Allen, that is very interesting and a bit shocking as they essentially advertize zero side effects. I had their book, given to me by a friend who went to them, and that was def the impression I got from the book.
I also have several friends around here who have been to them, and they claim to have had no problems, but maybe it has not been long enough yet?
But my local URO knows some of the docs there, and he said THEY SAY it is sort of a "wink, wink" about
the almost zero SEs, because they say sarcastically "Sure, the main guy here(who wrote the book) doesn't deal with the SEs, because he does the RT on tons of out of town folks and their docs back home deal with the SEs". Suggesting the SEs might not be quite as low as advertised. But keep in mind that the several I know locally who have gone that route speak very highly of it and so far have or had minimal or zero SEs.
My local URO also said he attended a conference where one of the Prostercision guys was on a stage with one of the Seattle RT Gurus and they were both red faced and yelling at each other. I guess each claims their RT is the best, better than the other guys.
I was sent by my local URO to a vastly published Guru out of town not necessarily to have the surgery done there, but to get an opinion on whether I should go RT or surgery. If I got surgery I was considering Patel down in FL or a very experienced guy in Birmingham. My local guy, a very experienced
open RP surgeon, did not feel he could tell me one was better than the other for me, but felt this other guy could. The other guy said in his opinion surgery was a no brainer(and yes he is a surgeon). He listed his reasons for why. We discussed Prostercision, he also knows the head guy well(they also said they knew him). He said if I had the Prostercision, I would have need HT first to shrink my huge prostate. I told him they said in their book they did not use HT, and that the guys that came to them who already had HT had worse SEs. He said that regardless they would be giving me T blockade of some sort.
I got home and called them. I thought it was great one of their docs called me back very quick on two different occasions. He confirmed they would have to start me on androgen blockade first to shrink my prostate. He also gave me some tips on how to do a search on Pubmed, and gave me the results of the searches he did. Bottom line, he gave me the exact same recurrence rate as surgery once he plugged my numbers in, about
60 %.(or maybe that was the cure rate, but it was no dif from the surgery)
So, why did I go with the surgery if the cure rate was about
the same( a question I have asked myself a lot after the surgery)? Because the surgeon felt, based on his DRE, that even though I was a G9, I was probably still contained. ( and I guess every G9, if caught early enough, is still contained, right?) And
IF I was still contained, he could offer me a cure. Plus they could check the lymph nodes. And to a lessor degree I just felt good with interaction with the surgeon, he inspired confidence even though he told me up front I would have ED because he was going to have to cut wide. And he claimed an incontinence rate of 3%, but he must have meant long term or perm for that, as I am still healing from that after 8 months and have a bit to go.
Well, it was
not contained. Which along with the SEs I have had has def made me wonder if the Prostercision would have not been at least as good of a choice, if not better. Though Allen's post makes me think twice about
that. To this day it is hard to say for sure. Which is not(the same as) to say it's hard for sure, because it is not hard at all.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23103235