In article <Pine.3.89.9410252249.A4785-0100000 at isnet.is.wfu.edu>,
bmorrell at ISNET.IS.WFU.EDU ("Robert Morrell Jr.") writes:
<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.>
It is a Meares and Stamey problem because they ignored microscopy in their
protocol. I see your point that that it is also a culture sensitivity
problem. Nickel, in his literature noted that E. Coli found on electron
microscopy in biopsy specimens of the prostate did not turn positive on
culture for three to five days. Since the protocol in all hospitals in
the Chicago area is 24 hours, the protocols need to be changed.
