PROSTATITIS Digest - 23 Nov 1997 to 24 Nov 1997 - Special issue 
Author Message
 PROSTATITIS Digest - 23 Nov 1997 to 24 Nov 1997 - Special issue

Mark,
I am replying to you message
        Date:    Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:46:18 -0800

        Subject: The Shoskes Study Gives the lie to ANF claims

I believe your conclusions are incorrect because the populations are not the
 same.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any American who has not had many
 courses
of antibiotics.  I suspect that  of Dr. ANF's patients are much less exposed to
antibiotics. Do you think that the differences in cure rate could (at least
partially) be due to the antibiotic resistance gained by the American pathogens.
The better cure rate for older men could be explained by  less exposure to
antibiotics (as I recall the penicillin age began in earnest about 40 years
 ago).
In any event I believe there are other variables, not accounted for, that could
explain the differences in the results of these two.  For example, {*filter*}
 activity
in terms of multiple partners.  Have you tried to correlate number of {*filter*}
partners with prostatitis?  I suspect American men have been more active
 {*filter*}ly
than  Dr. ANF patients and even if they were not then surely we can find
 something
that is different.  Perhaps its early {*filter*} activity or perhaps lack of it.
Perhaps it is diet or physical activity.  Surely in two nations separated by
 great
distances and customs and composed of largely different races we could find
 dozens
and maybe hundreds of differences that could explain the disparity in the
 result.
Consider that Dr. ANF's results with Americans may be no different than Dr.
 Shoskes
and if Dr. Shoskes had the opportunity to treat patients from the population
supplying the patients treated by Dr. ANF then his results would be just as
impressive.
I know Dr. Shoskes and I have a great deal of respect for him and for the store
 of
knowledge that he has.
I don't know Dr. ANF except through his posts here (and I have not followed that
for several months) which I find to be very logical.  I believe that different
results are not a basis for allegations of falsification but rather a call for
additional investigation.

Daniel



Sat, 13 May 2000 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. PROSTATITIS Digest - 4 Nov 1997 to 5 Nov 1997

2. PROSTATITIS Digest - 11 Nov 1997 - Special issue

3. PROSTATITIS Digest - 23 Nov 1996 to 24 Nov 1996

4. PROSTATITIS Digest - 22 Feb 1997 to 23 Feb 1997 - Special

5. OPHTHAL Digest - 23 Sep 1997 to 24 Sep 1997

6. PROSTATITIS Digest - 5 May 1997 to 6 May 1997 - Special issue

7. PROSTATITIS Digest - 25 Jul 1997 to 26 Jul 1997 - Special issue

8. PROSTATITIS Digest - 29 Dec 1997 to 30 Dec 1997 - Special issue

9. PROSTATITIS Digest - 24 May 1997 to 25 May 1997

10. PROSTATITIS Digest - 22 Jun 1997 to 23 Jun 1997

11. PROSTATITIS Digest - 17 Nov 1997

12. PROSTATITIS Digest - 22 Nov 1996 to 23 Nov 1996


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software