Dr. Mirkin gets it
Ken Smith
on prostatitis by Dr. Gabe Mirkin, who has is own website. I
rejected the article only because it was not ours to reprint. Please
see the article on Dr. Mirkin's website at
http://www.drmirkin.com/men/8307.html . What is remarkable about
this article is that Dr. Mirkin "gets it." Most "mainstream" health
websites and books repeat the old, disproven diagnoses and concepts
about non-bacterial prostatitis.
I urge everybody to write to Dr. Mirkin and congratulate him on
getting it right. E-mail him at <mir...@mindspring.com>.
Anonymous
> Today I rejected a message which
> included the full text of an article on
> prostatitis by Dr. Gabe Mirkin, who has is
> own website. I rejected the article only
> because it was not ours to reprint. Please
> see the article on Dr. Mirkin's website at
> http://www.drmirkin.com/men/8307.html .
> What is remarkable about this article is
> that Dr. Mirkin "gets it."
He "gets" YOUR idea of what's going on, Ken. I see you continue to
conduct yourself as if you are privvy to the "truth" about our
condition.
> Most "mainstream"
> health websites and books repeat the old,
> disproven diagnoses and concepts about
> non-bacterial prostatitis.
To what "disproven diagnoses and concepts" do you refer?
> I urge everybody to write to Dr. Mirkin and
> congratulate him on getting it right. E-
> mail him at mir...@mindspring.com .
What a fatuous statement! Mirkin's site is there to make money. Hey, why
don't I email CompUSA and tell them what fantastic stores they have? I'm
sure they'll care.
Notwithstanding the fact that Mirkin's site has been panned by
urologists Shoskes and Casey in this newsgroup before, I will take apart
Mirkin's "new" page on prostatitis myself:
> CHRONIC PROSTATITIS CAN BE CURED
He starts with a lie. No-one has posted convincing cures here EVER.
>
> Gabe Mirkin, M.D.
>
> Prostate infections are extremely difficult to
> diagnose and treat because most doctors do
> not order the right tests and even when they
> make the correct diagnosis, they often fail to
> treat the condition long enough or they fail to
> treat infected partners.
Guess who went and read Ken's site? This is just regurgitation.
> Researchers at UCLA report curing men with
> chronic prostatitis by massaging the prostate
> 1 to 3 times a week and giving men culture-
> specific antibiotics (1).
He refers to Shoskes' study. My critique of this study is here:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=600093938&fmt=text
> I am amazed that so
> many men with chronic prostatitis go to
> urologists and are never cured. One in four
> men may have chronic prostatitis
> characterized by a feeling that they have to
> urinate all the time, discomfort during
> urination, terrible discomfort when the
> bladder is full and having to get up many
> time each night to urinate.
His figures are *way* off: 1 in 4? The best estimates for CP are 10%,
but I believe it's really far lower. See the points I make on this:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561580024&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=511270657&fmt=text
> If you have these symptoms, go to a
> urologist. Urine tests and cultures are almost
> always normal in men with prostate
> infections.
At least that's correct.
> An evaluation for prostatitis should
> include a PSA blood test to screen for cancer.
> The only dependable ways to diagnose
> prostate infection is to massage the prostate,
> collect secretions and see lots of white blood
> cells in the secretion under a microscope or
> to order a semen culture. If he can't get
> secretions, he should check your urine
> afterwards for white blood cells. Even if he
> doesn't see white blood cells, you still could
> have an infection. Telling you that you have
> benign prostate enlargement means that you
> have an incurable condition that is treated
> with muscle relaxants and drugs to block
> derivatives of male hormones, that cure
> nothing and help relieve symptoms only a
> little. Your best bet is to take antibiotics for
> several months.
And if that doesn't work, as in my case? And in so many others' cases?
> Most urologists do not order semen cultures
> because they claim that they are always
> contaminated with germs from the skin.
> Recent studies from Cornell and Mexico City
> show that they are wrong (2,3).
What!?! The Kim & Goldstein study he cites contains this quote:
"These data suggest that the source of most
enteric organisms isolated from semen is
genital and perineal skin. "
LOL! This guy is an idiot! He quotes studies which directly disprove the
point he is trying to make! Hahahahaha!
> Most men
> collect semen cultures from the vagina or
> mouth which always is contaminated. If the
> patient is asked to shower and clean himself
> with soap and water, then collect the
> specimen with his hands and then let it squirt
> into the culture jar without touching it, the
> culture is very dependable.
This technique is currently not followed by anyone, anywhere.
> Prostate infections are extraordinarily difficult
> to cure because antibiotics do not accumulate
> in high concentrations in the prostate.
Some do.
> So most men have to take appropriate antibiotics
> for many months
Even when there is no improvement at all? Please.
> and their partners have to
> take the same antibiotics for a much shorter
> duration. I often prescribe a combination of
> Cipro and doxycycline for several months. If
> you do not feel much better by six weeks,
> you may need to ejaculate frequently or find
> a kind urologist who will agree to massage
> your prostate at least once a week while you
> take the antibiotics. UCLA researchers report
> that 40% were cured
Actually 38% at 4 months, of a group seleted because of positive
cultures.
> 20% were initially
> cured and then had a recurrence perhaps
> because the partner was not treated
The speculation about untreated partners is purely Mirkin's.
> 21% were improved and only 21% had no
> improvement.
How does he explain this unimproved 20%?
> All the men who had bacteria
> in their semen cultures produced sterile
> specimens after treatment.
>
> Many urologists feel that prostatitis is not
> caused by bacteria, but doctors do not have
> readily available dependable tests to diagnose
> chlamydia, mycoplasma and ureaplasma
> because these bacteria live inside of cells and
> cannot be cultured by methods that are used
> for other bacteria.
PCR has recenty shown that some CPers have traces of these bugs and most
don't. But then again, some people without CP have traces of these bugs
too, but most don't. Where does that get us?
> Recent research shows
> that 30% of mycoplasmas are resistant to
> tetracyclines and may be curable only with
> high doses of intravenous antibiotics, but
> urologists rarely use intravenous antibiotics
> because they feel that they have to have a
> positive culture for a bacteria (4).
We have had posts to this group by men after undergoing intravenous
antibiotics. They were not cured. Mirkin here quotes study number 4 (see
below). LOL! This study simply reports that about half of uros don't use
the 4-glass test to test for prostatic infection. However, it also says
that those uros who DO use the 4-glass test:
"Physicians who routinely performed the four-glass
test did not differ in antibiotic use from those
who used the test less often; however, they were
more likely to use treatment other than antibiotics."
So what's the point of quoting the study? To prove that those uros who
actually DO test us properly are LESS likely to use antibiotics?
Hahahaha!
> So the present epidemic of resistant prostatitis may
> be due to the fact that men with that
> condition are not being treated adequately for
> their problem.
Speculation, unsupported by actual outcomes.
> 1) 1) DA Shoskes, SI Zeitlin.Use of prostatic
> massage in combination with antibiotics in
> the treatment of chronic prostatitis.Prostate
> Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 1999, Vol 2,
> Iss 3, pp 159-162.Address:Shoskes DA,
> Harbor UCLA Med Ctr, Div Urol, Box 5, 1000
> W Carson St, Torrance,CA 90502 USA.
>
> 2) FY Kim, M Goldstein. Antibacterial skin
> preparation decreases the incidence of false-
> positive semen culture results. Journal of
> Urology 161: 3 (MAR 1999):819-821. Address
> FY Kim, Cornell Univ, Med Ctr, New York
> Hosp, Dept Urol, 525 E 68th St, Box 94, New
> York, NY 10021 USA.
>
> 3) CA VillanuevaDiaz, GA FloresReyes, M
> BeltranZuniga, M EchavarriaSanchez,
> JF.International Journal of Fertility and
> Womens Medicine, 1999, Vol 44, Iss 4, pp
> 198-203. MEXICO
Can't find the study above in Medline....
> 4) MM Collins, FJ Fowler, DB Elliott, PC
> Albertsen, MJ Barry. Diagnosing and treating
> chronic prostatitis: Do urologists use the four-
> glass test? Urology, 2000, Vol 55, Iss 3, pp
> 403-407. Address: Collins MM, Massachusetts
> Gen Hosp, Gen Med Unit, Med Serv, 50
> Staniford St, 9th Floor, Boston,MA 02114 USA
>
> 5) JN Krieger, R Jacobs, SO Ross. Detecting
> urethral and prostatic inflammation in
> patients with chronic prostatitis. Urology,
> 2000, Vol 55, Iss 2, pp 186-191.
This study is not quoted in the text!!!??!!!! And if it was, it
wouldn't support his contentions anyway.
Two thumbs down.
Anonymous
> Mirkin wrote:
>
> > If you have these symptoms, go to a
> > urologist. Urine tests and cultures are almost
> > always normal in men with prostate
> > infections.
>
> At least that's correct.
Correction. The first sentence is correct, the second false.
RebJoker
>Today I rejected a message which included the full text of an article
>on prostatitis by Dr. Gabe Mirkin, who has is own website. I
>rejected the article only because it was not ours to reprint. Please
>see the article on Dr. Mirkin's website at
>http://www.drmirkin.com/men/8307.html . What is remarkable about
>this article is that Dr. Mirkin "gets it."
Thanks for enlightening us, Ken! It's a shame that you will probably reject any
criticism of Dr. Mirkin from your listserv, labeling it as a "personal attack."
>Most "mainstream" health
>websites and books repeat the old, disproven diagnoses and concepts
>about non-bacterial prostatitis.
Please elaborate. To what old concepts about non-bacterial prostatitis are you
referring? I suppose you think I'm an idiot for believing that urine reflux may
play a role in my case? After all, anyone with common sense like you knows that
bacteria is the sole cause of prostatitis.
I've had problems with Anonymous in the past, but I'm beginning to see why it's
so important to have someone presenting the other side of the argument.
Ken Smith
<rebj...@aol.com> wrote:
> k...@ideasmith.com writes:
>
> >Today I rejected a message which included the full text of an article
> >on prostatitis by Dr. Gabe Mirkin, who has is own website. I
> >rejected the article only because it was not ours to reprint. Please
> >see the article on Dr. Mirkin's website at
> >http://www.drmirkin.com/men/8307.html . What is remarkable about
> >this article is that Dr. Mirkin "gets it."
>
> Thanks for enlightening us, Ken! It's a shame that you will probably reject
> any
> criticism of Dr. Mirkin from your listserv, labeling it as a "personal
> attack."
I personally would criticise Dr. Mirkin for being too optimistic that
chronic prostatitis can be cured. Also, he errs on not including
enough commentary on prostatitis which is caused by or persists because
of non bacterial causes, notably muscle/neurological phenomena and
immune disorders. The reason I liked his post is because most
"mainstream" medical sites give the old "non-bacterial" and
"prostadodynia" diagnoses that have been discredited. Most sites fail
to point out the miserable performance of average practitioners who do
not do adequate testing for bacteria. I think any on-topic criticism
of what Dr. Mirkin says, and fails to say, based on facts, and
separated from personal slander, should come forth.
I would not, and I'm sure you would not, stoop to calling people
"idiot" "Charlatan" "quack" "imposter" or other perjoratives. But when
messages include personal attacks, not relating to the subject matter
at hand, I'm going to reject them from the moderated group. Of course
such slanders and libels will still appear here (in the newsgroup) as
the have in the past.
Anonymous
> In article <20000427164354...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, RebJoker
> <rebj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > k...@ideasmith.com writes:
> >
> > >Today I rejected a message which included the full text of an article
> > >on prostatitis by Dr. Gabe Mirkin, who has is own website. I
> > >rejected the article only because it was not ours to reprint. Please
> > >see the article on Dr. Mirkin's website at
> > >http://www.drmirkin.com/men/8307.html . What is remarkable about
> > >this article is that Dr. Mirkin "gets it."
> >
> > Thanks for enlightening us, Ken! It's a shame that you will probably reject
> > any criticism of Dr. Mirkin from your listserv, labeling it as a "personal
> > attack."
It's even worse than that, Chris. Ken accuses me of LIBEL for calling
Mirkin an "idiot" (which he clearly is: using studies which contradict
what he's trying to say, quoting studies which aren't in Medline,
listing studies which aren't referenced is his text, stating that semen
samples are obtained from the "vagina or mouth"). "Libel" is defined as
a "false statement or publication". How can the truth be libellous?
> I personally would criticise Dr. Mirkin for being too optimistic that
> chronic prostatitis can be cured. Also, he errs on not including
> enough commentary on prostatitis which is caused by or persists because
> of non bacterial causes, notably muscle/neurological phenomena and
> immune disorders.
What about superantigens and molecular mimicry? Did you "get it" when
that topic was discussed?
> The reason I liked his post is because most
> "mainstream" medical sites give the old "non-bacterial" and
> "prostadodynia" diagnoses that have been discredited.
As far as I know, no non-bacterial causes have been discredited. And I
know of few if any sites which state anything controversial about
non-bacterial CPPS/CP. However, I DO take exception to the many sites
which make the classic error of stating that it's merely an ongoing,
difficult infection.
> Most sites fail
> to point out the miserable performance of average practitioners who do
> not do adequate testing for bacteria.
You keep going on about this! It'd be worth going on about, Ken, if
there were stories around of men who *were* properly tested, took the
right antibiotics, got better and then stayed better. BUT THERE IS A
DEARTH OF SUCH STORIES! Why then are you so keen to see this testing?
> I think any on-topic criticism
> of what Dr. Mirkin says, and fails to say, based on facts, and
> separated from personal slander, should come forth.
"Slander = a false and malicious statement or report about someone" - I
plead NOT GULTY!
> I would not, and I'm sure you would not, stoop to calling people
> "idiot" "Charlatan" "quack" "imposter" or other perjoratives.
You mean "pejoratives".
> But when
> messages include personal attacks, not relating to the subject matter
> at hand, I'm going to reject them from the moderated group.
Pompous little tyrant.
> Of course such slanders and libels will still appear here (in the newsgroup) as
> the have in the past.
Inaccurate, idiotic characterization of my words. More "slander"?
Pass the sick bag, Alice.