New "anti-nanobacterial" formulation

[timberdoodle]

Webslave wrote:

Ah! Wise and Anderson contend that there are PTs and then there are PTs, and I take their word for it. We've heard many tales here of one PT who finds nothing in the patient and the next PT who find numerous TrPs in the same patient, and gives great relief. A difficult subject is this!

I would add to this discussion by saying that I have seen both PTs at Cleveland Clinic, where Dr. Shoskes works. I also talked by phone with Dr. Wise, who spoke very highly of these PTs and Dr. Potts in particular.

One of the PTs, who has a little more experience than the other, has been out to Stanford and trained with Dr. Wise and the lead therapist there.

All of this is to say that I believe the therapists who work with Dr. Shoskes come highly recommended, even by Dr. Wise himself, who as we all know is pretty particular about his therapists and his protocol.

[webslave]

Yes, well, I've never contended that trigger points are the whole story for everyone. In my own case, I only became fully better when I gave up gluten.

[scotsman]

Yes, well, I've never contended that trigger points are the whole story. In my own case, I only became fully better when I gave up gluten.

Agreed - we can't afford to become fixated with only one treatment protocol. This is certainly not a 'one size fits all' disease. But the Stanford/Wise-Anderson Protocol is certainly the place I'd start off with.

I've read numorous occasions when people have stated that the only reason I/others are still in pain is because I've not yet found the right triggerpoint yet. That 'may' be the case but it could be equally valid that the muscle dysfunction is being caused by some other culprit.

Richard.

[webslave]

Or that the urogenital tract is being affected by allergens, or that the pelvic nerves are affected by gluten ( see viewtopic.php?t=2367 ), or that there is such a proliferation of mast cells in the bladder/urethra/prostate that any irritant (caffeine etc) can cause symptoms, or that central sensitization has proceeded so far that non-pain stimuli are perceived as pain, and so on.

[gifford]

Dear Dr. Shoskes:

Re: "Doesn't help if you are not in that majority. More and more of the patients who travel to see me are in that category."


I am one of those people.

I also have prostate calcifications/stones.

How do I get the meds, etc to begin this treatment?

Thank you very much.

gifford

[consuli]

Bacterial or nanobacterial etiology in prostatitis has never been proven till yet.

The mechanism of EDTA in nanobacteria (or nearly any other micro-organism) is quite well researched. EDTA elevates outer cell membrane permeability by binding calcium and hence boosts the penetration of antimicrobial substances into the cells. EDTA is a weak acid. Usual acids produce normal metal salts, which provide free metal ions in water. EDTA in contrast forms with di- and trivalent metal ions water-stable complex-salts and so removes Calcium from the bacterial cell. Of course EDTA binds to every calcium and therefor leads in long term use to demineralisation.

There are a lot of complex building substances in chemistry. A potent natural and untoxic complex building acid is citric acid. This one is already used in urology to treat kidney stones.

So if complex binding of calcium was a key factor in prostatitis (with or without bacteria), which is quite questionable, there would be no need to buy expensive EDTA suppositories for $300. You can simply use citric acid (sodium/potassium citrate respectively) for $5.

Demineralisation of a potential undetected biofilm with citric acid alone may release a lot of bacteria, if existent. This can lead to serious complications, in worst case blood sepsis.

Bye
Consuli

[lasteve]

Does the reformulated Nanobac still require the use of the suppository? Because of my prostatititis symptoms I was intolerant of the suppository when I tried the original formulation.

[consuli]

First of all. This is an experimental treatment without experience. SO I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT. If you want to try it nevertheless, you take all the risks of using an unknown substance on prostatitis. When I tried it I had always enough WORKING antibiotic at hand!! Demineralisation of a potential undetected biofilm with citric acid alone may release a lot of bacteria, if existent.

No, citric acid does not need a repository. It can be taken orally. Citric acid is a natural substance in the body as it is part of the citric metabolism cycle.

Prolonged citric acid intake may lead to demineralization. But the demineralization will be less than by EDTA. In contrast to EDTA complex salts the human cells can crack citric acid complex salts again and can regenerate the metal ions. Bacteria also can. Therefore higher doses than with EDTA are needed.

I first tried thrice daily 1g potassium citrate alone, to check if it works. If there is no worsening of symptons with citric acid alone it will not work. It worked, but I did not do long term use in combination with antibiotic. I think one year long term antibiotic intake will most probably lead to clostridium difficile diarrhea, which is serios. So I am looking for i.m. antibiotics at the moment.

consuli

[Sleeper Service]

Alternatively it could have absolutely nothing to do with bacteria at all as indeed seems to be the case with 90%+ of chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome incidents.

[webslave]

I think one year long term antibiotic intake will most probably lead to clostridium difficile diarrhoea, which is serious. So I am looking for I.M. antibiotics at the moment.

I think you are nuts, my friend. You are seeking intramuscular injections of antibiotics because of a theory?

I caution anyone reading this to ignore the actions of this individual. The published papers supporting this theory emanate from only one doctor, who has a personal financial interest in the theory and its success. And even in his study (PMID: 15643213), no patients had a complete resolution of symptoms, but 80% simply felt better, from 25% to 50%+ better, not that much different to placebo. These patients were also chosen because of the existence of prostatic stones.

We have not had any other verification by other researchers, and indeed most of the recent papers on "nanobacteria" are either just hypotheses or are simply recorded on Medline as titles without abstracts (a sign of a low quality paper, or one that does not add to the literature significantly).

I would not touch this with a bargepole. My personal opinion is that it's a load of codswallop, but since the researcher behind it brought us the concept of quercetin treatment, I'll not disallow discussion of it as per our no discussion of infection theories rule, even though we have seen no verification by any disinterested researchers.

I urge you to read the 2007 paper Nanobacteria: Facts or Fancies?, which concludes:

In short, we are experiencing an aggressive risk-mongering and disease-mongering campaign, and journal referees have been, are, and will be hard pressed with papers that mix NB facts with NB fancies; the papers they reject are going to swell the grey literature, and blogs will be filled with pieces condemning the obscurantism of the non-believers.