I regret most likely not being able to make it to the conference this
coming October.  Still mildly ill with CPPS, I would have liked to do
so, but getting back to work is paramount.  I have nothing especially
new to report about my own condition, but will days ahead be able to
observe 27 months off antibiotics.

I get to the real reason I post here.  There is one caveat on my mind
to the notion that a huge majority of cases with CPPS are
non-bacterial in etiology, but I am going to try to assist in tearing
that down as quickly as possible.  In late December of 2000, to
personalize the issue, I had acute prostatitis for several days, which
was stopped by antibiotics, but most likely superficially towards
preventing the already chronic condition I had by then from continuing
to be so.

I had some other medical condition to the same area for six to twelve
months before.  As I have promised doctors here and also perhaps others
on this newsgroup already, I need not ask about that so specifically,
but want to hit the issue overall from a different angle.  Isn't it
possible that acute prostatitis, in a number of cases, arises from
inflammation having started most likely mysteriously, but for lack of
better reasoning, in the prostate or just as likely other organs,
tissues, cavities nearby?

Acute prostatitis often goes under the heading ABP or Acute Bacterial
Prostatitis.  Along lines of what we have learned from recent
double-blinds, these strongly making it seem that infection is not the
cause at all of related chronic illness, is it not possible that any
such infection could arise from a pre-existing condition that has given
rise to inflammation causing infection or perhaps more likely unusually
virulent reaction to the same?
Is it really only five percent of cases that have ever at any point
manifested as acute prostatitis, whether or not the B in ABP is an
added misnomer?

Having said all that, the notion of it being necessary to go after
esoteric bacteria, stealth pathogens, most likely from here on out,
should be considered a hoax, at least toward finding a cure for this
disease or group of diseases.  I fell into a minor dispute with Dr
Shoskes in a post here, concerning his moving his offices to a Tenet
Health hospital (AND office building) both most likely run
administratively by the same chain.  It seemed to me, correct me Doctor
if I am wrong, that he was most interested in having access to the
slow-growth labs that Ft Lauderdale had to offer him and not quite as
comprehensively before, UCLA.

My question now,  double-billing and fraudulent practices of Tenet
Health aside, what credence does any such workup on patients have
anymore at all, given what we have learned, and why are we spending the
money on this, and charging patients with
high charges for unncessary and fruitless lab work, concerning patients
with chronic illness?  Such is a drain, and that goes on remorselessly
at Baylor (with the corner on urology) in Houston.  Dr Shoskes, for
some of the good work and input he has contributed, has a little
broader perspective than they, and as well he should.  I am not here at
all for taking space for trashing doctors who are doing at least a
little of the good work that needs getting done, but choose to be vocal
here for the cause of encouraging doctors to get their priorities
straight.

As far as any doctor for me to see out of town, he is not quite as low
or far to the bottom of the heap as Polacheck in Tucson, but
why do you, Doctor, want to accept risk of being evaluated thus or
compared with the flippant and abusive practices that also go on here
in Houston under the name of advanced research?  Could it be some kind
of joke, what I am posting here?  I am, as a matter of fact, very
serious.  I admit, though, that my perspective, as that of many who
post here, is perhaps again a little narrow, and after I have shifted
sides somewhat on this issue.

The maverick doctor I had with UT for 28 months would more likely with
the EPS, after peeking at it under a microscope for five seconds, toss
it out over his left shoulder, than submit it to a slow-growth lab.
Guess whose care or whose type of care benefitted me the most. It is
perhaps with other patients, by pro-actively looking into other
therapies (Elavil, Neurontin, the alpha-blockers, etc.) that they can
also benefit the most.

These are questions, other than that regarding billing practices, in my
absence, I would like to see raised in Baltimore a few weeks from now,
and to address a bigger issue than Shoskes, or again far worse than
that, Baylor here, albeit that Baylor is, outside of Feliciano and the
Polachecks, the best gold-standard example of the problem I am
addressing here.