Through the Wall: The Prostate Biopsy and What No One Mentions

An Essay on Procedural Risk, Informed Consent, and the Body’s Own Logic

A reader’s comment prompted this essay. A PSA of 5 triggered the whole thing, he wrote. A routine blood draw, a number slightly above a threshold that itself has no agreed-upon clinical meaning, and then a referral, and then a biopsy. No one mentioned that the procedure would route a needle through the rectal wall — through a field dense with gut bacteria — into a sterile organ. No one mentioned infection rates. No one mentioned sepsis. The biopsy happened, and nothing went wrong, and it was only years later, reading the literature, that the scale of what could have gone wrong became clear. Not from obscure sources. From the published data that was available before the needle went in. He never took any treatment. He is being monitored. He feels perfectly healthy.

This essay examines what that data actually says — about the procedure, about its risks, about what patients are and aren’t told, and about what the pattern of outcomes reveals when read carefully. The numbers are drawn from the peer-reviewed literature. The question of why so few patients ever see them is not.

---

The Procedure

The standard prostate biopsy, performed on approximately 99% of men who undergo the procedure historically, is the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.¹ The name describes the route: a needle is advanced through the rectal wall and into the prostate gland. Typically 10 to 12 tissue cores are extracted; in saturation protocols, the number can reach 24 to 38.²

The rectal wall is not sterile. It is colonized by gut flora — predominantly Escherichia coli — in concentrations measured in billions of colony-forming units per gram. The needle passes through this environment by design. It is the intended route, not a complication of it. Every core taken means another transit of the needle through that bacterial field and into tissue that, under normal physiological conditions, is protected from it by a mucosal barrier the body actively maintains.

The prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum. This anatomical proximity is what makes the transrectal route convenient for imaging and needle guidance. It is also what makes the route a deliberate breach of the boundary between two compartments the body keeps separate — one colonized, one sterile. The bacteria are not introduced by accident or poor technique. They are introduced because the path to the target passes through their habitat, and the barrier that normally keeps them there is punctured to make way.

---

Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: 1-2 free books per month. e.g. The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, Chlorine Dioxide, and Drilling for Profit.

Plus: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions regularly added. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

unbekoming@outlook.com

---

Two quick things please.

Unbekoming is featured on Sidestack this week for Substack of the Week. If you have a moment, please head over and give me an upvote: https://sidestack.io/week

I’ve also been relisted on the Reality of Illness site, and an upvote there would be much appreciated too.

That’s it. Thank you.

---

What Happens Next: Infection and Sepsis

The published infection rates after transrectal prostate biopsy range from 0.1% to 7% for urinary tract infections and 0.3% to 3.1% for sepsis.³ A Swedish retrospective study found an overall post-biopsy infection rate of 5.4% — 36 infections in 670 procedures, with 3.9% requiring hospitalization.⁴ Globally, the Lancet estimates that 50,000 to 150,000 men are hospitalized annually for post-biopsy infection, and that number is increasing.¹

The sepsis figures vary by setting. A review of the published literature shows the range: 0.2% in a North American cohort (Zaytoun et al.), 0.5% in the European Randomized Study (Raaijmakers et al.), 2.2% (Carmignani et al.), 3.0% (Akduman et al.), and 3.06% in a study of 2,023 patients where 62 men developed sepsis within five days of the procedure.⁵,⁶ At a tertiary center in Lebanon, the rate reached 9.4%.⁷

These are not fringe findings. They appear in European Urology, Clinical Infectious Diseases, the International Journal of Urology, and the Scandinavian Journal of Urology. The variation itself is informative — the same procedure, the same organism, yields strikingly different infection rates across populations and settings. Every man biopsied has E. coli in his rectum. The bacterium is a constant. The variation in outcomes points somewhere else: to differences in the men, not the microbe. The studies that have looked for predictors of post-biopsy sepsis consistently find host factors — diabetes, comorbidity burden, prior antibiotic exposure — rather than bacterial variables.⁶,⁷ Shane Greenstein nearly died of sepsis after a transrectal biopsy — a case documented in Ablin and Piana’s The Great Prostate Hoax.⁴³ He is not a statistical outlier. He is what the tail of the distribution looks like when it lands on a specific person.

Hospitalization rates for infectious complications have been climbing. In the United States, post-biopsy emergency department visits rose from 0.2% to 0.5% between 2007 and 2015, hospitalizations from 0.5% to 1.3%, and intensive care admissions from 0.1% to 0.3%.¹ A Scottish population-based study found hospitalization within 30 days of biopsy to be 2.7 times higher than background rates.⁸

Men hospitalized with infectious complications after biopsy had a 12-fold greater 30-day mortality rate.⁹ A population-based Canadian study of 22,175 men found 120-day all-cause mortality after biopsy was 1.3%, compared to 0.3% in matched controls — a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). First-ever biopsies carried the highest risk: 1.4% mortality at 120 days.¹⁰ A more conservative French study of 11,816 procedures attributed at most two deaths directly to the biopsy itself.¹¹ The range between these estimates is wide. Both are in the literature. Both should be part of the conversation before the procedure.

---

The Antibiotic Problem

The standard prophylaxis for transrectal biopsy is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, typically ciprofloxacin, given before the procedure to reduce the risk of infection from the bacteria the needle will inevitably carry into the prostate. For this to work, the E. coli in the patient’s rectum must be susceptible to the antibiotic. For a growing proportion of men, it is not — and the reason is ecological. Prior antibiotic exposure selects for resistant organisms in the gut flora, reshaping the microbial community a man carries into the procedure. The resistance is not a property of some exotic pathogen. It is a consequence of what has already been done to the patient’s own internal ecology.

Multiple studies across US and European cohorts have found that approximately 22% of men presenting for transrectal biopsy already carry fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in their rectal flora.¹²,¹³ For these men, the standard prophylaxis is pharmacologically inert before the procedure begins. The pill is swallowed. The bacteria — reshaped by prior courses of the same drug class — are unaffected. The needle goes in.

The downstream numbers confirm the problem. In one North American cohort, 2.77% of men developed infection after biopsy. Of those infections, 55% involved fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms.¹⁴ In an Australian study of E. coli bacteremia after transrectal biopsy, 62% of isolates were fluoroquinolone-resistant.¹⁵ In the US Veterans Affairs healthcare system, post-biopsy E. coli infections increased significantly from 2000 onward, tracking the rise of fluoroquinolone resistance in the general population.¹⁶

Targeted prophylaxis — using rectal swab cultures before biopsy to identify resistant organisms and selecting an effective antibiotic accordingly — seems like the obvious solution. It helps. It does not solve the problem. Jiang et al. (2018) compared targeted and empirical prophylaxis over a three-year period and found no significant difference in sepsis prevention.¹⁷ Even when you know what the bacteria are resistant to and choose accordingly, sepsis still occurs. The needle still passes through the wall. If matching the right antibiotic to the right organism doesn’t prevent the outcome, something other than the organism is driving it.

The 2022 GRAM Report published in the Lancet estimated that nearly 5 million deaths worldwide in 2019 were closely associated with antimicrobial resistance, with approximately 1.3 million directly attributable to it. E. coli was identified as the most significant contributing organism.¹⁸ This is the resistance landscape in which millions of transrectal prostate biopsies continue to be performed.

---

Beyond Infection: The Other Costs

Infection and sepsis draw attention because they can kill. The broader complication profile of prostate biopsy is less dramatic but affects far more men. A systematic review in European Urology catalogued the range: hematuria (blood in urine, common and usually self-limiting), hematospermia (blood in semen, can persist for weeks), rectal bleeding (severe hemorrhage in up to 1% of cases), and lower urinary tract symptoms in up to 25% of men post-procedure.¹⁹ Urinary retention requiring catheterization occurs in fewer than 2% of transrectal cases but rises to 4.4–8.8% in transperineal template biopsies.¹⁹,²⁰

Erectile dysfunction shows a measurable increase at one month post-biopsy, generally resolving by three to six months. The numbers are worse than the general summary suggests: Tuncel et al. (2008) found 41% of men reported erectile dysfunction one month after biopsy, with 15% still affected at six months.²⁰,⁴⁴ Among men with normal pre-biopsy erectile function, 10% reported significant deterioration after a second biopsy — the kind performed on men under active surveillance, who may undergo repeated biopsies over years.²⁰

The psychological costs are harder to quantify but documented. A prostate cancer diagnosis — including the low-grade, indolent cancers that screening disproportionately finds — produces measurable harm. Cardiovascular events increase (relative risk 1.3) and suicide risk rises sharply (relative risk 2.6) within the first year of diagnosis, with even higher risk in the first week.²¹ The biopsy itself, with its waiting periods, repeated procedures, and ambient uncertainty, compounds this. These are not complications that appear on a consent form.

---

What Patients Are Told

In 1999, Federman et al. published a study in Effective Clinical Practice examining whether informed consent actually occurred before PSA testing. Among men who received a PSA test, 31% were unaware their physician had ordered it. Of those who were aware, only 47% recalled any discussion of risks and benefits.²² Some men were tested without their knowledge.

That was the screening test — the entry point into the cascade. The consent situation does not improve further downstream. A qualitative study of men’s lived experience found that patients felt inadequately prepared and unsupported from the point of PSA screening through biopsy and treatment decisions, and that the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment were rarely explained.²³ A study published in the Turkish Journal of Urology found poor patient recall of potential complications of prostate cancer treatment and noted the absence of any set criteria for which risks must be discussed before each modality.²⁴

There is a gap between what the published literature shows about the risks of this procedure and what men sitting in the consulting room are told. The literature is not hidden. It appears in journals that the physicians performing the procedure subscribe to and cite. The data on infection, sepsis, antibiotic resistance, hospitalization, and mortality has been accumulating for more than two decades. The question is not whether the information exists. It does. The question is why it doesn’t reach the patient.

---

Why So Many Biopsies: The PSA Cascade

The prostate-specific antigen test measures a protein produced by all prostate tissue — cancerous, enlarged, inflamed, and normal. It is prostate-specific, not cancer-specific. An elevated PSA can mean prostate cancer. It can also mean benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostatitis, recent ejaculation, a urinary tract infection, or simply a larger prostate. There is no PSA threshold that reliably separates cancer from non-cancer, and no threshold that separates cancer that will kill from cancer that will not.²⁵

Richard Ablin, who first identified a prostate-specific antigen in 1970, called the use of PSA for population screening a “profit-driven public health disaster” in a New York Times op-ed in 2010.²⁶ (T. Ming Chu of Roswell Park developed what became the clinical PSA blood test; Ablin’s contribution was the initial observation of the antigen.²⁷ This matters for the historical record but not for the validity of the critique.) The test was never designed to screen for cancer. It became one anyway, and the consequences have been measured.

The National Cancer Institute reports that men have a 16% lifetime probability of being diagnosed with prostate cancer but only a 3% probability of dying from it.²⁵ That gap — between diagnosis and death — is the overdiagnosis window. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 20% to 50% depending on the screening strategy and the population studied.²⁸

The Göteborg randomized screening trial provides the most commonly cited numbers on the trade-off. Screening 1,000 men for 14 years prevented 5 prostate cancer deaths. The same screening produced approximately 120 diagnoses.²⁸ For every man whose life was saved, roughly 24 were diagnosed with a cancer that would not have killed them. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), at 16-year follow-up, found that 570 men needed to be invited for screening to prevent one prostate cancer death.²⁸

The autopsy data provides the context for these numbers. A systematic review covering 63 publications and over 29,000 men found prostate cancer at autopsy in 21% of men across all ages. Prevalence rose with age: 5% under age 30, 36% of white men and 51% of Black men aged 70–79, and 59% of men over 79.²⁹,³⁰ These men died of other causes. Most of their cancers were small, low grade, and confined to the prostate.²⁹ The reservoir of incidental, subclinical prostate cancer is enormous. Stamey calculated from the autopsy data that only 1 in 380 men over 50 with prostate cancer dies of it.⁴⁵ The PSA test, unable to distinguish lethal from indolent disease, dips into this reservoir with every screening round.

This is the engine that produces the biopsy volume. A test that cannot tell the difference between dangerous cancer and harmless cancer triggers a procedure — the transrectal biopsy — that carries real risks of infection, sepsis, and hospitalization. The procedure is performed not because PSA identified danger, but because PSA identified activity in an organ where subclinical cancer is present in a large fraction of older men.

Overtreatment has not declined in the era of active surveillance. Among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and less than 10 years of life expectancy — men for whom treatment guidelines recommend against curative intervention because the harms arrive in the short term and the benefits take more than a decade to appear — overtreatment rose from 37.6% in 2000 to 59.8% in 2019.³¹

---

The Alternative That Existed

The transperineal biopsy routes the needle through the perineum — the skin between the scrotum and the anus — rather than through the rectal wall. It avoids the gut flora entirely. The needle does not pass through a field colonized by E. coli. It approaches the prostate through tissue that can be sterilized with standard skin antisepsis. The compartment boundary between gut and sterile tissue — the boundary the transrectal route punctures by design — is left intact.

The results are what you would expect. In a direct head-to-head comparison cited by Horan, 100% of transrectal biopsy patients had bacteremia — bacteria detectable in the bloodstream — with 27% developing symptomatic infection. Among transperineal patients in the same comparison, 40% had bacteremia, but the organisms were less virulent skin flora, and none became symptomatic.⁴⁵ A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis found that transperineal biopsy was associated with a 77% lower risk of hospitalization for infectious complications compared to the transrectal approach.³² Sepsis rates for transperineal biopsy are reported in the range of 0.002% to 0.1%.¹,³³ Multiple studies have performed transperineal biopsies without any antibiotic prophylaxis and found no increase in sepsis — the route simply does not carry bacteria into sterile tissue, so the prophylaxis that the transrectal route depends on (and that is failing due to resistance) becomes unnecessary.¹⁸

Diagnostic accuracy is comparable or superior. The PREVENT randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2024, found similar cancer detection rates between the two approaches, with significantly lower infectious complications in the transperineal group.³⁴ The European Association of Urology now recommends transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach.¹⁸

The technique has been available for decades. Thompson et al. made the case for the transperineal approach in 1982.⁴⁵ It was not new in 2024. It was not new in 2018. It was known, published, and practiced in centers around the world while 99% of biopsies continued to go through the rectal wall. The reasons are familiar: the transrectal route was established practice, it was what urologists trained on, the equipment was in place, the workflow was built around it. These are institutional and logistical reasons. They are not clinical reasons. They are not reasons that would appear on a consent form that told a patient both options existed.

For every year that the transrectal route remained the default while the transperineal alternative was available, some fraction of the 50,000 to 150,000 men hospitalized annually for post-biopsy infection were hospitalized by a route the procedure did not require.

---

Reading the Data Differently: Host, Compartment, and Terrain

The pattern has been visible throughout the data presented above. Every man who undergoes a transrectal prostate biopsy has E. coli in his rectum. This is universal. It is a defining feature of the human gut. Yet infection rates after the procedure range from 0.1% to 7%, and sepsis rates from 0.2% to 9.4% depending on the study. The organism is constant. The outcomes are not. The predictors of infection are host factors — diabetes, comorbidity, prior antibiotic exposure. The procedure that eliminates infection is the one that respects the compartment boundary. The antibiotic strategy that should work on paper fails in practice. Every thread in this data points the same direction: away from the bacterium and toward the body it enters.

The mainstream infectious disease literature has a framework for this. Casadevall and Pirofski, writing in Infection and Immunity in 2000, stated it directly: “The outcomes of infection represent a continuum and the occurrence of one versus another is the result of an interplay between host and microbial factors for a particular microbe in a particular host.”³⁵ The distinction between pathogen and nonpathogen, they wrote, is “critically dependent on host factors.” Candida albicans is a harmless commensal in a healthy person and a lethal pathogen in an immunosuppressed one. The organism didn’t change. The host did.

A 2024 paper in The Lancet Microbe extended this: “Many bacterial species or clones can dynamically change their capacity to function as commensals or pathogens, depending on their environmental context and the host physiological state.”³⁶ This is not an alternative medicine claim. It is current microbiology, published in the Lancet family of journals, describing a continuum rather than a binary.

Applied to the biopsy data, this framework illuminates what the raw complication rates obscure. E. coli lives in the gut. It belongs there. The body maintains that arrangement actively — the mucosal barrier separates gut contents from sterile tissue, and the immune system manages the low-level translocation that occurs even in healthy people.³⁷ Vaishnavi, writing on bacterial translocation and its role in sepsis, concluded that “bacterial translocation may be a promoter of sepsis but not the initiator.”³⁸ The translocation alone — the bacteria crossing from one compartment to another — does not cause sepsis. The host’s capacity to manage that crossing determines the outcome.

The transrectal biopsy bypasses the mucosal barrier by puncturing it. It creates mechanical translocation — forced displacement of gut bacteria into sterile tissue — on a scale the body’s normal management systems are not designed for. But even then, most men do not develop infection. The ones who do are disproportionately those with compromised host terrain: diabetics, men with higher comorbidity scores, men with prior antibiotic exposure.

The diabetes data is particularly clear. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Martin et al. (2016) found that diabetes remained a significant risk factor for surgical site infection with an odds ratio of 4.71, even after implementing glucose control pathways.³⁹ Gan (2013), writing in PLOS Pathogens, described the mechanism: hyperglycemia impairs neutrophil chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and intracellular killing; chronic oxidative stress modifies tissues in ways that favour bacterial establishment; glycation of immune receptors directly impairs pathogen recognition. Insulin treatment directly restores neutrophil function.⁴⁰ The same organism, the same exposure, different outcomes — determined by the metabolic state of the host.

The Simsir et al. study of 2,023 men identified the predictors of post-biopsy sepsis: diabetes, urethral catheter presence, and the number of biopsy cores taken.⁶ At the Lebanese tertiary center where the sepsis rate reached 9.4%, hypertension comorbidity carried an odds ratio of 3.25.⁷ These are not random. They are host-terrain variables. They predict who gets sick when the compartment is breached, because they describe the state of the body’s defenses at the moment of breach.

The fluoroquinolone resistance data fits the same pattern when read through this lens. Men who carry resistant E. coli in their rectal flora are not carrying a more dangerous organism. They are carrying an organism whose ecology has already been altered — typically by prior antibiotic exposure. That prior exposure is itself a terrain event: it disrupted the commensal ecology that forms part of the body’s standing defense. Abt and Pamer (2014) documented that commensal bacteria mediate colonization resistance, compete with pathogens for nutrients, and drive tonic expression of antimicrobial factors. Germ-free mice, lacking commensal ecology entirely, show increased susceptibility to a wide range of bacterial infections.⁴¹ Abt and Artis (2013) showed that antibiotic treatment reduces basal expression of antiviral defense genes in macrophages and impairs CD8+ T cell responses — the immune system itself is calibrated by the commensal bacteria that antibiotics disrupt.⁴²

The prophylactic antibiotic given before biopsy is intended to protect against the E. coli the needle will carry into the prostate. But it simultaneously disrupts the commensal ecology that constitutes part of the host’s own defense. In a man whose terrain is already degraded — by diabetes, by prior antibiotic courses, by age, by comorbidity — this is a further insult to a system already operating at reduced capacity.

The transperineal comparison functions as a controlled experiment on compartmentalization. Same patient population. Same organisms in the gut. Same prostates being sampled. The difference is that the transperineal needle does not cross the compartment boundary between gut and sterile tissue. The result: sepsis rates drop from 0.3–3% to near zero. The organism didn’t change. The host didn’t change. The compartment boundary was respected instead of punctured. This is what the terrain framework predicts and what the data confirms: location determines pathogenicity, and the integrity of the boundary between compartments is the variable that matters most.

None of this is exotic theory. Every source cited in this section is from a peer-reviewed journal — Infection and Immunity, The Lancet Microbe, PLOS Pathogens, European Urology. The framework that host factors determine infection outcomes is not alternative or fringe. It is the stated position of mainstream microbiology. What is unusual is applying it to the biopsy data explicitly, and asking what it means that the predictors of post-biopsy infection are overwhelmingly host variables rather than microbial ones.

It means that the single most important factor in whether a transrectal biopsy produces sepsis is not the bacteria — which are universal — but the state of the body they enter. And it means that the choice to route the needle through a contaminated field, when a clean route exists, is a choice to make the outcome depend on host terrain that no one assesses beforehand. The 22% of men carrying fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms are not tested for this before the standard procedure. The diabetic men whose neutrophils cannot mount an adequate response are not stratified into the safer route. The needle goes through the wall for everyone, and the terrain sorts the outcomes after.

---

What the Document Says

The literature on prostate biopsy risks is not behind a paywall accessible only to specialists. Much of it is available through PubMed Central, free to anyone with an internet connection. The infection rates, the sepsis rates, the antibiotic resistance data, the mortality figures, the informed consent studies, the overdiagnosis numbers, the autopsy prevalence, the transperineal comparison — all of it is published, peer-reviewed, and findable.

A man with a PSA of 5 sits in a consulting room. Like the reader whose comment prompted this essay, he has been told his PSA is elevated. He has not been told that PSA is prostate-specific, not cancer-specific, and that it cannot distinguish lethal disease from the subclinical cancer present in a large fraction of men his age. He has been told he needs a biopsy. He has not been told that the standard route passes a needle through gut bacteria into his prostate, that infection rates run as high as 5.4%, that sepsis rates run as high as 3% in published series and higher in some settings, that the antibiotic he’ll take beforehand doesn’t work for one in five men, or that a route exists that avoids the contamination entirely. He has not been told that if the biopsy finds cancer, there is a 20–50% chance it is a cancer that would never have harmed him, and that a diagnosis itself carries measurable risks of psychological and cardiovascular harm.

He signs the consent form. The needle goes in. He goes home. In published series, roughly 1 in 20 men who undergo this procedure develop an infection. Up to 1 in 30 are hospitalized for it. These are not rare-complication numbers. If a 1-in-20 infection rate were printed on the consent form in plain language, next to the fact that a safer route exists, next to the fact that the antibiotic given to prevent infection no longer works for one in five men — it is an open question how many would still sign.

For the 50,000 to 150,000 men hospitalized worldwide each year, for the men who develop sepsis from an organism that was living harmlessly in their own body until a needle carried it somewhere it didn’t belong — the information was there the whole time.

The document exists. The data exists. Most men who go through this procedure never see it.

---

References

1. CIVCO Medical Solutions, “Infection Control for Prostate Biopsies: Before, During, and After the Procedure.” civco.com.

2. CUA Guidelines on Prostate Biopsy Methodology. Journal of the Canadian Urological Association. PMC2845759.

3. Acosta et al. (2022), “Post-prostate biopsy acute bacterial prostatitis and screening cultures using selective media: An overview.” International Journal of Urology. doi:10.1111/iju.14824.

4. Danielsen et al. (2021), “Rate and characteristics of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective observational study.” Scandinavian Journal of Urology. doi:10.1080/21681805.2021.1933169.

5. Simsir et al. (2010), “Is it possible to predict sepsis, the most serious complication in prostate biopsy?” Urologia Internationalis, 84(4):395–399. PMID:20224265.

6. Simsir et al. (2010), ibid. — 62 of 2,023 patients (3.06%) developed sepsis within 5 days of biopsy.

7. Otrock et al. (2016), “Incidence of sepsis following transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy at a tertiary-care medical center in Lebanon.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases. PMC4811227.

8. Bjurlin et al. (2017), “Risk of hospitalization and death following prostate biopsy in Scotland.” Journal of Urology. PMC5226055.

9. Loeb et al. (2013), “Systematic Review of Complications of Prostate Biopsy.” European Urology, 64(6):876–892. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.029.

10. Karakiewicz et al. (2008), “Mortality at 120 days after prostatic biopsy: a population-based study of 22,175 men.” PMID:18470914.

11. Mortality and Complications Following Prostate Biopsy in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial (2013). PMC3873374.

12. Taylor et al. (2011), “Fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in intestinal flora of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.” PMID:21958149.

13. Williamson et al. (2013), “Infectious Complications Following Transrectal Ultrasound–Guided Prostate Biopsy: New Challenges in the Era of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(2):267–274.

14. Infection after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (2015). Comprehensive review. PMC4426505.

15. Williamson et al. (2013), ibid. — Australian E. coli bacteremia data.

16. Fridman et al. (2016), “Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli Infections After Transrectal Biopsy of the Prostate in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.” PMC5070472.

17. Jiang et al. (2018), “Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis does not always prevent sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy.” Journal of Urology, 200:361–368.

18. Wolff et al. (2024), “Infectious complications following transperineal prostate biopsy with or without periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis — a systematic review including meta-analysis.” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Nature. doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00934-9.

19. Loeb et al. (2013), ibid.

20. Serial transperineal sector prostate biopsies: impact on long-term erectile dysfunction (2016). PMC4898939.

21. Fang et al., cited in: “Overdiagnosis of Prostate Cancer.” PMC3540879.

22. Federman et al. (1999), “Informed consent for PSA screening: does it happen?” Effective Clinical Practice. PMID:10539539.

23. Hersch et al. (2019), “Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.” PMC6537980.

24. Lomas et al. (2018), “How informed is our consent? Patient awareness of radiation and radical prostatectomy complications.” Turkish Journal of Urology. PMC6469723.

25. National Cancer Institute, “Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Test.” cancer.gov.

26. Ablin, Richard (2010), “The Great Prostate Mistake.” New York Times Op-Ed, March 2010.

27. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, “PSA and the PSA Test: What the Public Needs to Know.” 2010.

28. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer (2014). PMC4113338. Göteborg and ERSPC trial data.

29. Bell et al. (2015), “Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies.” International Journal of Cancer. PMC4682465.

30. Jahn et al. (2015), “The high prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer at autopsy: implications for epidemiology and treatment of prostate cancer in the PSA-era.” PMC4485977.

31. Lin (2024), “Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer in the Active Surveillance Era.” American Family Physician Community Blog.

32. Infectious Complications After Transrectal Versus Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2025). European Urology Open Science. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2025.

33. Sepsis rates after template prostate biopsy with single-dose prophylactic antibiotic (2022). PMC9326692.

34. Hu et al. (2024), “Transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsy — The PREVENT randomized clinical trial.” JAMA Oncology, 10:1590–3.

35. Casadevall & Pirofski (2000), “Host-Pathogen Interactions: Basic Concepts of Microbial Commensalism, Colonization, Infection, and Disease.” Infection and Immunity, 68(12):6511–6518. PMC97744.

36. “Integrating research on bacterial pathogens and commensals to fight infections — an ecological perspective” (2024). The Lancet Microbe. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00049-1.

37. Manfredo Vieira et al. (2023), “Mechanisms and consequences of gut commensal translocation in chronic diseases.” PMC7053960. Also: “Systemic Immunoregulatory Consequences of Gut Commensal Translocation” (2023). PMC10110348.

38. Vaishnavi (2021), “Translocation of gut flora and its role in sepsis.” Indian Journal of Gastroenterology. PMID:24064638.

39. Martin et al. (2016), “Diabetes and Risk of Surgical Site Infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” PMC4914132.

40. Gan (2013), “Host Susceptibility Factors to Bacterial Infections in Type 2 Diabetes.” PLOS Pathogens. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003794.

41. Abt & Pamer (2014), “Commensal bacteria mediated defenses against pathogens.” PMC4132187.

42. Abt & Artis (2013), “The dynamic influence of commensal bacteria on the immune response to pathogens.” PMC3622187.

43. Ablin & Piana (2014), The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. Palgrave Macmillan. (Shane Greenstein case.)

44. Tuncel et al. (2008), “Impact of transrectal prostate needle biopsy on erectile function.” Urology. Cited in Scholz, The Key to Prostate Cancer.

45. Horan, The Big Scare: The Business of Prostate Cancer. Thompson et al. 1982 transperineal advocacy; direct bacteremia comparison data; Stamey autopsy-based mortality calculation (1 in 380).

---

New Biology Clinic

For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com