Yes chester, that is the concern. But I\'m taking it further based also on your former statements. I imagine starting a sexual encounter with a rigid
Erection, gets bigger and softer as I continue pumping my partner due to swelling. Afterwards I sit with an \"inactive bat between my legs\" and feeling frustrated because of \"recovery interfering with multiple sessions\". These are immediate and short term concerns, the long term concerns come later, even more hazardous.
Now, how many guys took the plunge NOT KNOWING about thiese phenomena, how many\'s decision could have been affected if they KNEW, how many are being affected now KNOWING these concerns?
For briceb and manitou, objectivity in a research is recording EVERYTHING about EVERY aspect of the research. A scientific procedure not opinion. Transparancy is about WHY there is, or is not, a certain level of objectivity. 10003 did not report his experience with swelling because he didn\'t make anything much of it - a legit reason. But what about others? We are maybe five or six years into
PMMA in the dicks and the swellings occuring ever since but no reporting of them. I should like each and every one of the cards on the deck to be placed face up on the table, especially as this forum is viewed as having the most honesty driven reputation - there was a time when the forum was seen as a pro
PMMA, Dr C platform; when even SO was alleged to be Dr C himself; when raising a voice against
PMMA or Dr C would draw gunfire. So, was there ego, was there OMERTA, was there a keeping in line? Whatever the reasons, \"scientific\" transparency can be questioned.
For the rest of us, I wish there can be more input about the inflammation issues raised in this thread ...