non-bacterial evidence or markers from EPS
- From: "David S" <dhs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Oct 2006 01:50:14 -0700
I have not posted here in quite a while, but enter perhaps a new and
more distinctive phase with chronic pelvic pain syndrome - at least
eventually. Here I am, off antibiotics for 40 months.
All the expensive exams I have seen done by our top 'specialists',
really quacks (for CP/CPPS) in Houston are microbiologically driven -
meaning which antibiotic to we precisely match up with pathogen? Its
crazy, because the double-blinds prove that controls are more infected
than sick guys. Its enough that I threatened to throw a 'die party',
in the wake of hearing the news that Dr Russell Scott had just passed
away earlier this summer - of Scott Dept of Urology infamy (Baylor
College of Medicine) - great at cancer research, but forget disorders
other than that and BPH.
So, on a more positive and forward looking note, is there more than
just this, in terms of evidence, markers that doctors can look for
instead in their routine work-ups, exams of us, and something that
might get us closer to a cure? In th same context, how such markers,
evidence might respond to other therapies, alpha-blockers,
amitriptyline, allopurionol, neurontin, etc? Such markers, as
neurological, neuromuscular, autoimmune anomalies (the autoimmune I
sure bet as hell is hard to find, with where research still is stuck
now). I doubt if I came up with asking this question all on my own,
but probably in vague recollection of extensive reading I did on this
disorder some time back and when I was more ill than I am today, in
part or mostly as a result of taking so many tough antibiotics than the
illness so much itself - though the illness completely untreated
certainly could be much worse.
I make inquiry here, not on the basis so much of anything about my own
condition, as in the interest of the public health. As it looks as
though the Bush administration may be considerably weakened by having
both houses of Congress returned to the Democrats, perhaps the case may
be made for one, a more aggressive FDA (to pull Red Bull off the
counters of bars, pubs, etc), but for the case, that in terms of
research that involves the public health, it is not something at all
only for the private domain, but for obviously for the public. And
that is, how to protect the public from
brazen overuse of antibiotics, when other therapies are available, and
all that antibiotics serve as are increasingly ineffective
anti-inflammatories.
I visited a Congressional office in Austin about the paucity of
disability job placement services in this state for clients with
professional abilities, and mentioned as an aside how poorly supported
research is in areas where it is sorely needed. I was quietly taken
aback (after having also lost too much sleep the night before) by being
told in Kyle Janek's office that research is exclusively, or should be
so a matter of private medicine, discretion - nothing in which the
government should interfere? How could I have been so quiet about
this? I guess it is hard to cover something else than for which I
showed up.
.
- Prev by Date: Hot water pouring on testicals
- Next by Date: Stanford protocol and the general culture
- Previous by thread: Hot water pouring on testicals
- Next by thread: Stanford protocol and the general culture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
