I just watched Hink's YouTube Video and would like to respond to some of the positive and negative comments. Some of the criticisms that he makes are actually acknowledged in the paper. And I have presented this study at the International Society of Sexual Medicine meeting and more recently at the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. These meetings are filled with highly trained and experienced Academic Urologists and Researchers who give both positive and negative feedback.
I have offered to make a joint video with Hink because I feel that it is important to be transparent and to educate the public on what is real and what is fiction.
The issues raised include:
1) The supplement is underdosed (therefore the efficacious dose is not reached) I would disagree. There has only been one study looking at nitric oxide boosting and erectile function and it used 3 grams of L-citrulline. In addition, Affirm has beet root extract. See my article in Muscle & Fitness for more details:
https://www.muscleandfitness.com/features/from-our-partners/how-nitric-oxide-boosts-performance/
2) The study used pump pressure that was way too low (5-10mmhg), which is supposedly 1/10 of the commonly used pressure for PE purposes (later specified that he thinks your recommendation was actually 5-10 inches of mercury) with the Kaplan Pump, a pressure of 5 is usually enough to get a full erection. I ask patients to pump about 10% beyond a full erection. If you go beyond 10%, patients will get capillary rupture and purple discoloration of the head of the penis. The pressure gauge is a guide.
3) P-Shot has no evidence / is not effective for PE - only reason why it was included in the study was to increase sales since it's a relatively simple and high margin procedure, anecdotal reports from the PE community show no improvement apart from increased EQ. It is correct that a single P-Shot is not effective for penile enhancement. This study looks at six monthly shots with 60 cc blood draw and a highly concentrating system. In addition, I developed and teach an ultrasound guided placement. PRP accelerates tissue growth. There are literally hundreds of papers showing this to be the case in the orthopedic, hair growth, dental, and wound healing literature. Use of PRP has nothing to do with financial incentive. It has to do with accelerating the results of traction and suction.
4) At home measurements are flawed / lack of photographic evidence and inhouse measurements despite the study participants being physically present at your facility each month to receive their P-Shot At home measurements are a good way to document length and girth. Injecting men with Trimix and measuring is the gold standard, but I am in private practice and do not have the resources for a study like that. The RestoreX study was done at the Mayo Clinic. BrandeisMD is a great place but it does not come close to the resources of the Mayo Clinic. I did the best that I could with the resources that I have. That being said, I have done research at the American Red Cross with Harold Merryman, the Doctor who figured out how to freeze blood for transfusion, I have done Howard Hughes Medical Institute sponsored research at Harvard Medical School with the group that won the Nobel Prize for doing the first successful kidney transplant, and at UCLA Department of Urology where I earned almost a million dollars of grant money for my prostate cancer research. I do have some research credentials.
5) "
You are financially motivated in publishing a positive result (P-Shot and supplement being available from your Clinic, possibly receiving commission from restoreX)."
It is true that I will benefit financially if P-Long becomes successful, but the same could be said for almost any medical device or protocol company. However, P-Long is only a small part of what I do. it seems that you are implying that I am falsifying data for financial gain. That is an unfounded and frankly offensive assertion, especially from someone who wears a mask to hide his identity. My credentials and body of work are easily discoverable and accurate. I would never make claims that were not backed up by my research, and by the fact that i treated each of the patients in the study and got their stories directly. There is no substitute in medicine for face to face contact and discussion.
6) Too many variables - impossible to differentiate which of the procedures had the biggest impact, and which had no significant effect. I agree that this is a multivariate study and it is difficult to determine what is doing what. However, I feel that it is a combination that makes the study significant. We know from the Phallosan study 20 years ago that if you use a stretching device 9 hours a day for six months, that you can grow the length of the penis. However, most people with jobs can't spend that kind of time stretching their penis. P-Long is a protocol that most guys can do, and it was designed that way.
7) Gaining almost an inch in length in six months despite using the stretching device for very limited time daily (goes against the common experience among PE practitioners) use of the RestoreX was 20 minutes twice a day. In the Mayo Clinic study on Peyronie's disease, the average growth was 1.7 cm over a similar time period with 30-60 minutes of stretching a day. These results are very consistent. Using the PRP, affirm and pump should accelerate the results. This is the paper:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33223425/
Do you think that critique was fair? Some of the critique was reasonable, and most of these points I address in the paper and in my presentations at the professional scientific meetings. The assertion that I did this purely for financial gain or that the data is fraudulent is unfounded and offensive. Someone in the PE community should be happy that a real medical researcher is using resources to study this issue, instead of chasing me away and telling me how I was wrong.
In fact, i am so confident in the protocol that we have five men doing the P-Long protocol at cost and posting images and results on PhalloBoards. That is transparent!
I offered to speak with Hink on YouTube. I have no ill will. My goal is to find a way for men to achieve their goals safely and effectively at a cost that is relatively low compared to other solutions. i would be happy to work with the PE community to crowd source results to make our data and findings more robust. In fact, that is what I have started to do on PhalloBoards and the initial results that I am hearing back from our providers make me confident that my findings are reproducible in offices other than BrandeisMD.
I hope that this addresses some of the issues.
Judson Brandeis MD