 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostatitis / April 2004info on nano bacteria and treatment.
OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary problems. I'm dead certain my condition is caused by a bacterial infection of some sort even tho' they can't culture anything from my urine. I've been taking Doxycycline now for some time and it give some relief from the symptoms. (Burning on urination, difficulty urinating, weak intermittant stream, incomplete voiding, bladder pain, yellow ejaculate, large visible fat bodies in ejaculate. As well as bloating from fluid retention, chronic fatigue, chest congestion with large volumes of dark green/bloody mucous.) If I stay on the Doxy most of the syptoms diminish. Notably the lung problems, chest congestion and shortness of breath as well as the nasty mucous I hack up every morning. My urinary flow while still painful does increase in force somewhat and my ejaculate goes from yellow to a scummy gray. Problem is the doxy isn't curing the problem and if I get off of it to give my system a break from the side-effects the symptoms return in a few days. This is in my opinion a dangerous "bandaid" as it allows for whatever bacterial infiection I have to develop resistenace to the doxy. I've gone through all the other basic abx's used for bladder/prostate infection and can no longer tolerate them. Deathly allergic to sullfanomides so Bactrim is out and I took Cipro and Levaquin for so long that I've damaged much of my joints and connective tissue.(Cipro did do wonders for the syptoms tho' I question now if it had any effect on the bacteria.) So the quinolones are out as well. I've tried to do research on the nanobiotics and can find very little except for the nanobaclabs website which doesn't give any details about whose carrying their meds or not. Just the advice to come to them and don't wait too long. Seems to me if the have an FDA approved drug for nanobacteria I'd be able to look it up in any PDR. This is not the case, tried RXlist, RXmed and a couple of other listings as well as a google and came up with nada. Their patented drug, Urobac, should be a fairly common formulary drug. But I can't find squat on it. Has anyone here taken this drug for their bladder/prostate problems? If so has it worked and where did you get it? If I'm to go to my urologist and tell him we need to pursue this avenue I'm going to have to have a local source of this drug available for him to prescribe. Going to Nanobac labs for diagnosis and treatment is not an option. My health care provider won't even consider it. If it's not in their pharmacy formulary then getting it as an outsource will be nigh well impossible and they will never go for underwriting the expense of sending me to a nonobac lab approved physician. I understand the test for nanobacteria in urine is supposed to be a simple one, tho' nanobac labs won't go into detail with me.(Their replies have been pretty pat and basic pr drivel.) Does anyone now the regular/clinical name for this test besides nanobac TEST-UA? I'll be seeing my uro again in 2 weeks and need to get this info together if he's going to go along with this course. Thanks for any reply. > OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary > problems. > I'm dead certain my condition is caused by a bacterial infection of > some sort even tho' they can't culture anything from my urine. Sounds like a very rampant roaring bacterial infection when they can't even culture it from your urine and it gives lung symptoms. Yes sir, pretty dangerous. > I've been taking Doxycycline now for some time and it give some relief > from the symptoms. (Burning on urination, difficulty urinating, weak > intermittant stream, incomplete voiding, bladder pain, yellow > ejaculate, large visible fat bodies in ejaculate. As well as bloating > from fluid retention, chronic fatigue, chest congestion with large > volumes of dark green/bloody mucous.) It went from your prostate to your lungs and avoided the blood and urine. This is a very invasive cleaver bacteria. > If I stay on the Doxy most of the syptoms diminish. Notably the lung > problems, chest congestion and shortness of breath as well as the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is in my opinion a dangerous "bandaid" as it allows for whatever > bacterial infiection I have to develop resistenace to the doxy. We don't want resistance as it already went to the lungs. Watch out for the brain. > I've gone through all the other basic abx's used for bladder/prostate > infection and can no longer tolerate them. Wrong. You have gone through antibiotics used for the entire body buddy. > Deathly allergic to sullfanomides so Bactrim is out and I took Cipro > and Levaquin for so long that I've damaged much of my joints and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about whose carrying their meds or not. Just the advice to come to > them and don't wait too long. You don't want to wait too long because they have to have an excuse for them not to work. It didn't work, oh, you waited too long. Too long for what if it is a nanobacteria? Do they transform into butterflies after time? > Seems to me if the have an FDA approved drug for nanobacteria I'd be > able to look it up in any PDR. This is not the case, tried RXlist, > RXmed and a couple of other listings as well as a google and came up > with nada. It's the drug conspiracy. > Their patented drug, Urobac, should be a fairly common formulary drug. > But I can't find squat on it. You don't give out info that others can copy do you? > Has anyone here taken this drug for their bladder/prostate problems? > If so has it worked and where did you get it? > If I'm to go to my urologist and tell him we need to pursue this > avenue I'm going to have to have a local source of this drug available > for him to prescribe. If you go in to your doc please wear a mask so he won't recognise you or at least get him one so he can laugh behind it and not let you see him. Going to Nanobac labs for diagnosis and > treatment is not an option. My health care provider won't even > consider it. If it's not in their pharmacy formulary then getting it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does anyone now the regular/clinical name for this test besides > nanobac TEST-UA? There is no such thing as nanobacteria or a clinical test for this non existent crap. > I'll be seeing my uro again in 2 weeks and need to get this info > together if he's going to go along with this course. > Thanks for any reply. Hey Robert, f.ck off dipshit. If you can't post useful info and are here only to be a craphead take a hike. >> OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary >> problems. [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> together if he's going to go along with this course. >> Thanks for any reply. > Hey Robert, f.ck off dipshit. > If you can't post useful info and are here only to be a craphead take > a hike. Let me post some useful info for everyone reading here. There is no such thing as nanobacteria. If you go to your doctor with that stuff he will think you are a nut. > OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary > problems. It seems from the literature that nanobacteria certainly exist and can cause pathologic calcification in the body. Do calcifications in the prostate lead to symptoms? Not in everybody, but it's possible that just like in kidney stones, some sit there for life without causing symptoms and others cause mega symptoms. It looks as though the company that makes Urobac has some home grown tests for antibody and antigen but I doubt you would find them in any other lab and who knows whether CPPS patients would show positive in urine or blood if all the nanobacteria are trapped within stones in the prostate. Something worth looking into for a preliminary clinical trial in CPPS but definately not ready for general clinical use. Eur Urol. 2004 Mar;45(3):333-7; discussion 337-8. Clinical correlation of prostatic lithiasis with chronic pelvic pain syndromes in young adults. Geramoutsos I, Gyftopoulos K, Perimenis P, Thanou V, Liagka D, Siamblis D, Barbalias G. Department of Urology, Mesolongi General Hospital, Mesolongi, Greece. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence, morphology and clinical presentation of prostatic calculi in a selected population of young adults and to examine any possible correlation with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndromes (CP/CPPS). METHODS: A population of 1374 young adults was screened with ultrasound imaging of the prostate and 101 cases with prostatic lithiasis were selected. Patients were divided in two groups, according to the type of prostatic calculi (type A: small, multiple or type B: larger, coarser calculi). Further evaluation included history and physical examination, recording of lower urinary tract symptoms and the Meares-Stamey test. RESULTS: Calculi were type A in 71.3% and type B in 28.7% of cases. Localization (central/periurethral) was not correlated with other parameters. Age was closely related to calculus burden ( p =0.034 ). Type B calculi were more often associated with symptoms and chronic prostatitis/CPPS (chi(2)-test, p=0.007 and 0.018 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Small, multiple calcifications are a normal, often incidental ultrasonographic finding in the prostate and represent a result of age rather than a pathologic entity. However, larger prostatic calculi may be related to underlying inflammation and require further evaluation and possibly, treatment. Urol Res. 2003 Jun;31(2):47-54. Characteristics of nanobacteria and their possible role in stone formation. Kajander EO, Ciftcioglu N, Aho K, Garcia-Cuerpo E. Department of Biochemistry, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland. olavi.kajander@uku.fi Kidney stone formation is a multifactorial disease in which the defence mechanisms and risk factors are imbalanced in favour of stone formation. We have proposed a novel infectious agent, mineral forming nanobacteria (NB), to be active nidi that attach to, invade and damage the urinary epithelium of collecting ducts and papilla forming the calcium phosphate center(s) found in most kidney stones. Stone formation may proceed in urine supersaturated with calcium phosphate, calcium oxalate and uric acid/urate under the influence of crystallization promoters and inhibitors. Our hypothesis underlines the role of active nidi: even supersaturated urine requires nidi for crystallization to appear. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Jul;46(7):2077-86. Inhibition of nanobacteria by antimicrobial drugs as measured by a modified microdilution method. Ciftcioglu N, Miller-Hjelle MA, Hjelle JT, Kajander EO. Department of Biochemistry, University of Kuopio, FIN-70211, Kuopio, Finland. Compounds from 16 classes of antimicrobial drugs were tested for their abilities to inhibit the in vitro multiplication of nanobacteria (NB), a newly discovered infectious agent found in human kidney stones and kidney cyst fluids from patients with polycystic kidney disease (PKD). Because NB form surface calcifications at physiologic levels of calcium and phosphate, they have been hypothesized to mediate the formation of tissue calcifications. We describe a modified microdilution inhibitory test that accommodates the unique growth conditions and long multiplication times of NB. This modified microdilution method included inoculation of 96-well plates and determination of inhibition by periodic measurement of the absorbance for 14 days in cell culture medium under cell culture conditions. Bactericidal or bacteriostatic drug effects were distinguished by subsequent subculture in drug-free media and monitoring for increasing absorbance. NB isolated from fetal bovine serum (FBS) were inhibited by tetracycline HCl, nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ampicillin at levels achievable in serum and urine; all drugs except ampicillin were cidal. Tetracycline also inhibited multiplication of isolates of NB from human kidney stones and kidney cyst fluids from patients with PKD. The other antibiotics tested against FBS-derived NB either had no effect or exhibited an inhibitory concentration above clinically achievable levels; the aminoglycosides and vancomycin were bacteriostatic. Antibiotic-induced morphological changes to NB were observed by electron microscopy. Bisphosphonates, aminocaproic acid, potassium citrate-citric acid solutions, and 5-fluorouracil also inhibited the multiplication of NB in a cidal manner. Insights into the nature of NB, the action(s) of these drugs, and the role of NB in calcifying diseases may be gained by exploiting this in vitro inhibition test system. > > OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary > > problems. It doesn't really tell you what nanobacteria are now does it? > > gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message > news:<82r07053538t31635i6g6go19iqltvjrhk@4ax.com>... > > > OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary > > > problems. > > > It doesn't really tell you what nanobacteria are now does it? Ok I did a search so let me answer my own question here with cut and paste. We have found that nanobacteria, recently discovered Gram-negative atypical bacteria. The electron microscopy of the thrombotic vegetation demonstrated nanobacterium. The isolated bacteria were examined using scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). They were characterized for the presence of DNA, proteins and antigenicity. They were heat sensitive, showed antibiotic resistance and accelerated COM crystallization Nanobacteria were cultured from the bile samples in 57 patients with cholecystolithiasis and 18 non-cholelithiasis patients and identified by immunohistochemical staining Immunohistochemistry with monoclonal antibody of nanobacteria associated with TEM is useful in identifying nanobacteria. Calcific staining is of great value to identification of nanobacteria. Precipitation of white floccules adhering to the tube is an important microbiological characteristic of nanobacteria. To determine the prevalence of biofilm formation under long-term cell culture conditions in serum samples of dairy cattle, goats, cats, and dogs, and to determine whether there is an association between nanobacteria and biofilm formation. Compounds from 16 classes of antimicrobial drugs were tested for their abilities to inhibit the in vitro multiplication of nanobacteria (NB), a newly discovered infectious agent found in human kidney stones and kidney cyst fluids from patients with polycystic kidney disease (PKD). Because NB form surface calcifications at physiologic levels of calcium and phosphate, they have been hypothesized to mediate the formation of tissue calcifications. We describe a modified microdilution inhibitory test that accommodates the unique growth conditions and long multiplication times of NB. This modified microdilution method included inoculation of 96-well plates and determination of inhibition by periodic measurement of the absorbance for 14 days in cell culture medium under cell culture conditions. Bactericidal or bacteriostatic drug effects were distinguished by subsequent subculture in drug-free media and monitoring for increasing absorbance. NB isolated from fetal bovine serum (FBS) were inhibited by tetracycline HCl, nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ampicillin at levels achievable in serum and urine; all drugs except ampicillin were cidal. Tetracycline also inhibited multiplication of isolates of NB from human kidney stones and kidney cyst fluids from patients with PKD. The other antibiotics tested against FBS-derived NB either had no effect or exhibited an inhibitory concentration above clinically achievable levels; the aminoglycosides and vancomycin were bacteriostatic. Since their first description in literature, it is not clear whether the nanoparticles called "nanobacteria" are alive or not The 80-1,000-nm-sized spherical particles are protected by a crystalline carbonate apatite shell and are culturable in cell culture media. Present in mammalians, including humans, nanobacteria seem to cause diseases related to biomineralization processes. Mesoscopic structures found on Martian meteorites and terrestrial rocks indicated that nanobacteria-like biological objects forming apatite, a material fairly transparent to visible light, could have been present on the primitive Earth during an era with the sun as the principal terrestrial energy source. The last one above is my favorite. Great discovery, I was wrong, you guys all have nanobacteria. Finally we have an identifiable bacteria. You guys with E.coli, strep or Staph, those were just contaminants. The real culprit was nanobacteria. Holding the culture for 7 days does not work because they can't culture nanobacteria. You don't need to culture seminal fluid, or EPS as nanobacteria is present in urine. It is sensitive to most UTI antibiotics or is it resistant? Oh, biofilms, that's right. The antibiotic can not get in so you will have to have surgery to get at the stones. >...Holding the > culture for 7 days does not work because they can't culture nanobacteria. ___ Robert, you contradict yourself over and over and that is what makes your posts so nonsensical to those of us who think. Some of us have indeed had confirmed baterial colonies in our many cultures. Contamination you say? An extremely remote possiblity in the lab that did my work. Nanobacteria can be cultured according to the very document you quote. You quote a source to prove your point and that source shows you are incorrect? You blow smoke, Robert, and that is all you do here. Classic troll behaviour. Jim > >...Holding the > > culture for 7 days does not work because they can't culture nanobacteria. > ___ > > Robert, you contradict yourself over and over and that is what makes your > posts so nonsensical to those of us who think. The above were cut and paste and you can see the contraditions for yourself. > Some of us have indeed had confirmed baterial colonies in our many cultures. > Contamination you say? An extremely remote possiblity in the lab that did > my work. Most people don't have any cultured which is why some want to extend culture times and culture times are reduced for that very reason. > Nanobacteria can be cultured according to the very document you quote. You > quote a source to prove your point and that source shows you are incorrect? You miss the point that I was making from previous posts. Normal bacterial cultures report only normal bacteria. They do not culture for nanobacteria. According to culture requirements, they would have to be ordered specfically for that otherwise you would get a no growth report on the standard culture report. You understand what I am saying now? Contradition, yes. > You blow smoke, Robert, and that is all you do here. Classic troll > behaviour. > > Jim Sorry Jim you don't understand it. To each his own. You might want to order your own cultures and treat yourself as others have suggested so I was offering those suggestions above. I don't smoke. "Robert" wrote.. > Holding the culture for 7 days does not work because they can't culture nanobacteria. Ya, that's right. Standard cultures don't have the capability of culturing nanobacteria. Are you surprised? But wait a minute, Robbie? Yesterday you were mocking sick people and telling them that Nanobacteria did not exist? I don't understand.  Signature¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ --- U§ê FIDUCIAL_POWER@HOTMAIL.COM tø rêåch mê --- ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > "Robert" wrote.. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ya, that's right. Standard cultures don't have the capability of culturing > nanobacteria. Are you surprised? No I am not, as I have always thought that holding cultures for 7 days is stupid and that proves my point. > But wait a minute, Robbie? Yesterday you were mocking sick people and > telling them that Nanobacteria did not exist? I was mocking people for holding cultures for 7 days when nanobacteria can't be cultured that way which makes standard culture " standard" and valid. If you want something other than standard then it is up to the doctor to ask for it. Something you have no grasp of. I don't care if nanobacteria exist or not as let me repeat myself , who gives a sh.t if antibiotics don't work. After using 5 antibiotics and having none work does having a positive culture for nanobacteria mean: 1. That is the cause of your prostatits? 2. The antibiotics will work just because your bug has a name now. 3. Taking the prostate out should rid your body of the infection. Or do you now say that it is the entire urinary system that is infected with nanobacteria? If that were the case then normal UTI antibiotics would work. > I don't understand. >> "Robert" wrote.. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >> I don't understand. The nanbacteria have the ability to sheath themselves in a calcium plaque armour rendering normal abx's useless. I've researched nanobacteria and am certain they exsist. NanoBac labs wern't the first or the only ones to discover nanbacteria. The most signifigant research to validate their existance was actually done by a Geologist.(along with a team of microbiologists) They've proved that nanbacteria do exsist. They've extracted cellular amino acids from the nanobacteria they have in culture as well as dna. They've shown on high resolution electron microsocopy cell division and growth. Can't argue with that. That said even conventional bacteria are adapting ways to evade abx therapy. Colonization intracellular as well as in bones and in spinal fluid. The level of oral abx's needed to saturate every cell would be toxic for the host hence the bugs always come back. >"Robert" wrote.. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I don't understand. The research material I've found on nanbacteria research indicates that most nanobacteria take at least 12 days to show even the smallest sigh of culture growth. Add to that that standard culture mediums are worthless.(Nano's have a very unique diet) Some took up to 60 days to show growth. Some like petroleum products rather than organic material. Medical science needs to step up to the plate and get this problem under control instead of sticking their collective heads in the sand. As I recall the first cases of AIDS were attributed to common ailments and the medical community as a whole discredited the possibility of a killer virus. We know different now don't we? > >"Robert" wrote.. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and the medical community as a whole discredited the possibility of a > killer virus. We know different now don't we? It was the infectious disease specialists who for obvious reasons got involved with AIDS and treating secondary infections with AIDS. If you look at nanobacteria, the spread of research by the "collective" heads has undertaken. Heart valves and UTI are very diverse topics. "Mr. Pubmed" wrote... > NB isolated from fetal bovine serum (FBS) were inhibited > by tetracycline HCl, nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > diseases may be gained by exploiting this in vitro inhibition test > system. Nice post. This question is for anyone: I wonder if these antibiotics inhibited the growth of nanobacteria while it was still inside in it's calcified shell, or were these tests done on the nanobacteria exposed without a shell? Signature¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ --- U§ê FIDUCIAL_POWER@HOTMAIL.COM tø rêåch mê --- ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ . >> OK, I'm ready to try going the avenue of nanobacteria for my urinary >> problems. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >diseases may be gained by exploiting this in vitro inhibition test >system. Thanks for the info. I'll try and get my uro to switch me over to tetracycline if nothing else. I'm fairly certain that I have NB causing my urinary tract problems. I was diagnosed about 10 years back as having osteoporosis. The doctors were confused as to why I has such an advanced case what with my age and gender. One bone doctor was convinced that something was leeching calcium from my bones. Ever since they've had me on high level calcium supplements and a high calcium diet. The condition has slowed dramatically but my bones are still very thin. This and my other symptoms have convinced me of a nanobacteria infection.(I've been coughing up large amount of slimey grayish green mucous from my lungs and brohncial passages as well as the nasty uti discharges.) When I started taking the tamsulosin(to ease burning in my bladder lining and UT) I had a large discharge of slime and blood the sloughed off of my bladder lining. I felt better for it but my uro kinda freaked and took me off of it. Said I shouldn't be bleeding at all. When I'm on the Doxy my urine has cloudy suspended particles in it and I've have what looks like grayish grit as well. Just wished the doxy would kill it off permanently. > I'm fairly certain that I have NB causing my urinary > tract problems. This newsgroup is always good for entertainment. > > I'm fairly certain that I have NB causing my urinary > > tract problems. > > This newsgroup is always good for entertainment. Mr Web, they provide some very convincing evidence. They are starting to change my mind. Can you provide some thinking for me please? > > This newsgroup is always good for entertainment. > > Mr Web, they provide some very convincing evidence. They are starting to > change my mind. Can you provide some thinking for me please? Paul, I'll indulge you this once. Apart from the fact that nanobacteria are only correlated with diseases in which calcium formations are accreted (eg kidney stones), it is impossible to account for the many satellite symptoms that commonly occur in pelvic pain syndrome (fatigue, for example) by relating it all to stone forming itsy-bitsy things like nanobacteria. Nanobacteria MAY be causative agents of diseases related to biomineralization processes. CPPS is not one of these diseases. Keep in mind that for many scientists, the very existence of nanobacteria is still arguable: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct An alternative interpretation of nanobacteria-induced biomineralization. Cisar JO, Xu DQ, Thompson J, Swaim W, Hu L, Kopecko DJ. Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, and Cellular Imaging Core, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. The reported isolation of nanobacteria from human kidney stones raises the intriguing possibility that these microorganisms are etiological agents of pathological extraskeletal calcification [Kajander, E. O. & Ciftcioglu, N. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 8274-8279]. Nanobacteria were previously isolated from FBS after prolonged incubation in DMEM. These bacteria initiated biomineralization of the culture medium and were identified in calcified particles and biofilms by nucleic acid stains, 16S rDNA sequencing, electron microscopy, and the demonstration of a transferable biomineralization activity. We have now identified putative nanobacteria, not only from FBS, but also from human saliva and dental plaque after the incubation of 0.45-microm membrane-filtered samples in DMEM. Although biomineralization in our "cultures" was transferable to fresh DMEM, molecular examination of decalcified biofilms failed to detect nucleic acid or protein that would be expected from growth of a living entity. In addition, biomineralization was not inhibited by sodium azide. Furthermore, the 16S rDNA sequences previously ascribed to Nanobacterium sanguineum and Nanobacterium sp. were found to be indistinguishable from those of an environmental microorganism, Phyllobacterium mysinacearum, that has been previously detected as a contaminant in PCR. Thus, these data do not provide plausible support for the existence of a previously undiscovered bacterial genus. Instead, we provide evidence that biomineralization previously attributed to nanobacteria may be initiated by nonliving macromolecules and transferred on "subculture" by self-propagating microcrystalline apatite. PMID: 11027350 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > > I'm fairly certain that I have NB causing my urinary > > > tract problems. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mr Web, they provide some very convincing evidence. They are starting to > change my mind. Can you provide some thinking for me please? everyone has bacteria in them, so i dunno about this nanobacteria, and if were growing colonies, then no matter if it was nano or not it would be reported. It might not get cultured but it will get reported. if it does not grow too many colonies, then it might be a contaiminant....i think you guys are over obsessed with bacteria. just my opinion , dont mean to offend anyone, sorry if i did > > I'm fairly certain that I have NB causing my urinary > > tract problems. > > This newsgroup is always good for entertainment. I am becoming more and more convinced in WebMasters site and info on CPPS. I just read somewhere that UTIs in men have to be checked out really carefully, for the fact that it might be a structural problem. And if it is really an organism, its usually E.Coli and Staph. > This newsgroup is always good for entertainment. Some of us can dance too. " Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle...Dance, dance, dance." ANYONE A DANCE-A-HOLIC TOO? Signature¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ --- U§ê FIDUCIAL_POWER@HOTMAIL.COM tø rêåch mê --- ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.