New publication in Basic and Clinical Andrology

[La_pet1te_mort]

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-019-0093-7

[Nas]

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-019-0093-7

Interesting they mention post-coital dysphoria (POD) as a diagnosis criterion. Is this accurate however? Because is a well documented disease especially for women but does apply to us?
What I suffer from is low motivation, cognitive impairment including memory problems, speech slur and attention deficit, social disconnection, apathy and sleep problems. Does these fit into the post-coital dysphoria diagnosis? 

[demografx]

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-019-0093-7

One concern I have is the supposed correlation between PE and POIS. Dr Waldinger, R.I.P., had a client base primarily populated with PE patients. My concern is that a disproportionate skew exists favoring PE populations, and thus not necessarily indicative of the average POISer population.

I don’t think the average POISer also has PE. My opinion.

[Nas]

One concern I have is the supposed correlation between PE and POIS. Dr Waldinger, R.I.P., had a client base primarily populated with PE patients. My concern is that a disproportionate skew exists favoring PE populations, and thus not necessarily indicative of the average POISer population.

I don’t think the average POISer also has PE. My opinion.

Just because you don't have PE that doesn't mean it doesn't correlate. For example I don't have flu like symptoms and many don't, yet we don't say it's not related to the condition; it only means that the part of the body responsible for that isn't hit. Let's not rule out symptoms just because YOU or others don't have it demo.

[demografx]

I wasn’t basing it on me. I’ve been here 12 years, seen a lot. Also concerned about Waldinger patient bias.

[Nas]

I wasn’t basing it on me. I’ve been here 12 years, seen a lot. Also concerned about Waldinger patient bias.

It doesn't matter, just don't rule it out. I thought you cared so much about keeping this forum "scientific"?

[demografx]

I wasn’t basing it on me. I’ve been here 12 years, seen a lot. Also concerned about Waldinger patient bias.

It doesn't matter, just don't rule it out. I thought you cared so much about keeping this forum "scientific"?

I didn’t rule it out, now please stop.

[demografx]

Congratulations to us all!

Especially to La_pet1te_mort, and Quantum,
for moving POIS science forward!

[nanna1]

Thanks for sharing La_pet1te_mort!

[demografx]

Thanks, nanna1!

[Quantum]

Great, LPM !  It is the first POIS article where your article is cited as reference.  Gratz !

The authors have taken in cosideration the modificaitons you have proposed about Waldinger's criteria.  you have made POIS science take a step ahead    

The authors say that "respondents were not examined by a clinician to verify their answers, which is a major limitation of Strashny’s study.".  I hope this will motivate clinicians to verify what we say, as they will believe only what they have verify by themselves

The upcoming POIS study form our forum grant will fill this gap, at least in part

[demografx]

Great, Quantum!

[demografx]

From Daveman, co-Founder, with me, of POISCenter.com (via email, with his permission to post):

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-019-0093-7

[Mild expletive]. It says that hyposensitization therapy was successful.

That is a terrible setback for investigation. Even if some other investigation says otherwise it creates a doubt and debilitates future hypotheses!!

[Muon]

How does this add anything new to literature?

We don't need another 'what do we know so far paper', there have been several of them released over the years.

2017: https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(17)30414-9/fulltext
2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29128269
2019: Another one

Let's see, 5 researchers who have probably been paid with tax money doing another round of copy paste work. They should be proud. Perhaps we should stop paying tax.

Just be happy with these kind of papers and you will get more of them. It's not about POIS it's about doctors trying to stay relevant by writing papers, keeping their numbers up with competition. How is one forum member who published a paper more productive than these guys who are getting paid?

Where is the real research? What a joke....

[Nas]

How does this add anything new to literature?

We don't need another 'what do we know so far paper', there have been several of them released over the years.

2017: https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(17)30414-9/fulltext
2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29128269
2019: Another one

Let's see, 5 researchers who have probably been paid with tax money doing another round of copy paste work. They should be proud. Perhaps we should stop paying tax.

Just be happy with these kind of papers and you will get more of them. It's not about POIS it's about doctors trying to stay relevant by writing papers, keeping their numbers up with competition. How is one forum member who published a paper more productive than these guys who are getting paid?

Where is the real research? What a joke....

I agree somewhat that this adds nothing. In fact, the next research is pretty much this new publication added to tests to back the claims. Research is painstakingly slow unfortunately. Also the Tulane survey is literally just the same as this one.
Our illness is new; what to do. Just pray the next investigation comes out with something more interesting. 

[demografx]

Just pray the next investigation comes out with something more interesting.

Knowing the researchers better now, I have absolutely no doubt it will.

[Quantum]

A review adds nothing new, by definition

However, this shows that the team that has made this review is now at least a bit interested in POIS ( by comparison to etiher totally oblivious to it, or not interested at all).   They may do a follow up with some case reports, or even have one of their students taking POIS as topic for a clinical article he has to do, along with a survey, or some clinical measurements, or else.  One thing leads to another.... ( but surely not at the speed you would like, I know.  But that's how it works, medical research goes very very slowly, even when not so rare disorders ).

[demografx]

Where is the real research? What a joke....

Muon, I understand your concerns, but going forward, I believe we have a GREAT research team. Willing to take us all the way to a cure, by raising BIG money...from deep pockets, like NIH. $40 billion spent annually on medical research. I haven’t seen *anyone* with that kind of commitment to POIS!

[demografx]

A review adds nothing new, by definition

However, this shows that the team that has made this review is now at least a bit interested in POIS ( by comparison to etiher totally oblivious to it, or not interested at all).   They may do a follow up with some case reports, or even have one of their students taking POIS as topic for a clinical article he has to do, along with a survey, or some clinical measurements, or else.  One thing leads to another.... ( but surely not at the speed you would like, I know.  But that's how it works, medical research goes very very slowly, even when not so rare disorders ).

Quantum, I’m *thrilled* with the progress in making POIS a serious medical subject worldwide, and you have been instrumental in making it happen!

[Investigator]

Another article adds more popularity and brings attention to POIS. This is very important. Some doctor may have missed the previous papers but now suddenly stumbles across this one - maybe because it is published in a journal that the institution of the doctor is subscribed for. Then the doctor may recognize POIS and add their contribution to the field. Every article is progress, let's not discredit it.