"Cameron" wrote..

If I were asked, I would say quercetin is completely harmless and
potentially helpful taken at an appropriate dose. Regarding this statement
above and not relating to quercetin, I couldn't agree more. It's nothing
less than criminal to skew studies in an attempt to influence future
research and opinion and it hurts us sufferers as a result. Why does it hurt
us sufferers? Well, because the research conducted today is the treatment we
receive tomorrow and if your taking medicine for your condition based on a
bogus study your not helping yourself and quite possible making your
condition worse. You should all know that this is not a myth and actively
happening now. I was recently informed a prominent urologist in North
America who did just that, ( no....it's nobody that posts here ), but to a
lesser degree and to the demise of one of his patients. A sufferer with a
long history of CPPS which included hundreds of pages of overwhelming,
factual evidence of a diseased prostate, went to a new urologist for help
and assistance. I am told this patient went to this urologist because he was
curious to know whether or not his bladder was causing problems along with
his prostate? Well, as it turned out, this new urologist had no intentions
of helping his trusting patient at all. Getting back to skewing the medical
facts, that particular physician had his own agenda unbenounced to the
hurting sufferer who humbly went to him seeking help. He ignored the
patients past medical history, lab results, ultrasound images, and numerous
other specialists opinions that clearly pointed to a diseased prostate just
so he could prove a point that "ALL" patients with prostatitis were
misdiagnosed and were actually suffering from interstitial cystitis instead.
Now we all know that at times interstitial cystitis can actually masquerade
as chronic prostatitis, but considering this man's medical history there was
no way that all his symptoms were exclusively attributed to his bladder
alone. This was a case of a doctor who lent a blind eye to the medical facts
just so the diagnosis would benefit him rather than his patient. A clear act
of data being made to say what the doctor wanted it to prove. To put it as
simplistic as I possibly can, it was like someone trying to convince a
person with a broken arm that it was really his leg that had the fracture.
So, let me ask you? How comfortable would you feel if that physician
participated in studies that dictated what medicine you should to take
tomorrow? In the end, that sufferer, ( my friend ), didn't walk, but he
.....::::::BOLTED!! to another specialist who kindly put things back into
perspective acknowledging what he had suspected all along, and that was that
both his prostate and bladder were part of the same disease process. As it
stands now, he is currently receiving the proper medical treatment that
honestly reflects the medical facts of his case, thus increasing his chances
for some desperately needed improvement. Yep, data can be made to say what
the researcher wants it to prove, given the right spin he put's on it.