Talk:Prostatitis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
[edit] Fixing citations
The citations on this page need fixing. Skopp (Talk) 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of link to prostatitis.org
I carefully checked out prostatitis.org before removing the link. The site is full of broken links and is poorly maintained. The site sells items directly to the public. In addition it offers information about infertility, sleep apnoea, prostate cancer and BPH, all jumbled up with the prostatitis information in a way that implies the conditions may be related, even though no science exists to link these conditions. On its "Information from various sources" page, it suggests that biofilm and infections are important to chronic nonbacterial prostatitis patients, but there is no solid research evidence to support it. The site does not specify whether it exists to give information to patients with Cat I, II, III or IV prostatitis, although these are completely different conditions, conflated at their website so that dangerous confusion is sown. On its Links page, there are links to individual businesses run by urologists who could be paying for the placement. There's no other reason to have those links there. The doctors featured are not leaders in the field or specialists in the subject. There are also a bunch of links completely unrelated to prostatitis (Peyronies disease, impotence, quackwatch etc). It simply looks like a typical low quality website, home-grown, amateurish, neglected, unfocused, offering outdated, often incorrect and largely POV information (see Neutral point of view) that flies in the face of research. The site does not meet the standards for inclusion as an external link on WP. The site tries to promote ideas outside the mainstream of medical science; I can supply numerous examples if required. WP does not promote or link to sites pushing non-mainstream medical viewpoints that have scant or no research support. WP guidelines state that:
Links to be avoided : 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
In reference to point (1) above, it is clear that the WP article itself is far more up-to-date and accurate than prostatitis.org. Examples can be provided. And I can provide ample evidence of point (2). I therefore oppose linking to it, no matter what tax status it has. ◄██ Unit 5 (Talk) ██► 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I won't dispute your removal of that link, but there is a lot of good info on that website to help guide people through the various forms of protatitis. I only hope that the reader sees this discussion page so they can check out that website. Jtpaladin 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recommendations re: prostatitis
Anyone experiencing prostatitis, please go right to your emergency room and DEMAND that you are put on an IV so that you can get the antibiotics right into your prostate. Don't take no for an answer. The prostate is a hard place for oral antibiotics to reach and in the meantime, you can get permanent damage to your prostate or urinary tract. Don't risk it. Get an IV going and then follow up with oral antibiotics for at least a month. Anything less could result in a reappearance of the infection. And the second time it will come back meaner and stronger. Avoid that agony and follow my advice. Jtpaladin 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
