In last week’s issue (Jan. 16), this newspaper, like many others around the country, reported on a new strain of MRSA, the staph infection often dubbed “flesh-eating bacteria,” that has been found spreading recently at an alarming rate in gay male populations in San Francisco and Boston.

We accurately reported the findings of researchers at the University of California-San Francisco who said that while the new strain of MRSA had been found outside of gay populations, it had thus far been heavily concentrated in gay men and had often been spread by skin-to-skin contact associated with sexual activity. We also reported the researchers’ statement that the infection is spread by casual skin-to-skin contact as well. MRSA, like similar infections, isn’t sex-specific or gay sex-specific, in other words.

Some headlines around the world were more alarmist than ours. And some anti-gay groups were downright shameful in their characterization of the report, declaring this new infection evidence of the dangers of being gay. Such characterizations are crap, to put it mildly.

Some gay groups, as well, reacted with alarm to the report, saying it could create yet another stigma associated with gay men. Well, that’s true, we suppose, but mostly for those who’d give credibility to the anti-gay loons out there on the fringes of modern society.

The hubbub got so loud that after a few days the researchers felt compelled to issue a statement deploring the “negative targeting of specific populations in association with MRSA infections or other public health concerns.”

“I think we were looking at this from a scientific point of view and not projecting any political impact,” Dr. Henry Chambers, one of the report’s authors, told the New York Times. “We were focusing on the data.”

Imagine that—doctors looking at a medical problem solely in terms of science, rather than tempering their interpretations because of the potential that they might be politicized.

Well, what else would we have them do? What if the MRSA infection had been found in another community, something that could have easily happened?

Let’s say, for example, that it was spreading in ski resorts in Utah. What then if officials at other ski resorts, say, in neighboring Colorado, put out hysterical press releases claiming that this infection was evidence of the general uncleanliness and degradation of Utah ski resorts? What if Utah ski resorts officials attacked the researchers, saying that before they released their findings they should have thought about the possibility that some people would associate all Utah ski resorts with disease?

Sounds a bit preposterous, doesn’t it?

If anything, this episode points out that we still have a ways to go before we eliminate homophobia and all its baggage from our lives. We need to get to the point to where doctors can do their jobs and warn us—rightly so—when any dangerous infection threatens the health of our community and any community.

Here, in simple form, are the facts.

This strain of MRSA is more dangerous than most because it is resistant to antibiotics that are most often used to treat MRSA. It can be treated, but stopping its spread as soon as possible is good because the more that a drug-resistant strain spreads, the more likely we’ll see other drug-resistant strains in the future.

MRSA—any strain—can be spread with skin-to-skin contact. In this case, doctors found its spread associated often—not always—with skin-to-skin contact associated with gay men having sex. They didn’t say gay sex is bad or gay men are bad. They were just describing a medical phenomenon that could just as easily have ignited through skin-to-skin contact associated with rugby leagues in England. The germ landed where it landed.

It’s also important to reiterate that the best way to prevent the spread of MRSA, like many infections, is through good hygiene—washing your hands, showering after sexual contact and not sharing personal items. It’s also a reminder to always play safe when it comes to sex.

One day, perhaps, we’ll get to the point where the scientists can just worry about being good scientists, rather than being political soothsayers. Until then, let’s try to ignore the hysterics of those who are going to hate us no matter what we do. We’ve got enough battles to fight without letting them getting inside our heads.