Significant improvement in group 3 of Xiaflex + restorex.
Thank you for sharing this, it is really encouraging.
The only "concern" about this study is the conflict of interest: Dr. Trost, the senior author of the paper, is one of the developer of RestoreX and
he obviously has a financial interest in publishing these types of studies. So it is hard to really understand how much these results are really unbiased. It would be great to see an independent study, from someone who does not have financial interest in either a traction device or in Xiaflex.
Verifiably false statements: Dr. Trost has no financial interest in the sale of RestoreX
Dr Trost was given the option by Mayo to actually conduct tests and report improvements and do research on it to find the efficacy or to choose royalty/ money from the device but give up on reporting results. He chose the former. You can trust these studies.
Sorry but I disagree.
A statement claiming unverified credentials deleted by the administrator.
Dr. Trost has clear conflict of interests in these studies and in RestoreX. He previously worked at Mayo, so your argument is not really strong.
In the studies that he did when her combined traction devices+Xiaflex he compared RestoreX only to other very "crappy" traction devices. He did not compare it to PeniMaster PRO for instance, but only to very old and bad devices. This is not how one should make scientific studies: if you want to show that a traction device is better, you should compare it with the best existing ones on the market, not only to old and bad ones.
Hello. I notice that on your posts you say that you are a doctor and by what I found apparently a urologist too. Reading your short post history I wonder about the eagerness to cast doubt on restorex and Doctor Landon's work ethic and results with his device. We are all allowed to have an opinion, of course. It just so happens that in your case you seem misinformed on a lot of the points you make.
Why don't you head on to Dr Trost's try own section on this board and as a fellow colleague of him you ask him all those questions and address your concerns on the Legitimacy of the device?
Everything that you casted doubt on has been asked, explained and debunked by him. Please, do so at your earliest convenience.
Quote from: Bak on October 27, 2021, 12:42:41 AM
The only "concern" about this study is the conflict of interest: Dr. Trost, the senior author of the paper, is one of the developer of RestoreX and he obviously has a financial interest in publishing these types of studies.
Bak, you claim to be a scientist without any evidence, yet your research is so sloppy and so loose with facts that you boldly make VERIFIABLY FALSE statements in your first couple of posts on the forum. Then you immediately make yourself look more suspicious by pushing penimaster pro. Unlike you, we will give you the benefit of the doubt until we verify whether you are plain ignorant or another con artist.
You might be interested in the easily verifiable FACT that Dr. Trost has NO financial gain from the sales of RestoreX. No professional would cast such aspersions on another doctor without knowing the facts. You owe the forum and the professional you disparaged an apology. We will be waiting.
After your apology you might explain why you are posting on a 3 year ol buried topic.
It is not my interest to bring bad light on anyone here, Dr. Trost included. I just wanted to say that, scientific studies are done by following a scientific method, which is very precise and follows certain rules.
I also wanna make clear that I am not here to advertise any device. I have never used PenimasterPro, I have instead been using RestoreX personally, and that is why I know so much about the studies related to this device and Dr. Trost.
I welcome the proposal to go to the Q&A session in this forum to ask Dr. Trost all my concerns. Thank you for the advice.
I am sorry if my previous post/comments sounded as "an attack" to any of you or to any "device". That was not my intention. My intention is to bring scientific evidence, whenever possible. If a scientific study is promising but lacks scientific rigor, my intention is to say it to this community, so that people can know what to expect. If a study has all the scientific rigor, my intention is to say that that specific study is well done.
Now, in relation to my previous posts: I just wanted to say that the studies done by Dr. Trost regarding RestoreX lack a comparison with the most advanced devices in the market. If you invent a new car and want to claim that is faster than any other car, you should prove that your car is faster than the fastest cars on the market. You don't make that claim by comparing your car with cars which are "average" in the speed category. This is how science works: you have a better method/device, you should prove it is better than the BEST existing ones.
In the studies that I read about RestoreX, this device is not compared to the BEST existing devices on the market. Does this means RestoreX is bad? No, it doesn't. It only means that it doesn't prove that it is the best device, and this doesn't prove that it is not either. It would have been better to have a comparison with the best devices on the market, that would have added scientific rigor/solidity to the study, and it would have clarified all of us a lot of things.
I have personally purchased RestoreX anyway, even after reading these studies which did not fully satisfied me. Because despite of the above, I still think it is one of the best devices on the market and, as far as I know, the only one which makes counter-curvature.
Does Dr. Trost have an interest in selling RestoreX? I don't know. Some people here say he does not have financial interest, but I read that he contributed designing the device. I think it did not do it for free and probably he's happy if the device gets popular. I do not have information to claim that he has financial interest, that is true, but I suppose he might (this is my speculation, so take it as such).
Lastly, I want to clarify that I have huge respect for Dr. Trost: he is one of the leaders in the studies about Peronye's disease, a terrible disease which effects many of us, me included. So I wish him the best and wish that he continues to study more in this direction and I hope that more urologists do the same.
Now, I hope this clarify my initial intentions. The truth about science must be said, and in science there are not idols, nor myths. There is only what is scientific solid and what is not, what is scientific true and what is not.
All the best to all of you