On 25 Oct 1994, BCapstone wrote:
> I have formed a hypothesis: The Meares and
> Stamey localization procedure is not very sensitive for diagnosing
> prostatitis.
This may or may not be a valid hypothesis: the problem is that you claim
to have gotten the rod out of the M&S procedure, but are unable to grow
it on culture. This is not a M&S problem but a culture problem, which, as
I said, is the probable cause of the whole non-bacterial prostatitis
debate. Indeed, I would argue that if you succeed in getting a pathogen
out of your specimen you will have in fact =vindicated= the M&S
localization procedure! The procedure cannot be held to blame for a
failure to properly culture for the correct pathogen. You are confusing
culture sensitivity and specimen collection method effectiveness.
* Bob Morrell *
* bmorrell at isnet.is.wfu.edu *
* Taking offense is the last refuge of denial. *
