Not true. MRSA stands for Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. Basically penicillins are a problem, but Meropenem would work against most of these bugs.
I understand this. It's hard for bacteria to infect you though since your natural microbiota outcompete it. Also, bacteria have specific areas of the body they can infect. You have tons of E.Coli in your intestines and it causes no problems, in fact you have a symbiotic relationship. If it enters and infects your bladder, however, then it's serious. Staph lives on your skin and in your nose. You could have MRSA on you but as long as it doesn't infect your skin, then you won't have a problem. Staph is also supertoxin. If you ingest it your body recognizes it immediately and makes you sick. This has been known to cause the common stomach flu.
A lot of bacteria is penicillin resistant now. Penicillin is hardly used and if you get it the doctor probably thinks you actually don't realy need an antibiotic. It's not surprising though with the amount of unnecessary Rx's written and usage of antibiotic based soaps.
Here's some frightening facts:
- There's more bacterial DNA on/in you than you have DNA
- Killing 99.9% of a billion germs would allow a million to survive (Killing 99.9999999999% I believe is scientifically sterile)
Not true. MRSA stands for Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. Basically penicillins are a problem, but Meropenem would work against most of these bugs.
Meropenem would likely not work, but MRSA would still be sensitive to teicoplanin and vancomycin. My argument that antibiotics don't work against MRSA remains valid - it's just I got the antibiotic of choice wrong.