Chemical PE: The Long Awaited Evidence

I came across an article that captured my attention:

“Chronic papaverine treatment: the effect of repeated injections on the simian erectile response and penile tissue.”

To investigate the effect of chronic papaverine treatment, seven monkeys underwent repeated intracavernous injections for one year. One monkey died* after 56 injections; the others received a total of 100 each. The strength and duration of erection were recorded after each injection, and the erectile tissue was examined histologically at the end of the study. Over the long term, papaverine maintains its erection-inducing capability, but it does cause pathologic changes in the erectile tissue: minimal to marked fibrosis at the injection site and HYPERTROPHY** of smooth muscle in the non-injected area of the corpus.

* The death was not related to the papaverine treatment
**Hypertrophy= Increase in size

I was surprised by this so I decided to email the researchers. I asked them if the monkeys gained any girth or length from the treatment. One of the researchers said off hand that they did not. The second researcher said that they did. I will post my correspondence with this second researcher here.

Please don’t email the authors of the article yourselves. They probably won’t reply. They only replied to me because I claimed to be a urology student. If people start bombarding them with emails I will be to blame.

Here is my correspondence with the second researcher. English is not his first language.

Dear Professor xxx

I am an undergraduate student studying at Edinburgh University in the UK. In the course of my studies I came across an article that you authored in 1987: “Chronic papaverine treatment: the effect of repeated injections on the simian erectile response and penile tissue”. It is stated in the article that the subjects exhibited “hypertrophy of smooth muscle in the non-injected area of the corpus”. I was wondering if you could possibly elaborate on that. Did the entire corpus increase in size or were the effects only visible on a microscopic level?

Yours faithfully,

xxx

Dear Mr. xxx

According to your question, I didn’t measure the size of the corporeal body anatomy in the monkeys that were treated with vs. without papaverine hydrochloride. On a microscopic level, however, there was a significant and tremendous smooth muscle increase in the areas where scar formation and inflammation due to the injection was not evident. The smooth muscle hypertrophy was so strong in comparison to the control group that even a non-pathologic educated doctor or even a urologist could realize the difference immediately.

The second thing is that I would not expect that the penile in total or the smooth muscle of the corpus cavernosum does induce an increase in penile length and circumference with chronic use of papaverine hydrochloride, because the relaxation of the smooth muscle of the corpora cavernosa becomes evident when it is relaxing and the penile length and circumference is increasing according to the tremendous arterial inflow with initiation of an erection.

I hope this information will help you.

Sincerely Yours

xxx

Dear Professor XXX

Thank you very much for responding to my question. I am extremely grateful that you took the time to reply. Am I correct in thinking that chronic papaverine treatment resulted in a visible increase in the length and circumference of the simian erection? If this was the case, do you believe that this was due to prolonged hypoxia or intense intracavernosal pressure?

Yours Sincerely,

XXX

Dear Mr. XXX



Prolonged hypoxia did not occur because intracavernous blood gas analysis was performed which was published in another paper in British Journal of Urology. As long as the erection lasts up to six hours, you should have a positive balance concerning the pO2. Therefore, hypoxia is not the reason for the smooth muscle increase after the papaverine treatment. I neither believe that the intracavernous pressure is the reason for the smooth muscle increase, but rather the improved oxygenation over such a long time (one to four hours). Based on this basic knowledge I developed the Kiel concept for patients that underwent a nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. Those patients do receive Viagra 25 mg every night over a period of one year. The overall results which are published several times in various journals demonstrated, that after one and a half year the erectile capability of the patients who received Viagra every night improved more or less to the status prior to surgery in 93 % compared to those who just used Viagra on demand that did report full erection in 68 %. We also performed additional animal studies that were done in the Pfizer lab that demonstrate, that an improved oxygenation within the corporal bodies by giving Viagra enables a full recovery of the erectile response even with a reduced arterial inflow under neurostimulation induced penile erection. It clearly demonstrates, that an increase in the oxygenized smooth musculature is the key point for improvement and recovery of the full erectile function.


I hope this will help you further.

Yours Sincerely


XXX

Dear Professor XXX

Thanks again for replying to my questions. It is a great privilege to receive knowledge this way. I have one final question about the study: Did the chronic papaverine treatment visibly increase the erect length and circumference of the entire penile organ?

Yours Sincerely,

XXX

(from his secretary)

Dear Mr. XXX



Prof. XXX asked me to send you the following reply:



He did not measure it, but he thinks it did.



Hope this will help you – sorry for the late reply.



Kind regards

XXX

So there you have it. Definative proof from an expert that the chronic use of ED meds like papaverine or caverject can cause your penis to grow. What works for monkeys will probably work for humans. The monkeys would not have practised a mannual routine during the treatment.

Pubmed Link:

Chronic papaverine treatment: the effect of repeated injections on the simian erectile response and penile tissue., Abozeid M et al, Journal of Urologoly, 1987 Nov;138(5):1263-6

Second named researcher is KP Juenemann.

The source of the article is:

J Urol. 1987 Nov;138(5):1263-6.
Abozeid M, Juenemann KP, Luo JA, Lue TF, Yen TS, Tanagho EA.
Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143.

I decided to blank out the researcher’s name for various reasons.

It is a breach of trust to publish private correspondence on the internet. I am grateful that he replied and don’t want people bombarding him with emails. The appearance of his name on a site like this could potentially undermine his professional reputation.

He is one of the six guys listed above.

I emailed all six and only two responded

Yeah, blanking out the name ain’t going to cut it if you post the abstract. I posted the pubmed link above.

It is good form to ask whether you can post private correspondence. Most researchers are happy with that unless your are discussing their fetish for used tampons rather than the research. When I contact someone about their research, I tell them in the initial mail that I would like to use any correspondence but most assume it anyway.

At least this thread is now out of Google’s way.

Anyone got access to the full PDF?

Obviously he would not have been happy with me posting this on a PE forum, which is why I blanked out his name.

What do you mean out of google’s way?

You’d be surprised.

Google will index all the stuff from the public forums, so this guy - on googling for his research would have found this thread pretty easily.

He published it back in 1987 so I’m sure he is not that bothered. Two or three of the six researchers are now retired.

You are sure of an awful lot there london.

Definitive proof? One of researcher said size did not increase, the other one that ‘he think’ they did.

BTW, I seriously doubt smooth muscle hypertrophy can have significant effects on size, since the constraining structure is TA. Enlarging TA will cause increased size even if smooth muscle tissue remains the same, as showed by surgery.

I value the second researcher’s testimony more than the first’s.

The first guy just said off hand that nothing happened. His reply was only one sentence long. He sounded like he didn’t want to be pestered.

The second guy went into great detail.

The fact that he did not measure the size increase, but was pretty sure that it was there is a good sign.

It suggests that it was immediately obvious to the naked eye.

He gives the impression that substatial visible enlargement took place.

Google has london’s post on PEGym in the ten spot when using the search terms Chronic papaverine treatment.

The full PDF is available for free on request from the University of California library website. There is a live chat service. The librarians will explain how to order it. I have read the full text version. It does not really provide much information of interest.

It’s totally arbitrary. If he saw enlargement, he had measured. Add that many have tried CPE on this very same board, and has been pretty much a failure. Anyway papaverine is not the best chemical erection drug and by what I know is also prettey expensive. Vacuum pumping seems absolutely similar to what CPE can do and is much safer and less expensive.

It’s not the same. With pumping there is poor oxygenation, in fact you have to remove it every 20 minutes. With polonged erection the penis is always full oxygenated.
That’s quite different.

The fact that papaverine is not the most effective ED med is a good sign. It means that chronic use of even a relatively ineffective med can cause growth. It implies that a more effective med like Caverject or Tri-mix would work way better.

It is not totally arbitrary. A reply of several hundred words is worth more than a single sentence. If you asked two doctors whether or not pe works and one said “no, stop wasting my time” and the other said “yes because studies have shown that blah blah blah…” that second response would be worth more.

I don’t understand why people keep saying that chem pe has been a failure. There are many guys claiming to have had success (obviously they could be trolling or scamming). Go to advanced search and type in the word “chemical” 7/9 of the thread starters claimed to have had success.

The fact that the scientist did not measure the monkeys is not necessarily a bad sign. The aim of the study was not to induce enlargement. He would have looked weird had he got a ruler out and started measuring. The fact that it was immediately obvious to the naked eye says a lot.

I have tried pumping and had limited length gains, but no girth gains.

I tried clamping without success.

My objective is to gain girth