Thanks for your posts. Your experience is truly fascinating, and helps shed some more light on the GG treatment mechanism. It's posts like these that keep me coming back to the board.
All you other lurkers out there:
If you have undergone similar procedures--with either positive *or* negative outcomes--please "pay it forward" and come out of the closet! I personally would *love* to read more such reports (either + or -), as would many of our other forum members, I'm sure.
Thanks for the details on your T and Free-T. You are truly lucky. This is an indication that normal function was helped by the procedure. My T and especially Free T *did* increase after my GG but only from an abysmally low and super-variable pre-procedure level. I'm sorry that you never experienced improvement in other areas presumably due to the unusual shape of your prostate.
You and Zoesman point out that there have been *no* "academic trials" of the GG procedure. By "academic trials" you no doubt mean clinical trials--ideally at several sites--sponsored by an academic institution, which are the customary hosts of clinical trials in the U.S. You are both right that there have been *no* such multi-center clinical trials.
And your argument in discounting the GG effect based on the lack of such trials is quite defensible.
I disagree with your conclusion, but not because of any logical flaw in your argument. Your reasoning is sound. I disagree with your conclusion AS IT PERTAINS TO MY PARTICULAR CASE simply because I have private information that you don't have: I have observed improvement in myself and even have ultrasound reports that show prostate shrinkage (and lab tests showing modest increases in T and Free-T levels). It cannot be ruled out that my case is an exception. But at least it proves to me that Gat's peer-reviewed published papers on his patients might have some validity after all--or conservatively stated: "might be true for at least some patients"--despite the lack of confirmation from any multi-center clinical trial. But without my "private information", I would find your argument very persuasive. (It was desperation rather than logic that prompted my original decision to have the procedure.)
I will not presume to give advice to you because I don't know that you would have my results (or any results). For all I know, my results might be very unusual.
The "academic trials" that we all desire are extremely expensive, often running into the millions of dollars. It's not clear to me which private or public entities would have both the incentive and the financial wherewithal to sponsor these. They do not use any proprietary drug or medical device that is under patent protection (except for the procedure itself, which Dr. Gat has apparently patented). But I agree that such studies *should* be sponsored, presumably by some arm of the US federal government. There are several agencies of the US federal government that could theoretically sponsor such research, but unfortunately their funding has been trimmed back these past few years due to fiscal restraints (namely: "large and chronic federal budget deficits"). Many promising projects aren't being funded in this environment.
As I posted several months ago, I believe that Gat could be in the running for a Nobel prize, if such trials are undertaken and the data come out to support his hypotheses while he's still alive.
It is true that many patients have not had my results. This is the case with our friend Martin, among others. That said, six months is not enough time to decide whether the treatment works. At the six-month time point in my own case, I could *not* report anything more than a very modest decrease in discomfort. At six months, I believed that the treatment had failed me. As I posted before, I had sudden and slight improvements at 3.5 months and 6.5 months and later, with "plateaus" in-between.
In case you've not seen it, here's Dr. Gat on Youtube receiving his Ph.D. for his "G-G" research at the University of Gent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srBF9luVAw
I'm suspicious of "loners" in medicine, but it doesn't look to me that Gat is such a "loner." It seems to me that I am not the only person convinced of the value of his theories.
Post Edited (Chicago Dave) : 3/23/2014 1:38:02 PM (GMT-6)