrsa.com has many vets and VN's contributing opinions on many subjects

Please do join in and you can do so anonymousley

This forum has opened up a dialogue between vets, nurses and owners
and this is a time for transparency

We need the profession to contribute

Also anon-vet has requested help in MRSA 1st infection thread
please do assist if you can

There are now kits available for veterinary practices to check all their staff for MRSA.
Does anyone know if 'human' medical practices and hosiptals have the same facility?
Walter Beswick

Where can you buy this test kit?

Taken from an advertsiment in 'The Veterinary Times'

Surrey Diagnostics Ltd
P.O. Box 156
Cranleigh
GU6 8ZU

e-mail: MRSA@surrey-diagnostics.co.uk

Fee quoted £20 per sample.

How exactly do these kits work ? I am extremely interested

What about transient colonisation (exposure to the bacteria means that in the evening staff could be tested positive and the am negative) or at least this is Bob Partridge's arguement for not testing Veterinary staff

testing staff and owners for colonisation of MRSA is a good idea but so is gowning, masking and gloving up to improve aseptic surgical conditions

To answer your question (Walter) yes there are kits for humans to be tested for colonisation prior to going into hospital for surgery and more information can be obtained from MRSA watch and MRSA support both mentioned on the useful links page of pets-mrsa.com

Professor Lloyd and the Bella Moss foundation will mett soon to discuss how we can move forward into conducting more research into colonisation levels of healthy animals.

A recent survey from MRSA support showed that upon examination of wounds post operatively patients have become infected with MRSA from colonised staff think about how close you as a vet need to get to look at an open wound to assess healing perhaps masks should be worn under these conditions too.

I am attending the patient summitt on MRSA over the next couple of days and I shall report back with more information relevent on kits and testing devices and what is being done in the human world to PREVENT MRSA taking unecessary lives

Hi, Jill,
I am no bacteriologist, but I expect that the kits contain transport medium for sending a swab taken from the inside of the nose to the lab for culture and identification.
Walter

Let me help you Walter the nose -throat -axilla-groin.

No doubt the detailed instructions are in the pack.

I was recently diagnosed with a mrsa infection in my finger? I understand that its possible for my pets to contract mrsa. What symptoms should i be looking for in my 4 cats and 2 dogs?

Hi, April,
It is highly unlikely that your dogs and cats will catch MRSA from you, unless you start operating on them!
I would be interested to know how the diagnosis of MRSA in your finger was reached. Were swabs taken and culturesd in a laboratory?
Walter

Is that correct that if the vet has MRSA, it can be transferred during operations?. Have you seen Jill Moss's website?. How did Bella get MRSA, could it have been during her cruciate ligament op?. You are advising April not to operate on her cat or dog.

The way that MRSA spreads, certainly from human to animal, is not well understood. I was advising April (with tongue in cheek, certainly,) not to operate on her own dog if she herself had an active MRSA lesion.
Even if the vet is carrying MRSA, I think that the chances of passing it on to a surgical patient are remote, especially if sterile techniques are observed.
Much anecdotal evidence has been quoted, but that is not real evidence in my book.
In general terms, humans catch infections from humans and animals get infections from other animals.!

Walter:
So animals get infections from other animals ?
How then would you explain Bella's wound becoming infected with pseudomonas and EMRSA 15 subtype 3 which is the most virulent resistant human strain of MRSA?

I am not colonised and neither was I present during her surgery for cruciate ligament repair

And what about the other 135 animals whose owners have reported to me since Bella's death last August that their dogs following surgery have all become infected with MRSA ?

I would be interested to know how a dog whilst undergoing surgery at a vet's can infect itself ?

Mother nature may have had a part to play in the epidemiology of SA but I would hazard a guess that colonised veterinary staff play their part too
and the fact that the Queen mother hospital in one day found 20% of its staff to be colonised rather proves my point

There is plenty of research into humans infecting animals with MRSA but none yet of animals infecting each other

Do you think that MRSA could be carried by flea's? As the infection is transmitted into the blood system could they cross infect animals/humans via bites to open wounds perhaps?

Petownertoo

Interesting question: I am a lay person no expert but my initial reaction is NO.

MRSA is not a bloodbourne virus such as the plague - tha bacteria gets into the tissue and yes can get into the blood but to be honest this answer should come from an expert and I happen to meeting with Professor Lloyd on Friday at the RVC so I shall report back next week

It is certainly a good question and we are together with the RVC preparing questions and answers for the website www.pets-mrsa.com

Hi, petownertoo,.
MRSA is NOT a virus.
Walter

Jill,
Ref your message of 19 April
When I said that dogs are infected by dogs and humans by humans I was generalising.
I am not prepared to accept anecdotal evidence of dogs becoming infected with MRSA without microbiological confirmation. How many of your 135 cases can produce a laboratory report definitely implicating MRSA?
It is indeed very possible for a dog to 'infect itself' during surgery'. During and for some time (say 45 minutes) after surgery tissues are very susceptible tio infection. It has been clearly demonstrated ( by microbiological methods) that dogs have a transient bacteraemia when they defaecate. If defaecation - intentional or involuntary- occurs during this period operation site sepsis may well result, especially if an 'antibiotic umbrella' has not been used.
Was it demonstrated that any of the veterinary practice staff involved in Bella's operation was a carrier of the strain of MRSA which she contracted?
My professor of veterinary surgery often said that trying to link cause and effect was dangerous. As an example he used to say "Everyone dies some time after their last meal, but not always as a result of it".
Blame cannot always be attributed when 'something goes wrong'.
W

Walter, I can understand your insistence on microbiological confirmation as proof of source of infection, but this a red herring. The path to scientifically validated ideas has always been made up of anecdotal evidence, for without that there would be no signpost for the route that should be investigated.
The problem with ‘evidence’ is that even when it is there, it is seldom recognised, particularly by those who do not have the breadth of vision to accept it. The reliance on ‘scientifically’ validated evidence is that it is simply but one of the ways in which we give credence to a theory, and there are many who would argue that the scientific model itself is too susceptible to manipulation to be truly reliable, and that a range of methods must be considered.
Of course, one reason why there is a dearth of microbiological evidence supporting Jill’s premise is that vets as a whole have no interest in putting their own practice under scrutiny, and resist the imperative to examine treatment failures in a comprehensive way. While vets can continue to send a pet for cremation without investigating cause of death there will never be a body of evidence that you would accept. However, the cases that have come to Jill have all been confirmed as having MRSA by an independant laboratory and this has only really happened because owners have sought a second opinion.

Hi, Mark D,
I dispute that my demand for proper diagnosis of suspected MRSA infections is a 'red herring'.
There are other causes of post-operative infection than MRSA - I know from personal experience having suffered a post-op Strep infection myself a few years ago.
MRSA is very 'fashionable' at present, and it is very tempting to be in fashion.
It is also fashionable in some circles to 'knock' science, as you seem to be doing when you say that 'the scientific model is too susceptible to manipulation to be reliable' . Reputable scientists ( and I would like to think that the great majority are) are more concerned with the seach for truth than many who just want a 'quick fix'.
There was an excellent articles on MRSA in veterinary practice in a recent issue of the Veterinary Times (11th April) quoting Dr Freda Scot-Park, incoming president of the British Veterinary Association, calling for more research on the route of spread of MRSA, and it has recently been reported that Professor David Taylior of the University of Glasgow Veterinary School is working closely with the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) unit investigating all suspected cases of MRSA which are brought to his attention.
When the problems associated with MRSA infection are evnetually sorted out, it will be the scientists who will be responsible, in the same way that scientists eradicated smallpox throught the world, polio in western countries
and TB in British cattle until 'conservationts,, flying in the face of all scientic evidence obtained political support to ban the proper culling of badgers in infected areas.
W

Walter, don’t take from my comments that I am in any way diminishing the importance of the scientific model of research; I am a researcher myself (in human health) but one of the things that all of us involved in scientific investigation understand is that the scientific model itself is not, and cannot ever be, the touchstone of truth. The scientific model, at its core, is simply a way of systematically assessing probability; it does not represent the definitive version of reality. And I will resist pointing out that the majority of researchers are less driven by the search for ‘truth’ than by career imperatives and personal interest or Departmental or commercial policy. I don’t mean at all that scientific research has no value (it has enormous value) but just that researchers do not occupy that place we all imagine where clarity and certainty are demonstrated beyond doubt. Researchers are human beings, and subject to the influences that affect us all, and anecdotal and empirical evidence are the triggers to systematic research, not something to dismiss because they are not ‘scientific’. And to say, as Freda Scott Parker did, that the lack of research means there is no cause for concern demonstrates more about her bias than the realities of this or any other case, and should not be taken as anything more. MRSA in pets may be characterised by some as ‘fashionable’, but it represents a far more important issue related to clinical practice and the way the veterinary profession deals with its treatment failures and the effect those have on pet owners.

Hi, Mark,
I do not agree with your implication that veterinary surgeons have a cavalier attitude towards their treatment failures.
During many years in clinical practice I was just as concerned when I retired as when I was a starry eyed new graduate convinced that I was God's gift to the animal kingdom if a case did not turn out as I wished, or if an operation did not go as planned - and no-one is infallible. I always wanted to know (and I think that most veterinary surgeons do too) why things did not go as well as expected, in order to do better next time.
Walter

Very good observations from Mark D.
Only last week Vol 35 2nd May Vet Times, front page, 'Heart Disease research branded 'Meaningless'. Conflicting vet stiories and inconclusive research data have been blamed for the profession's tendancy to overestimate the severity of heart disease. Dr David Sisson blamed 'underpowered' studies, with 'no basis in fact', for overly severe prognosis offered to owners of animals suffering heart disease, leading to more animals being EUTHANISED than necesary,simply because of a 'more dismal outlook than reality would justify' Dr Sisson goes on to blame inability to offer accurate diagnosis due to limited studies on small control groups. The difference he says between animal and human studies, is average animal study consists of about 30 cases, human studies entered details of around 3,000 to 4,000 patients.
So like Mark D. I don't know how Ms Parker-Scott can downplay the risks for pets of MRSA, or yourself . Lets hope Ms Parker -Scott doesn't put off any of the entreprising companies very quickly offering 'fashionable' MRSA testing kits.

Hi, Angela,
Try "Dr Scott Park."
Dr Sisson was talking about the situation in America. Possibly veterinarians there are more cautious about giving a good prognosis when they may be sued if the animal dies in 3 months and not in 2 years!
Veterinarians can only work- and prognose - within the parameters with which thay are familiar.
It would be great to have a nation wide, or better still, international, data base on which all the cases of heart disease could be recorded. Why not one for renal failure, liver failure, arthritis, epilepsy, malignancies and all the other illnesses that veterinary surgeons encounter daily?
Why not indeed - but who would pay for it?
Walter

The drug companies who now work developing the next 'new generation' of Cox 2's or whatever, wonder drug companies think is needed for the industry to peddle, next. Nothing whatever to do with fashion. World hunger could be cured but 'where's the profit in that?.
Apologies to Dr Freda Scott-Parker.

Hi,Angela,
Maybe preventing and treating illness on a world-wide scale is just as important as preventing world hunger. Horses for courses. When farmers in Europe are being paid NOT to produce food, it is the politicians who should be blamed for not getting it to where it is needed, not the 'drug companies' developing new medicines for treating diseases such as AIDS.
Please try again with Dr Scott PARK.
W

Hi Walter, sorry to Dr Fiona Scott-Park

Walter,
I am quite sure that vets do think about their treatment failures and do not wish to repeat them, but it is certainly the experience of pet owners that vets are extremely reluctant to acknowledge even the possibility of a failure on their part. This is particularly apparent when vets are asked about post-operative infections, and the pattern is that a vet will first attribute the infection to the owner, and then to the animal itself (as you did earlier in this thread). As far as MRSA is concerned, the majority of companion animal infections occur in orthopaedic surgical wounds, yet the pattern of response from vets is to deny absolutely the possibility that the operating surgeon had any responsibility. In none of the cases that have come to light in PETS-MRSA.COM has a vet even acknowledged the possibility that the way the procedure was carried out might have had some part to play in the infection.
What pet owners need from vets is honesty, not a list of every conceivable cause of infection regardless of probability. If vets want their concerns with treatment failures or post-operative infections taken seriously then they have to demonstrate that concern rather than keep it a secret.
M