If as you say 50% of men self heal from peyronies disease, what empirical evidence do you have that any of your treatments are actually effective? Testimonials of cures are to be expected in any group of men whether they take your medication or a placebo. What evidence do you have that your medication is better than a placebo?
Greetings,
Thank you for your valuable and interesting question.
Empirical evidence is taken from or by way of naturalistic experience or observation, as well direct experimental procedures. It serves to defy or support a scientific theory or a working hypothesis that is under study.
For those who have spent any time reading the PDI website, you know that I have repeatedly reported that at this time it is not possible for me to conduct research or scientific investigation as is conducted by the government, large universities, medical research hospitals or pharmaceutical companies. I do the best I can under the circumstances I work under. I am limited to the reports and communication about success and failure I receive from men who choose to follow the PDI concept of Peyronie's treatment. This information is provided to me on a volunteer basis by men during their self-directed treatment, so it is understood that I do not have any way to control how each plan is conducted or to verify the accuracy of the information that is received.
When early medical research was done with natural therapies like vitamin E, or acetyl-L-carnitine, or PABA, or quercetin, on Peyronie's disease the effects were often positive. You can read these early reports in which all of these were found to have positive effects to reduce the Peyronies plaque or reduce advancement of penile distortion. They all seem to end with the comment that would go something like, "Further investigation should be done based on these positive outcomes to verify these results." Of course, since there is no profit or advantage in a drug company testing a common nutrient, no further testing is ever done. No one is interested in the results of combining natural enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and performing gentle manual stretching because these ideas represent no business opportunity.
From the information I have gathered over the last 10 years while working with men who have Peyronies, I estimate that about half of these men have had their Peyronie's disease for 18 months or less, and the other half have had their Peyronie's disease for more than 18 months (many start their PDI-based treatment with a history of Peyronie's disease of five years duration, and a few have had their problem for 10 years or more). Based on my feedback from these men, there does not seem to be much difference in the rate or degree of improvement between these two groups, or in the types of problems or difficulties they encounter while under care. It seems that the body is able to heal or correct a newer (18 months or less) case of PD about as easily as an older (18 months or more) case of PD. This 18-month time reference point is important because it is rather commonly maintained that any case of PD that will spontaneously heal or self-correct will do so before the 18th month; after 18 months the PD is considered permanent. This is the reason so many surgeons will wait until a case of Peyronie's disease has reached the 18 month mark, since at this time the condition is thought to be stable and permanent.
When I worked to develop the treatment plan that eventually became the PDI concept of Peyronies treatment I had my PD for about 18 months. Many men who report back to me their positive results have had their problem for 2-4-6 years or more. All of these cases are considered permanent and stable by medical standards. Any change or reversal of the size, shape, density or surface features of their PD scar mass or change in their deformed or curved penis would have to be considered clinically significant.
At this time I am not interested in conducting blind studies with placebos with men who have Peyronies. After 10 years of work I am at a point where I still improving and expanding the PDI treatment protocol. It would be wrong for me to conduct research in this way that would deny every man the opportunity to reverse his problem. Keep in mind that I am not attempting to make pigs fly; the PDI concept is really not all that extraordinary or extreme. All we are attempting to do is to increase or support the natural ability of the body to heal and repair PD that tends to occur in about 50% of the men who develop this condition. For many men who take the time to read the information on this website the idea of natural healing makes sense. I suppose it all comes down to the question of, "Do you think it is possible to help the body heal if you improve your nutrition and do a few common sense things that assist the process of recovery like tissue detoxification, simple stretching and increase of blood flow?"
You are viewing this work while it is its early stages, as the men are told when they read the PDI website. Testimonials and personal communication is what many medical ideas have developed from in the past. You are seeing this idea at that stage of development. I do not know if that should be a reason for condemnation of this work. Many men who need treatment for Peyronies disease understand the basic concept of supporting the ability to heal and repair and give the process a try. Many who do it well find good results.
I completely understand your concern and interest in evidence of treatment efficacy, and comparison to placebo response. However, keep in mind that all the glowing praise and approval for a drug that passes through government, university, medical research hospital, or pharmaceutical company research is no guarantee of effectiveness or safety of those same drugs or procedures. So much of the kind of proof that you ask about seems to make very little difference to the people who use those approved drugs in the real world. So many of the drugs that pass through rigorous research tests, and perform so much better than placebos, only come to fail to get results with actual patients or are found to be dangerous because of the side-effects and dangerous complications they cause.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to explore and discuss this question. Perhaps in time this idea will be taken up by a large research group when I have gathered more evidence and weight of public opinion. TRH
