Dr. Herazy,
I have received my first shipment of treatment supplies and am beginning my treatment, thank you. My wife had an observation about my scar that prompted us to ask you this question. I was circumcised as a baby (it was common practice in the 40’s) and have always thought they did a lousy job of it. I have always had an excess of skin on one side if my penis, and thought it looked gross. It just so happens that my Peyronies scar is in the same area. Also my herpes out breaks would take place in this same area. The question is: have all men with PD been circumcised, and could this be a possible cause of this terrible disease?
Thank you for your insight on this question.
Sincerely,
Lou

Greetings Lou, 

There is no statistical differentiation or predetermining factor for location of the Peyronie’s disease scar in regard to circumcision.   Men with an intact prepuce or foreskin  (uncircumcised) are just as likely to develop PD as those who have the prepuce removed (circumcised).  

Actually, on a purely theoretical and philosophical level, I would suppose that men who are uncircumcised (with a foreskin) have a slight advantage to not develop Peyronie’s disease.  I conjecture that an uncircumcised man is slightly less likely to develop PD because he has a certain level of protection against injury working for him during intercourse that his circumcised counterpart does not have.  The presence of the foreskin acts during intercourse to prevent evaporation and “leakage” of normal sexual lubricating fluids that are produced by both the man and woman.  In this way the uncircumcised man is more likely on a theoretically level to not have a “sex accident” in which the penis is suddenly bent when it rubs or presses against an area where the vagina is dry.   In actual practice I have no idea if this would actually show up as a statistically significant factor, but who knows?