 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostatitis / January 2005Sounds Like A Great Way To Get Anti-Biotics??
I have read about probiotics in the passed. Until now, I never thought of possible usefulness of probiotics for possibly prostatitis? Anybody here know of any sites that can offer definitive info as to usefulness to reducing prostatitis symptoms when caused by infections? Here's the website that got me thinking about that... http://bph-prostate-enlarged.blogspot.com/ > I have read about probiotics in the passed. Until now, I never thought of > possible usefulness of probiotics for possibly prostatitis? Anybody here > know of any sites that can offer definitive info as to usefulness to > reducing prostatitis symptoms when caused by infections? Here's the > website that got me thinking about that... > http://bph-prostate-enlarged.blogspot.com/ SPAMMER >> I have read about probiotics in the passed. Until now, I never thought >> of possible usefulness of probiotics for possibly prostatitis? Anybody [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SPAMMER Wasn't that the twin brother of MC Hammer? >I have read about probiotics in the passed. Until now, I never thought of >possible usefulness of probiotics for possibly prostatitis? Anybody here >know of any sites that can offer definitive info as to usefulness to >reducing prostatitis symptoms when caused by infections? Here's the >website that got me thinking about that... > http://bph-prostate-enlarged.blogspot.com/ I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is that the prostate is a very good filter. So, once you have the problem, it is hard to get medicines to the right spot to treat it. So, why would probiotics really do anything? I advise caution reading web sites that aren't honest to God medical ones in research places and not those quacks that keep self-promoting in here. > I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is that the > prostate is a very good filter. So, once you have the problem, it is hard to > get medicines to the right spot to treat it. Because the prostate has a membrane, much like the brain does, that prevents many antibiotics from entering it. >> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is that >> the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prevents > many antibiotics from entering it. Which is why the intraprostatic injection may provide relief for some. The trans-rectal aproach appears to be the safer method. >>> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is >>> that the prostate is a very good filter. So, once you have the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which is why the intraprostatic injection may provide relief for > some. The trans-rectal aproach appears to be the safer method. The prostate is well penetrated by antibiotics, as many studies have shown. If you have an infection in your prostate, it is easy to get the concentrations of antibiotics up to a point where they kill all bacteria. There is not even one study that refutes this, and many that support it, such as the one below. The only doubt was raised with respect to biofilms, but that has not gone anywhere, and is largely discounted today. Intraprostatic injections help temporarily because they invariably contain dexamethasone, which switches off inflammation in the prostate. The injections also contain antibiotics, but that is to prevent infection from the injection itself. The inflammation in the prostate is usually caused by the action of nervous activity in the pelvis. ----------------- J Formos Med Assoc. 2001 Aug;100(8):548-52. Comparison of ofloxacin and norfloxacin concentration in prostatic tissues in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate. Chen J, Chen RR, Huang HS. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the concentrations of two fluoroquinolones, ofloxacin (OFLX) and norfloxacin (NFLX), in the prostate glands of patients who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) after oral ingestion of both drugs for surgical prophylaxis. METHODS: Ten patients with clinical symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing TUR-P received 200 mg of both drugs per os simultaneously 2 hours before surgery. The concentrations of the drugs in the serum and prostate at the time of surgery were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. Patients' clinical characteristics were evaluated, including findings from transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate, prostate specific antigen concentration, renal function tests, and post-operative status. RESULTS: Two hours after administration, the mean serum concentration of OFLX was 4.14 +/- 0.64 mg/L (range 0.27-6.37) and of NFLX was 1.10 +/- 0.22 mg/L (range 0.02-2.1). The concentration of ORLX in prostatic tissue was 4.10 +/- 0.79 micrograms/g (range 1.70-6.37) and of NFLX was 2.22 +/- 0.57 micrograms/g (range 0.63-4.35). The ratio of the prostatic tissue concentration (P) to the serum concentration (S) was 2.11 for OFLX and 5.71 for NFLX. The concentrations of both drugs exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for most gram-negative organisms, but NFLX may be unable to exceed the MIC90 of Enterobacter cloacae in some individuals. Leukocytosis and spiking fever developed after TUR-P in two of the 10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concentrations of OFLX were higher in both serum and prostatic adenoma tissues than those of NFLX (p < 0.001), while NFLX had better penetration into the prostate (P/S ratio) (p < 0.001). The results of this study indicated that the concentrations of both of these drugs exceeded the MIC for most gram-negative organisms. PMID: 11678006 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > The prostate is well penetrated by antibiotics, as many studies have > shown. If you have an infection in your prostate, it is easy to get the > concentrations of antibiotics up to a point where they kill all bacteria. This is only true of certain classes of antibiotics. Certain sulfa drugs, Erythromycin, and drugs in the same class of antibiotic as Cipro and Levaquin. (There are a few others, but they escape my memory right now.) The number of choices is fairly narrow. You can get the concentrations up, but it may take as long as 6-8 weeks to do so. As far as intraprostatic injection is concerned, no thank you. From what I have read so far, it sounds more like voodoo medicine to me. >> The prostate is well penetrated by antibiotics, as many studies >> have shown. If you have an infection in your prostate, it is easy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get the concentrations up, but it may take as long as 6-8 weeks to do > so. That's not correct. The study I posted shows MIC achieved in 2 hours. > As far as intraprostatic injection is concerned, no thank you. From > what I have read so far, it sounds more like voodoo medicine to me. >>> The prostate is well penetrated by antibiotics, as many studies >>> have shown. If you have an infection in your prostate, it is easy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's not correct. The study I posted shows MIC achieved in 2 hours. I take doxycycline when I give in and get antibiotics. They take about 3 or 4o days to show any relief and within a few weeks of going off them the problem is as bad as it ever was. > I take doxycycline when I give in and get antibiotics. They take > about 3 or 4o days to show any relief and within a few weeks of going > off them the problem is as bad as it ever was. Do you even know why doxy is helping you? http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/abx.html >> I take doxycycline when I give in and get antibiotics. They take >> about 3 or 4o days to show any relief and within a few weeks of going >> off them the problem is as bad as it ever was. > > Do you even know why doxy is helping you? > http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/abx.html You cannot maintain an argument rationally and resort to calling people names because you cannot stand up to rigorous debate. As you are a danger with your ideas and have nothing but baseless claims, you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. > There is not even one study that refutes this, and many that support it, > such as the one below. The only doubt was raised with respect to > biofilms, but that has not gone anywhere, and is largely discounted today. Suggest you take a basic statistics course. Ten patients is not a good populaiton size, and I see no evidence of a control group either. I put no stock in studies with such low patient populations. They are statistically insignificant. >>There is not even one study that refutes this, and many that support it, >>such as the one below. The only doubt was raised with respect to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stock in studies with such low patient populations. They are statistically > insignificant. Thank you for your suggestion, but I think the "A+" I achieved in statistics at college will have to suffice for now. You may be well served by investigating the issue further here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Limits&DB=PubMed You will find many studies supporting my statements, such as --------- Chemotherapy. 2003 Dec;49(6):269-79. Penetration of antimicrobial agents into the prostate. In the present review article, the penetration of antimicrobial agents into prostatic fluid and tissue was examined. Three major factors determining the diffusion and concentration of antimicrobial agents in prostatic fluid and tissue are the lipid solubility, dissociation constant (pKa) and protein binding. The normal pH of human prostatic fluid is 6.5-6.7, and it increases in chronic prostatitis, ranging from 7.0 to 8.3. A greater concentration of antimicrobial agents in the prostatic fluid occurs in the presence of a pH gradient across the membrane separating plasma from prostatic fluid. Of the available antimicrobial agents, beta-lactam drugs have a low pKa and poor lipid solubility, and thus penetrate poorly into prostatic fluid, expect for some cephalosporins, which achieve greater than or equal to the inhibitory concentration. Good to excellent penetration into prostatic fluid and tissue has been demonstrated with many antimicrobial agents, including tobramycin, netilmicin, tetracyclines, macrolides, quinolones, sulfonamides and nitrofurantoin. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel Publication Types: * Review * Review, Tutorial PMID: 14671426 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] >>>There is not even one study that refutes this, and many that support it, >>>such as the one below. The only doubt was raised with respect to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You will find many studies supporting my statements, such as (SNIP) Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it or in other words, the attempt to cure causes problems. > Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the > bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it or in > other words, the attempt to cure causes problems. Are you addressing me? I thought I made it clear that the antibiotics in intraprostactic injections were specifically there to stop infection from the injection itself. >> Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the >> bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it or in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > intraprostactic injections were specifically there to stop infection from > the injection itself. You cannot maintain an argument rationally and resort to calling people names because you cannot stand up to rigorous debate. As you are a danger with your ideas and have nothing but baseless claims, you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. >>> Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the >>> bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful > subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. Ok, ButtThruster, looks like your devastating logic wins again. ROTFL >>>> Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the bacteria >>>> introduced to the prostate from needles entering it or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ok, ButtThruster, looks like your devastating logic wins again. ROTFL You cannot maintain an argument rationally and resort to calling people names because you cannot stand up to rigorous debate. As you are a danger with your ideas and have nothing but baseless claims, you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. >>>>> Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the >>>>> bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful > subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. Hey, you win, you win! ;-) Anyone not stunned by the logic of Gutmuncher's arguments should probably head for a more cerebral environment: http://www.chronicpelvicpain.us/ >>>>>> Of course the big thing you are totally avoiding there is the >>>>>> bacteria introduced to the prostate from needles entering it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > head for a more cerebral environment: > http://www.chronicpelvicpain.us/ You cannot maintain an argument rationally and resort to calling people names because you cannot stand up to rigorous debate. As you are a danger with your ideas and have nothing but baseless claims, you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. >> There is not even one study that refutes this, and many that support it, >> such as the one below. The only doubt was raised with respect to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stock in studies with such low patient populations. They are statistically > insignificant. ....which is why I always say to read honest to God medical web sites at accredited universities and research centres and not quacks like those who visit here with their bullshit pretending to be doctors or promoting some doctor they CLAIM helped them. There are sufferers in here who can give good basic ideas but you should read the RIGHT web sites and never just one. The next one you read may have gotten further along than the one before. >>>> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is >>>> that the prostate is a very good filter. So, once you have the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shown. If you have an infection in your prostate, it is easy to get the > concentrations of antibiotics up to a point where they kill all bacteria. Sorry wrong. You arent going to kill all bacteria. People suffering bacterial versions of prostatitis are living proof of that. True the entibiotics help but they never get rid of it entirely. If it did, it wouldnt come back. As it does, that is proof. >>>>> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to >>>>> treat is that the prostate is a very good filter. So, once [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > entibiotics help but they never get rid of it entirely. If it did, it > wouldnt come back. As it does, that is proof. Gutbuster, you have already shown, when arguing with Mr Pubmed, that you are completely clueless when it comes to medical knowledge, so please, why not give posting a break? Chronic bacterial prostatitis (a rare condition) is curable with a longish course of antibiotics. Unfortunately, something like half of all patients have a return of bacteria in their specimens after a few months, usually because there is a nidus of infection in their bodies (e.g. stone reservoir) that has allowed the infection to re-emerge. But the prostate itself is faily easily sterilized by antibiotics. >>>>>> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is >>>>>> that the prostate is a very good filter. So, once you have the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > are completely clueless when it comes to medical knowledge, so please, > why not give posting a break? ....and there we have it. You cannot maintain an argument rationally and resort to calling people names because you cannot stand up to rigorous debate. As you are a danger with your ideas and have nothing but baseless claims, you are to be ignored by anyone reading you. End of any useful subject from you. That's all that needs to be said. >>> I'd like to point out why prostatitis is so difficult to treat is that >>> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which is why the intraprostatic injection may provide relief for some. > The trans-rectal aproach appears to be the safer method. Wrong. That is one good way of making things worse. |
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.