TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

hoddle10 wrote:

xander86 wrote: To me, why it is relevant, is because it gives an idea of the long term safety of PMMA, no matter where it is in the body. Yes, we still don\'t know 20 years plus. Also, just so people are aware that lumps can appear even 10 years after injections, and no one on this board can say that won\'t happen, as none here has had it that long. Steroid injections can resolve the issues but leave indents and in some cases once stopped being used, the same problem returned.

I posted the lumps/inflammation link for members who are suffering from it on here with inflammation, as people with PMMA discussed treatment to reduce inflammations / size of lumps / nodules.

Not really as there are more immune cells in the skin than at deeper levels. So the chances of immune reaction aren\'t the same.

Also we know that particulate fillers do have different complication rates in different parts of the body. The lips are a dynamic organ, hence Artefil shouldn\'t be used there.

The carrier should also make a difference, as it\'s been reported that clumping of beads is the cause of problems. So from that point of view, it also tells us that concentration plays a part.

Most importantly though, I wouldn\'t invest too much in any of these studies. My experience of medical studies for products with a cosmetic application, is that so often they produce massively different results to what we see reported in the real world. The Arfetil studies make it seem like the chances of FBG are something like 1 in 100, if my memory serves correct. But personally I\'d be amazed if that we true. It could easily prove to be 10 or 20 times that amount.

Honestly, in my opinion, by far the best resource for studying PMMA for PE is PhalloBoards. This is why it\'s best to wait on the sidelines and observe. I know this is frustrating as we all want a bigger penis asap, but no matter how why try and spin it, the history of PMMA use doesn\'t really give us enough information to make a considered decision and therefore only the desperate should be pioneers in my opinion. The variable are too great, as things like carrier, amount injected, area injected and concentration really can have a significant impact. Hence a study of a 20% concentration, injected into the dermis, using a bovine carrier and in tiny amounts, doesn\'t really tell us much when you consider how different all those variables are to when PMMA in used for PE.

This is why it\'s so important that people start progress reports and take the time to update them every now and again. The most annoying thing about this board is that we often have ten times more lurkers reading the forum than contributing members. This suggests far, far more people have had PMMA than we are aware of and simply not bothered sharing their experiences. Basically they read for free, learn from the experiences of others and give nothing back.

hoddle10 wrote:

hoddle10 wrote:

xander86 wrote: To me, why it is relevant, is because it gives an idea of the long term safety of PMMA, no matter where it is in the body. Yes, we still don\'t know 20 years plus. Also, just so people are aware that lumps can appear even 10 years after injections, and no one on this board can say that won\'t happen, as none here has had it that long. Steroid injections can resolve the issues but leave indents and in some cases once stopped being used, the same problem returned.

I posted the lumps/inflammation link for members who are suffering from it on here with inflammation, as people with PMMA discussed treatment to reduce inflammations / size of lumps / nodules.

Not really as there are more immune cells in the skin than at deeper levels. So the chances of immune reaction aren\'t the same.

Also we know that particulate fillers do have different complication rates in different parts of the body. The lips are a dynamic organ, hence Artefil shouldn\'t be used there.

The carrier should also make a difference, as it\'s been reported that clumping of beads is the cause of problems. So from that point of view, it also tells us that concentration plays a part.

Most importantly though, I wouldn\'t invest too much in any of these studies. My experience of medical studies for products with a cosmetic application, is that so often they produce massively different results to what we see reported in the real world. The Arfetil studies make it seem like the chances of FBG are something like 1 in 100, if my memory serves correct. But personally I\'d be amazed if that we true. It could easily prove to be 10 or 20 times that amount.

Honestly, in my opinion, by far the best resource for studying PMMA for PE is PhalloBoards. This is why it\'s best to wait on the sidelines and observe. I know this is frustrating as we all want a bigger penis asap, but no matter how why try and spin it, the history of PMMA use doesn\'t really give us enough information to make a considered decision and therefore only the desperate should be pioneers in my opinion. The variable are too great, as things like carrier, amount injected, area injected and concentration really can have a significant impact. Hence a study of a 20% concentration, injected into the dermis, using a bovine carrier and in tiny amounts, doesn\'t really tell us much when you consider how different all those variables are to when PMMA in used for PE.

This is why it\'s so important that people start progress reports and take the time to update them every now and again. The most annoying thing about this board is that we often have ten times more lurkers reading the forum than contributing members. This suggests far, far more people have had PMMA than we are aware of and simply not bothered sharing their experiences. Basically they read for free, learn from the experiences of others and give nothing back.

rockstar1111 wrote: after typing dr Casavantes horror on google

rockstar1111 wrote: HI guys I\'m leaning towards PMMA with Dr Casavantes. They mention they haven\'t had any complications but I found one guy on the internet after typing dr Casavantes horror on google so this is making me feel a bit uneasy as I live a couple thousand miles away and thought of having to go back with a complication would me but at the other end my Girth is killing me at the same time I started out with 3.9 Mseg and after 11/2 years of inconsistent Jelqing managed to get it to 4.375 Mseg so im debating whether to stick to this routine for another 2 years and then go for PMMA the wait would suck big time

Skeptical One wrote:

rockstar1111 wrote: HI guys I\'m leaning towards PMMA with Dr Casavantes. They mention they haven\'t had any complications but I found one guy on the internet after typing dr Casavantes horror on google so this is making me feel a bit uneasy as I live a couple thousand miles away and thought of having to go back with a complication would me but at the other end my Girth is killing me at the same time I started out with 3.9 Mseg and after 11/2 years of inconsistent Jelqing managed to get it to 4.375 Mseg so im debating whether to stick to this routine for another 2 years and then go for PMMA the wait would suck big time

3.9\" to 4.375\" is an excellent gain, you may want to consider sticking to your current plan since it seems to work. Sure it may take some time, but that would also give you time to continue reading about other options (e.g. PMMA, surgery, etc) before making that final decision. I started out below 4\" in Erect Girth, so I can definitely relate on the \"wait\" to increase size.