Winning the Fight

Responding to Dr. Bedlack’s Criticism of the Deanna Protocol® Plan
The webinar hosted by Dr. Bedlack for ALS Untangled criticized the Deanna Protocol® Plan. One criticism states that documentation of the DP™ Plan is faulty because it only reported on those patients who did well and did not include many other patients and, therefore, the data was biased. He is absolutely correct.
Regardless of the aforementioned bias, the fact that there are individuals who are improving and stabilizing for years (and some indefinitely) while following the DP™ Plan means that it delivers results better than those of any pharmaceutical ALS treatments on the market today. This is a fact that cannot be negated by lack of data on those who did not see improvements while on the DP™ Plan.
Regarding the bias in the data collection, Bedlack failed to mention that it is impossible to gather unbiased data because large amounts of data are nearly impossible to collect, given the limited number of PALS in any one geographic area. Winning the Fight has attempted to remedy this problem and has succeeded somewhat, but we have a ways to go. We began asking PALS to periodically record their ALSFRS scores on our website and, as a result, roughly 2,000 PALS have registered on our personal database. Those who have reported their scores have reported that they have declined less than the average amount and some have not declined at all.

In our PLOS ONE peer reviewed research paper in another sample, we reported on 40 out of 41 patients. One patient passed away. The success rate in this group was 70% with ALSFRS scores lower than the average. What happened to the PALS that did not respond? We don’t know.

Methodology vs. Common Sense
This is a situation where experts accept methodology over common sense, which is correct in most cases.  However, in cases in which patients suffer from aggressive illnesses that will kill them in two to five years, common sense must reign supreme if it leads to a better outcome for patients. If the DP™ Plan yields better results than any other solution on the market, does it really make sense to say that nobody should use it because the methodology is imperfect? If we agree to this school of thought, what we’re really saying is that PALS should choose a definite and horrible death over an imperfect methodology that can improve their quality of life and extend their lives. Would you rather die a horrible death than accept imperfection?  

Deanna Protocol® Plan vs. Pharmaceutical ALS Treatments
Neuroscientists have been trying to find a treatment to keep ALS patients alive for over 100 years, and patients continue to die within two to five years of diagnosis. The medical research community has spent many billions of dollars in this endeavor and watched tens of thousands of patients die horrible deaths. What result has this yielded? The greatest success in the ALS research community so far is a chemical called Riluzole, which extends life for 2 months and can damage the liver. Contrast the above with an over-the-counter, natural, non-harmful, metabolic solution that laboratory studies have proven effective in mice and anecdotal evidence has proven effective in humans.

The ALS association and other organizations focused on ALS research do much to benefit the ALS population. They provide services, provide assisted technology, raise awareness, and more. Despite the good these organizations do, they do a disservice to patients by overlooking the DP™ Plan, a solution that many PALS say helps. Is it a Cure? No, but it is better than nothing...which is what the medical community currently offers.

We believe that the DP™ Plan can be improved with research, but funding is necessary to continue this research. Rather than continue to waste so much money on chemicals that have little basis for their benefit to PALS, why not divert some money for research to help current PALS. Why not contribute to helping preserve their ability to function, lead more comfortable lives, and live longer lives? Ask the PALS using the DP™ Plan. Most will support the idea.

Sincerely,

Vincent M Tedone M.D., F.A.A.O.S.