> We deserve more studies using PCR and controls.
"Webmaster Chronicprostatitis.com" < wrote..
> I couldn't disagree more.
I know :-) That's the beauty of this newsgroup and other's like C.P.com. We
can agree to disagree.
> We've had a plethora of such studies, and the
> conclusion is in: microbes are not involved in male chronic pelvic pain
> (CP/CPPS), or "pelvic myoneuropathy", except (perhaps) as one of many
> triggers.
In all fairness, and particularly to the subject of research studies, quite
often reaching conclusion's regarding studies often stems from what we
decide to rule in and rule out as relevant. Each & every one of us is guilty
of this to some degree. No? Anyhooooooo, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm
actually pleased to see your comment about microbes acting as a trigger, (
along with many other triggers of course ).
> The precious research dollars deserve to be spent in other ways.
> Fortunately for us, the NIH agrees with me.
I don't want all the research $$'s to go directly towards answering the role
of microbes and it's relationship to inflammation either, nor all the money
to be spent on PCR studies. Yes, that would be a mistake because there are
some dedicated people out there doing fine work, and they make a strong case
for the research dollars to be used in a variety of ways as "you say", but
this polymerase chain reaction opportunity should not be ignored, and PCR
research does indeed deserve some serious consideration and subsequent
funding. There are many reason's to go forward on this, but offering one
persuasion is that those physician's that oppose it, haven't considered that
PCR conclusion's may actually aid them in their own protocol's. Consider
this: if the results from future PCR studies are at all distinguishable, an
advantage for the specialist is that it potentially makes inhibiting actual
patients with a bacterial etiology from entering their office's for
treatment an option. You ask why would specialist's want to see only a
certain type of patient? I hypothesis that a physician who specializes in
say pelvic floor dysfunction and/or physiotherapy, may experience more
frustration and failure rates in men who actually have microbes instigating
inflammation and pain, as opposed to a more receptive patient in terms of
treatment who does not have microbes spurring on the inflammatory response
and pain cycle. In order for the specialist to be as effective as he can be,
he needs accurate information. PCR is not only a tool for the sufferer, but
for the doctor as well.
Admittedly the man who takes on the task of organizing a PCR research study,
has his work cut out for him. There needs to be a different approach to
these studies.
1.) Most can be learnt from PCR investigation if the emphasis focused on
CPPS patients with EPS inflammation.
2.) Compare PCR results between CPPS patients with an inflammatory response
to those of controls.
3.) Supply medical treatment based on PCR results.
4.) Follow-up == measure inflammatory response after treatment.
5.) Follow-up == following treatment, PCR examination of fluids "not
immediately", but 1 month after treatment.
It's true that many of us who are living our lives with symptoms want to see
this research begin. Targeting this group would prove invaluable in terms of
results and information
IMPORTANT ==== the success of this study should NOT be measured on whether
or not these patients improve, but rather what is being identified in the
EPS and semen of men who suffer from CPPS as compared to controls by using
PCR. Subsequent studies can address what can be done with the found data,
and the best strategy of treatment.
From my experience, I have come across dozens who have had conflicting
bacterial growth results when they compare their standard and dismal, 2-3
day culture approach and a PCR procedure. But, two men in particular come to
mind at this point. Like many, they both have had the regular culture, and
indeed microbes grew, but those microbes, ( enterococcus, staph. coag. neg.
etc. ) were always considered commensuals by their local doctors. This may
or not be the case. But, it was only until they had the polymerase chain
reaction examination of the same prostatic and seminal fluid that E.Coli and
and a certain species of fungus was properly identified. During and after
treatment, ( massage, antibiotic's, antifungals ),one man had significant
improvement in pain and symptoms,but the other man noticed a negligable
change in pain and symptoms, although at one point the characteristic's of
his seminal fluid improved. Why treatment fails or is not fully effective,
is EXtremely perplexing and a for a different day of debate, discussion, and
research. I hear what your saying, but, there is a case to be made for
funding PCR research studies, along side the other learning.
Sorry for taking so much of your time, guys. Honestly, I don't want to
debate. I just want everyone to improve, and I respect all of your
opinion's.
Regards.