What is the difference between your protocol (Georgiadis Protocol) vs. other methodologies that consist of massage + antibiotics (e.g. Manila Protocol)?
To begin with, there is nothing in common with the Georgiadis Protocol in its execution, strategy and results when compared to protocols that consist of “massage + antibiotics” such as the Manila Protocol.
Execution: The pressures of the Georgiadis Protocol are the result of more than two decades of experience and are highly empirical. The pressures are of high intensity, they are thorough, they are targetted and they are frequent. Everything matters, both in the pressure execution itself as well as the plan of the execution which will constantly evolve as the therapy progresses.
Strategy: The strategy to treat Chronic Prostatitis is as crucial as the execution of the methodology. I typically begin from the more recently infected areas and work towards the more chronically infected ones, but I am always ready to change the plan based on the situation during the treatment. For instance, microbe resistances might change halfway or I may encounter an area that is resistant to the treatment, thus indicating the existence of microbe(s) that could not be found from the beginning. Since we cannot perform the microbiological exams during the treatment (as the patient is taking antibiotics), it falls to my extensive experience to be able to make a decision on the spot to adjust the plan (sometimes almost completely) in order to overcome the encountered situation. These kind of situations happen almost on a weekly basis, especially as I am treating the prostate towards the chronically infected areas and considering that the majority of the patients that come to me have had Chronic Prostatitis for years, and ultimately are shown to have at least 4-5 microbes.
Results: It is needless to say, that unlike “massage + antibiotics” protocols, the Georgiadis Protocol actually leads to a permanent cure without relapse and this is proven both objectively (i.e. patient examinations) as well as subjectively (i.e. how the patient perceives the symptoms). Many of my results are shown on various blogs around the internet with objective examinations that are indisputable. The same applies for the multiple positive reviews that are posted on the web from grateful patients who, after many years of suffering, have found a solution to their problem and speak from the heart.
To sum up, I believe it should thus be obvious that there is no comparison between the quality and the depth of my work with any other naive approaches that many other doctors around the world perform with little to no result.