Prostatic Stones and EDTA

[alexpower88]

Hi webslave,

I wanted to ask if anyone actually did use the EDTA protocol of Shoskes et al 2005 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf) as it was based on the chelation therapy in conjunction with tetracycline and a nutraceutical blend.

There were some people back in the day (in this forum) that they were going to implement this protocol but only one replied that he improved his condition without much of elaboration regarding any TRUS before and after treatment so he could prove Prostate Calcification reduction or eradication as Shoskes did mention with his small cohort (16patients).

Also, Ellithorpe did a similar open-label trial that showed some improvements in symptoms regarding calcium-disodium EDTA Detoxamin suppositories 750mg (https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_practice), but I am wary as she seems pretty involved with the Detoxamin brand (and there was not noticeable reduction of the prostate calcification). Furthermore, in a youtube interview (7:03) she mentions that after the 750mg Detoxamin administration they tried a 1500mg (same with Shoskes trial) and it showed reduction of prostate calculi (BUT I could not find any trace of this study....) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_bmnQ ... =Detoxamin).

Lastly, Shoskes is mentioning that they used ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) suppository. Ellithorpe's Detoxamin is a Calcium-Disodium EDTA. Does anyone know if those two had actually the same composition? I am saying that as there seems to be an important difference between edetate calcium disodium & edetate disodium according to this paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565883/) with the second being related to hypocalcemia..
Generally, calcium-disodium EDTA is supposed to be safe, what I am wondering though is that might not have been the exact same substance with what Shoskes used hence the different results regarding the prostate calcification (unless if it was due to the fact that she used 750mg in the first trial)

Thank you.

[webslave]

The whole nanobacteria thing has been relegated to the waste-basket of history. In a preliminary 2005 open label study of 16 treatment-recalcitrant CPPS patients, controversial entities known as nanobacteria were proposed as a cause of prostatic calcifications found in some CPPS patients. Patients were given EDTA (to dissolve the calcifications) and 3 months of tetracycline (a calcium-leaching antibiotic with anti-inflammatory effects, used here to kill the "pathogens"), and half had significant improvement in symptoms. Scientists have expressed strong doubts about whether nanobacteria are living organisms, and research in 2008 showed that "nanobacteria" are merely tiny lumps of abiotic limestone.

[alexpower88]

The last conversation about chelation was years ago so that is why I posted under this thread, apologies though.

I am not debating the nanobacteria theory as there was never enough proof.
It seems though that it is generally accepted that Type II prostate calcifications (bigger ones) are related to more severe symptoms. Why is that?? (rhetoric question, because the answers are speculations and theories based on indications same as the nanobacteria theory) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31266275/)

Also, there are a few researches that have discovered bacterial biofilm on the actual calcifications plus there are some specific bacteria that we often find in the prostate that can form biofilm in vitro (although referring to CBP.. but prostate calcification is a common finding in CP/CPPS too). (https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article ... ogin=false)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834171/) ([...]Moreover, E. coli has been directly related to biofilm formation....)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934281/)
(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0051691)



I have taken all sort of antibiotics over the years (including tetracycline and there was never any reduction in my prostate calcifications size; when I asked the radiologist (which specialised in TRUS) if he has ever seen prostate calcification disappearing in his clinical experience, replied "never".. is a known fact that generally you cannot get rid of your prostate calcifications that is why Shoske's trial (regarding EDTA) and their results came as a surprise to me.
In the beginning of this thread you mentioned that when you were taking iron supplements your pain used to increase and that it makes sense that removing iron (by chelation, which is what EDTA is supposed to do) could reduce pain. The same way you are making a connection between those two, I make between the improvement of symptoms and EDTA in Shoskes trial.

If Shoskes had some good results even if it was a small sample why they did not continue further (regardless of the nanobacteria theory, solely because of the improvement of symptoms and the fact that they saw an actual reduction or eradication in calcifications which generally is not possible with other means).
Do you know if there is a difference between the EDTA mentioned in Shoskes trial and the calcium-disodium EDTA of Ellithorpe(open question to anyone might know)?

[webslave]

Since this is related, it seems, to Type II, I'm going to move it to the CBP subforum

[webslave]

There are no studies that show successful stone removal short of surgery.

Stones are usually regarded as unimportant, occurring in patients across the spectrum, unless large.

I can't answer your questions about EDTA; it's just not something this patient group cares about.

You seem to be doing something typical in UCPPS patients, which is to become Sherlock Holmes in a quest to cure yourself with your own original research and study review. It's a fool's errand and almost always denotes obsessiveness and rumination, and someone who is going to have a more difficult time recovering. I'm pulling no punches here. It is what it is.

[alexpower88]

To be honest, your answer is the least disheartening..

If I am Sherlock Holmes, who exactly are you and your forum guys? and every CPPS forum in each country? Seriously now? This sounds like these lame Urologists that after the first course of antibiotics and relapse symptoms would say that "you are too stressed" and "it is psychological" BS unless they were using the UPOINT system which they never did even though it was available. Yes I am searching and following every contemporary research in relation to Chronic Prostatitis in general. Is that a problem? Or maybe because you are asymptomatic for quite a long time, it is not worth it for you now? Chronic Prostatitis research has been developing constantly over the years. Each CPPS forum around the globe was created so we could avoid all sorts of charlatan urologists that were promising false treatments and try to unite in an effort to find some answers regarding our condition.

If you can't answer my question is cool, not a problem you could at least promote it out of courtesy so someone maybe could give some feedback, but which patient group does not care about EDTA exactly (ironic)? CPPS group? CPPS groups do not have type II calcifications? or the Shoskes et al trial was not for CPPS patients??

Anyway, thanks for nothing, I guess I will learn the hard way once more...

[webslave]

You are very welcome to keep chasing your tail and diving down rabbit holes, even stale old rabbit holes like EDTA/nanobacteria/stones. I'm trying to help you by being brutally honest. The advice you need to follow is already on this forum — you do not need to go "researching" to find a novel cure. Obsessing about stones is not going to help you. There are many men here who become fixated on different issues: bacteria, one particular muscle, the quality of their erections, etc, and of course, stones. None of it has ever proved fruitful. Go back to the Tips thread, and begin again. There are things there that I bet you have not tried.

I moved this thread to the Chronic Bacterial Prostatitis subforum because you are asking questions as if you have CBP, even though you don't. However, it could be of (remote) interest to men with true CBP.

It seems though that it is generally accepted that Type II prostate calcifications (bigger ones) are related to more severe symptoms

That's speculation, but if true, in CBP prostatic calculi are theorised to act as reservoirs for bacteria, which are thought to re-emerge after the infection is eradicated. Large calculi can also disrupt the flow of prostatic secretions, and sequestered secretions can, like a blocked sinus, be painful.

[alexpower88]

Thank you for your response.