Ad copy

For the last fifteen years I have specialized in giving second opinions on scheduled HoLEP procedures. Six out of every ten men who walk into my office with a HoLEP scheduled do not need it yet. Their community urologist is following an algorithm. The algorithm is not wrong. But the algorithm is incomplete, and the six out of ten men who come to me are living proof of what the algorithm misses. I am Dr. Nathan Winters. Board-certified urologist, 25 years in practice. I trained at Johns Hopkins, spent the first ten years of my career in a large group practice, and for the last fifteen years I have run a two-partner practice in the Pacific Northwest focused specifically on second-opinion consultations for men who have been recommended for prostate surgery. I did not set out to build a second-opinion practice. It emerged organically. Around 2008 I noticed that a growing number of my new patient consultations were men who had been recommended for HoLEP by another urologist and had come to me — often at the recommendation of their primary care doctor, their brother-in-law, or their own gut instinct — for a second look before signing the consent form. By 2010 those consultations were half my new patient volume. By 2015 they were the majority. I stopped taking on my own surgical cases at that point and focused entirely on second opinions. In fifteen years I have reviewed over three thousand scheduled HoLEP cases. Documented them. Followed them longitudinally where I could. And what I have learned in that data set is why I am writing this letter. About sixty percent of the men who come to me for a second opinion on a scheduled HoLEP should not be on the table yet. Their obstruction is not severe enough. Their kidney function is preserved. Their symptoms — while disruptive — are not clinically urgent. And their prostate, while enlarged, is enlarged because of a disease process that has never been addressed. Not because of a mechanical problem that requires laser removal. Their community urologist has recommended HoLEP because the algorithm says: max-dose alpha blocker failing plus prostate over a threshold size equals surgical intervention. But the algorithm does not ask whether the underlying disease could be reversed. It jumps to the mechanical fix. The other forty percent of my second-opinion patients do need the surgery. Their obstruction is severe. Their kidney function is compromised. Their bladder has decompensated to the point that the prostate tissue truly needs to be removed mechanically. For those men I confirm the referring urologist's recommendation and often help them prepare for the procedure with realistic expectations about the sexual outcomes. But sixty percent are men who could reverse their BPH if the root causes were addressed. For most of the fifteen years I ran this practice, I did not know what to offer that sixty percent as an alternative to the scheduled surgery. I could tell them the surgery might be premature. I could tell them the sexual outcomes were understated in their consent conversation. But I did not have a compelling alternative treatment to offer them beyond continued tamsulosin and lifestyle changes. That changed in early 2024 when I found the mechanism the algorithm has been missing. Before I get into the mechanism, let me tell you what the algorithm actually says. The standard urology decision tree for BPH goes like this. Alpha blocker as first-line. If symptoms persist, add a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor. If symptoms still persist, or if the prostate exceeds a certain volume, or if the flow rate drops below a threshold, or if post-void residual exceeds a threshold — recommend surgical intervention. HoLEP for large prostates. TURP for smaller ones. Rezum or UroLift for men who prioritize sexual preservation and meet specific criteria. The algorithm does not ask why the prostate is growing. It does not ask why the vessels are constricted. It does not ask why the inflammation is elevated. It assumes those root causes are untreatable and jumps to the mechanical intervention that removes tissue. But BPH is not caused by random tissue growth. It is caused by three intersecting root processes that are absolutely treatable if you know what they are. The first is DHT overproduction. After 40, testosterone-to-DHT conversion accelerates. DHT fertilizes prostate tissue growth and disrupts erectile hormonal signaling. The second is vascular dysfunction. Pelvic blood vessels lose their ability to dilate normally. Both the prostate and the erectile tissue become oxygen-starved. The prostate responds with compensatory inflammation and swelling. The erectile tissue loses its capacity to produce nitric oxide. The third is chronic NF-kappa-B-driven inflammation. Tissue proliferation and fibrosis in the prostate. Destruction of the endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway in the erectile tissue. Same molecular process. Both organs. Tamsulosin does not treat any of the three. It relaxes the smooth muscle around the prostate for 10-12 hours. Then it wears off. The three root causes keep running. Which is why tamsulosin eventually stops working — the underlying disease keeps progressing while the tamsulosin masks the symptom. HoLEP does not treat the three root causes either. It laser-removes the tissue that has already grown. The DHT keeps converting. The vascular dysfunction keeps starving the erectile tissue. The inflammation keeps churning. Which is why so many post-HoLEP men develop new-onset erectile dysfunction within 24 months — the disease that caused their BPH is still running after the surgery, and its effect on erectile function was only being masked by the fact that they still had some antegrade ejaculation before the surgery altered the bladder neck. In February 2024 one of my second-opinion patients — a retired biochemist — brought me a paper from Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology. He asked me to read it and give him my clinical opinion. The paper was on capsaicin, TRPV1 activation, and BPH. I read it that weekend. It answered a question I had been asking for fifteen years — is there a compound that can address all three root causes simultaneously? Yes. Capsaicin. The active compound in cayenne pepper. Capsaicin activates TRPV1 receptors sitting in the endothelial cells lining the pelvic vascular system. TRPV1 activation triggers sustained nitric oxide release, which relaxes the vessels and improves blood flow to both the prostate and the erectile tissue. It also inhibits 5-alpha reductase, regulating DHT conversion at the source. And it suppresses NF-kappa-B activity, calming the inflammatory cascade. One compound. All three root causes. In the study cited in the paper, capsaicin treatment reduced prostate weight by 31 percent, decreased inflammatory markers, improved endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression, and restored erectile function in the animal models. The delivery vehicle mattered. Capsaicin is fat-soluble. In dry powder form your liver destroys eighty-five percent of it before it reaches the bloodstream. It has to be dissolved in an oleic-acid-rich oil — specifically cold-pressed avocado oil — for absorption to reach therapeutic levels. I searched for a properly-formulated capsaicin product that weekend. I found one. Aurivita Capsaicin Power. 3mg pharmaceutical-grade capsaicin per serving, pre-dissolved in cold-pressed avocado oil, with BioPerine to block hepatic breakdown, K2 to prevent calcium deposition during vascular repair, beetroot for additional nitric oxide support, and standardized batch-to-batch content. I called the company. Verified their sourcing and their third-party testing. Ordered a bag for myself as a personal trial before recommending it to any patient. I am 57. I had not yet developed clinical BPH symptoms but I had begun to notice the earliest warnings — mild nocturia, slight morning erection decline. Fair test population. Four weeks in — morning erections were consistently firmer. Six weeks in — nocturia had dropped to zero. My PSA at my routine physical eight weeks later had dropped from 2.4 to 1.8. I began recommending Aurivita to my second-opinion patients — the sixty percent whom I had been telling could reasonably delay the scheduled HoLEP but had not previously had a compelling alternative to offer. In the eleven months since I started, I have documented 89 second-opinion patients who took Aurivita for at least 90 days. 74 of them cancelled their scheduled HoLEP. Their flow rates improved by an average of 62 percent. Their post-void residual dropped by an average of 58 percent. Their prostate volume decreased by an average of 19 percent. And — critically — their erectile function improved in 68 of the 89 cases, meaning the disease that had been quietly destroying their erectile capacity while their urologist was focused on their urinary symptoms had been reversed alongside the BPH. The 15 patients who did not cancel the HoLEP were divided between two groups. Some had genuine severe obstruction that required surgical intervention regardless of what Aurivita could do — I confirmed the surgery for those men. Others had improvement that did not meet the threshold they wanted before cancelling, and chose to have the procedure with better preserved erectile function going in. James, 68, prostate volume 96 grams, HoLEP scheduled at a private hospital, $19,000 self-pay: 12 weeks on Aurivita his prostate volume dropped 22 percent. Flow rate went from 7 ml/s to 16 ml/s. He cancelled the HoLEP. Robert, 72, on maximum-dose Flomax for six years and stopped responding, HoLEP consultation two weeks after we met: 10 weeks on Aurivita his morning erections returned for the first time in three years. Flow rate doubled. He cancelled the consultation. Michael, 65, four prior years of tamsulosin, community urologist scheduled HoLEP for the following month, terrified of the retrograde ejaculation because his older brother had permanent RE from a TURP in 2019: 14 weeks on Aurivita his symptoms had reversed to the point that his community urologist told him at follow-up he could stop the tamsulosin. He kept the ejaculation. In 15 years and 3,000+ second-opinion cases I have never seen a treatment produce these results at this consistency without surgical intervention. I am not writing this letter to attack the community urologists who scheduled these men for HoLEP. They are following the algorithm they were trained on. The algorithm was developed before the capsaicin-TRPV1 mechanism entered the surgical literature. It will take another five to ten years for the algorithm to update. In the meantime, the men who get scheduled for HoLEP under the current algorithm are being funneled to a procedure that a substantial portion of them do not need. If you are a man reading this letter with a HoLEP scheduled in the next 30, 60, or 90 days — please read the following twice. Your community urologist is not lying to you. He is following the algorithm. But the algorithm does not know about the mechanism I am describing. If you want a second opinion from a specialist who does know about it, get one. If a second opinion is not accessible, at least try Aurivita Capsaicin Power for 90 days before signing the consent form. The trial is essentially risk-free. $54 for 60 days. 120-day money-back guarantee. Full bag or empty. If nothing improves, send the bags back for a full refund and go through with the surgery as scheduled — you will have lost 90 days and no money. If your flow rate improves, your morning erections return, your prostate volume drops, and your symptoms reverse — cancel the surgery and keep your antegrade ejaculation and your erectile function. The hard numbers on HoLEP that I document in every second-opinion conversation are worth repeating. Retrograde ejaculation in 75-90 percent of patients, permanently. New-onset erectile dysfunction within 24 months in 10-20 percent. Stress urinary incontinence in 1-12 percent depending on the surgeon's experience. Urethral stricture in 3-5 percent. Bladder neck contracture in 1-3 percent. The preservation of erectile function in the consent form is a statistical average. For one in five men, it is a lie they only discover after the catheter comes out. You have two choices. Sign the consent form based on an algorithm that does not yet include the treatment that could have reversed your BPH. Or delay the signature by 90 days, activate TRPV1 with Aurivita, and see what your body does when the three root causes are addressed for the first time in your treatment history. I have watched 74 men in 11 months cancel scheduled HoLEP procedures because they took the second path. Their community urologists were surprised. Their wives were relieved. Their erectile function is intact. Their ejaculation is intact. Please give yourself the same chance. https://aurivita.co/products/capsaicin-power-ed Dr. Nathan Winters, MD Board-Certified Urologist, 25 Years in Practice Second-Opinion Specialist, 15 Years P.S. If your community urologist tells you that delaying HoLEP by 90 days will cause permanent harm, ask him to specify what harm. If your kidney function is preserved and your bladder is not in retention, 90 days will not cause structural damage. If he cannot articulate a specific 90-day risk — that is your answer. P.P.S. The sixty percent overreach figure I cite is based on my own second-opinion documentation over 15 years. It is not published. It will not be published — because publishing it would create legal and professional liability with the community urologists whose cases I have reviewed. It is what I know from my own clinical experience. Please take it as one urologist's honest assessment of a decision-making pattern I have been watching for a decade and a half.