Chemical PE: The Long Awaited Evidence

The secretary only confirmed what had been said in the earlier email.

Like I have said, the reason he did not take before/after measurements is because size change was not a symptom that they were initially checking for. There were no before measurements so there could be no after measurements. The size increase was recorded as an unexpected finding in the study.

Any one who is reading this. Please go back and read the full transcript on the first page of this thread.

Please ignore Marinera’s heavily edited version

Before you go telling folks what the site is or isn’t for maybe drop the pejorative assignations.

Likening what you choose to cherry-pick from a given study to believing in Santa Clause may be uncharitable, but it is a far cry from calling someone an ‘arsehole’ by insinuation. And you don’t get to pick and choose who posts where either. That’s just the way it is.

Both of you are really bright. Your back and forth is actually really valuable and informative.

Let’s look to the strength of what the forum is really about and just state our case. And possibly agree to disagree if you can go no further with logical argument.

Local and systemic effects of chronic intracavernous injection of papaverine, prostaglandin E1, and saline in primates.
Aboseif SR, Breza J, Bosch RJ, Benard F, Stief CG, Stackl W, Lue TF, Tanagho EA.
Source

Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143.
Abstract

To compare the local and systemic effects of chronic intracavernous injection of papaverine, prostaglandin E1, and saline on erectile tissue, eight pigtail monkeys underwent 75 injections over a nine-month period. Monkeys were divided into three groups; each group received papaverine (10 mg.), prostaglandin E1 (20 micrograms.), or saline (one ml.).

The erectile response was closely observed for two hours after each injection to monitor the onset, degree, and duration of erection. Liver function tests were performed every three months to detect early systemic metabolic changes. After sacrifice, the simian penises were perfused in situ and examined histologically with both light and electron microscopy.

Papaverine resulted in an initially strong erectile response, but this was maintained throughout the length of the study in only two monkeys. In contrast, prostaglandin E1 resulted in tumescence that was maintained in all monkeys over the nine-month period.

In addition, the papaverine group had elevated liver enzymes and significant histologic changes with loss of normal architecture on both light and electron microscopy. The other two groups showed only minimal histologic changes or none.

Local and systemic effects of chronic intracavernous injection of papaverine, prostaglandin E1, and saline in primates - PubMed

marinera - Chemical PE: The Long Awaited Evidence

There does appear to be some contradiction between your study and my study.
In my study Papaverine “maintains its erection inducing capacity” for all seven monkeys.

I assume that there were three monkeys in the Papaverine group in your study. It seems that only 2/3 of your monkeys managed to maintain good erectile function.

I would like to point out that I was never advocating the use of Papaverine specifically. I was just pointing out that chronic use of an ED med will result in significant growth. People who do CPE tend to use Pge-1 or Tri-mix.

The hpyertrohpy observed in the study that was called ‘the long awaited evidence’ is likely a pathologic smooth muscle hypetrophy. Not only no increase in size of the the penis, but also significative risks of structural changes of penile architecture and so potential ED.

No such significative structural changes with viagra et similars are observed (no smooth muscle hypertrophy/hyperplasia) because they don’t cause an high degree of smooth muscle pathologic changes.

Cytotoxicity of different intracavernous vasoactive drugs on cultured endothelial cells of human corpus cavernosum penis.
Schultheiss D, Pilatz A, Gabouev AI, Schlote N, Wefer J, Mertsching H, Sohn M, Jonas U, Stief CG.

bstract
OBJECTIVES:

To investigate the cytotoxic effect of prostaglandin E(1) (PGE(1)), a standard combination of papaverine/phentolamine, and a triple mixture of these agents on human cavernosal endothelial cells using a cell culture model. The endothelial layer of the corpus cavernosum plays an important role in signal transduction of penile erection and is directly exposed to vasoactive agents after intracavernous injection for erectile dysfunction.
METHODS:

Primary endothelial cells were obtained from the corpus cavernosum of 13 potent patients undergoing penile surgery. Cultured cells were exposed for 30 minutes to physiologic dilutions of 20 microg PGE(1), 30 mg papaverine/1 mg phentolamine, or the same dosages of the triple mixture of these agents, each dissolved in 5 to 50 mL sodium chloride. Lactate dehydrogenase release as a cytotoxicity marker was measured 6 hours after drug exposure, and the total cell metabolic activity was quantified after 48 hours with a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxy-phenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS)-based assay. Additionally, the amount of viable cells was identified with a dual fluorescent staining procedure.
RESULTS:

The initial release of lactate dehydrogenase was elevated up to 3.2-fold in the concentrated papaverine/phentolamine and triple mixture group compared with PGE(1) and the control. After 48 hours, the papaverine-containing formulations led to a significant dose-dependent decrease in the viable cell count and metabolic activity of the cultures that was not noticed with PGE(1).

CONCLUSIONS:

These in vitro data strongly suggest an unfavorable effect of vasoactive agents containing papaverine on cavernosal endothelial cells. Before fibrotic changes of the smooth muscle stroma, the functionally important endothelium of the corpus cavernosum might suffer significantly from intracavernous injection therapy.
Therefore, papaverine should no longer be used for this indication.

Cytotoxicity of different intracavernous vasoactive drugs on cultured endothelial cells of human corpus cavernosum penis - PubMed

In vitro viability of human cavernosal endothelial and fibroblastic cells after exposure to papaverine/phentolamine and prostaglandin E1

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of commercially available vasoactive drugs on human cavernosal endothelial and fibroblastic cells in vitro, as although corporal fibrosis is a well known side-effect of intracavernosal injection therapy for erectile dysfunction, the possible detrimental effect of these agents on the endothelium lining the cavernosal vascular spaces is uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cultured primary endothelial (13) and fibroblastic cells (12), obtained from potent patients undergoing penile surgery, were exposed to different physiological dilutions of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1), papaverine/phentolamine or the respective triple-mix of these agents for 30 min. Viable cells were counted and cell metabolic activity measured in these cultures 48 h after drug exposure.
RESULTS

There was a significant dose-dependent decrease in the viable cell count after exposure to papaverine-containing formulations, probably because of the low pH of this substance. This cytotoxic effect was more pronounced in endothelial than in fibroblastic cells, and was not apparent in the PGE1 groups. The relative increase in cell metabolic activity in cultures affected by a moderate cytotoxic effect indicated a regenerative process.

CONCLUSION

These comparative results in endothelial and fibroblastic cell cultures suggest that the endothelium rather than the interstitium of the corpus cavernosum is more sensitive to side-effects produced by intracavernosal injection therapy with papaverine. Thus, unfavourable consequences on the function of the endothelial layer might be as important as the risk of interstitial fibrosis. As these effects were not detected for PGE1 this drug should be preferred to papaverine in clinical practice.

http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … 5499.x/abstract

Long term and/or high doses intracevernous injections of prostaglandin is not without risks either:

"Sequential penile ultrasound monitoring of patients treated with chronic intracavernous prostaglandin e1

Abstract
Objectives

Clinical outcome studies of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) have shown a markedly decreased rate of palpable fibrosis and plaque formation. In this prospective study we investigate the potential of this agent to produce subclinical fibrotic changes.
Methods

Real-time high-resolution ultrasound scanning of the corpora was performed using a 7.5 to 10 MHz linear array transducer in 80 men on initiation of treatment with self-administered PGE1 and at quarterly intervals during the course of follow-up (3 to 28 months). The dorsal portion of the penile shaft was scanned in the transverse and sagittal planes from base to glans for a side by side comparison of the cavernosal tissue, evaluating local abnormalities of tissue echogenicity.

Results

Palpable lesions were not detected in any men on quarterly follow-up examination. Thirteen (16.5%) men developed new echogenic foci not present on pretreatment scanning at the following locations: proximal corpus cavernosum, subcutaneous tissues, and corpus spongiosum. These changes were observed both as single and multiple lesions ranging in size from 1 to 10 mm. The presence of these findings was independent of the etiology of impotence, dose frequency, and duration of intracavernous therapy.

Conclusions

The significance of these subclinical changes is unknown but their low incidence should be recognized when considering long-term intracavernous therapy.

http://www.gold journal.net/art … 0127-7/abstract

Thanks for this post. It does contain some useful information.

It is good that you have highlighted some of the dangers associated with Papaverine. I believe that it was once used by itself. It is now sometimes used as one of the three active ingredients in Tri-mix.

The first two studies confirm that the negative effects of Papeverine are not observed in patients using Caverject:

“A significant dose-dependent decrease in the viable cell count and metabolic activity of the cultures that was not noticed with PGE.”
“As these effects were not detected for PGE1 this drug should be preferred to papaverine in clinical practice.”

The third abstract states that 16.5% of men who use Caverject get “echogenic foci” that are unusual. They go on to say that these things are “independent of the etiology of impotence”. This means (in everyday speak) that they have nothing to do with impotence.

In other words, using caverject will potentially cause changes to your penis that are visible using ultrasound, but these changes will not effect your ability to get hard.

I take issue with your claim that the chronic use of ED meds will cause “no increase in size of the the penis”. That is nothing more than your opinion.

The professor stated very clearly (despite his imperfect English) that an increase in length and girth did take place.

I asked him if what he saw was just hypertrophy on a microscopic level, or an actual increase in length and girth. He confirmed that both took place.

I admit that I do not know this man personally. I have no more information at my disposal than you. I simply cut and pasted the emails he sent me. Perhaps I went to far with my language. My claim that this was “definative prove” was perhaps a bit of a stupid exaggeration. But this man’s testimony certainly does constitute strong evidence that CPE can work.

I think that any reasonable person reading this thread can reach the following conclusions with a good degree of certainty.

(1) The professor states that a visible increase in length and girth took place.
(2) He is a respected scientist. (Google the six authors of the paper)
(3) He did not lie to me in order to make me feel good.
(4) He did not lie to me because he has a sick sense of humour.

I admit that what we have here does not constitute proof. There obviously are still some doubts.

(1) The professor could potentially have imagined the increase in length and girth.
(2) Chronic use of PGE could potentially damage the penis resulting in a size increase, but a decline in erectile function.

I personally don’t believe that the above two possibilities are likely. That is my persoanal opinion. If you don’t share it that’s fine.

I personally would rather not argue any more about how the emails that I recieved should be interpreted. I think that pretty much everything has been said.

"The presence of these findings was independent of the etiology of impotence, dose frequency, and duration of intracavernous therapy."
My understanging is that those focis were observed in people who had ED for different causes, with different dose frequency and duration. Otherwise said, it was the Caverject per se that, even at low doses, causes changes in endothelium of the penis in at least 1/6 people.

About ED drugs and increase in penis size, there are nowadays millions of people using (and abusing) ED drugs; no paper and no anedotal evidence of an increase in penis size exists. ED drugs aren’t different than penis pills : they can give you a longer erection or restore imparied EQ, but will not give any measurable increase in size. There is a mountain of anectodal evidence and even some peer reviewed scientific paper showing gains in size through mechanical PE - vacuum devices and extender, foremostly.

I have to quote a PEGym mod here, since writing in English takes some effort on my part and what he says is exactly my same opinion:

"Well I have been reading posts on chem pe for years. Guys taking this and that, guys sticking needles into their dicks, and doing God knows what else to get bigger. In all the years I have been reading hundreds if not thousands of threads on this topic on here and other foums I have come to one simple conclusion;it doesn’t work!
……………..
I got involved with quite a few guys over the years in the chem pe stuff. I was interested from a science stand point as to how what they propose might work having some small background in science. I asked them to let me know what they gained. In all the years I have done this not one guy ever reported a gain, unless of course he was doing a good pe routine which may have given him a gain. Never has a guy told me he gained an even an inch due to some chemical mixture he either took orally or injected. Not one!"
http://www.pegy m.com/forums/ch … pe-my-view.html

So is it your opinion that the chemical side of things is only useful as an addendum to more standard, physical PE?

My personal opinion, is that erection drugs could be useful under two perspectives: first, those who have ED at a minor or major degree, could have no other choice than taking ED drugs or they wouldn’t be able to perform girth exercises; trivial, I know, but better starting with the obvious things, for sake of clarity. I think, in light of some of the posted scientific references, natural (or mechanical, as opposite to chemical) PE in the long run could prove so effective to reduce the needs for erection drugs, at least in some of the less severe cases.

The other perspective is to use erection drugs to augment the recovery rate. If really some of those chemicals are able to bring more fresh blood (which should imply more growth factors, from a theorical point of view), maybe an higher frequency without significant more risks is possible. It is just a supposition at the present stage, anyone would like to try this path should be very cautious - it could be that, actually, erection drugs, restoring EQ, could encourage overwork so higher risks of damaging the tunica albuginea. In no case I would suggest chronic use or abuse of erection drugs, though, basing on the posted literature.

I would add that no one should take medicines withouth hearing his personal physician - it’s this is not just a ‘save my ass’ sentence.

Other chemicals that have been used - PABA, DMSO, etc. - I think they will do nothing.

Summing it up, my opinion is that, as the current state of knowledge, there is just one chemical that can give gains with significative odds of success: elbow oil.

I do not mean to nit pick, but I just want to make it clear that ED drugs are not required by sufferers of ED in order to perform girth exercisees. I have severe ED and have rarely ever used ED drugs in order to perform PE exercises. They are too expensive (for me at least) to be “waisted” on PE exercises. I use them exclusively for sex. I always start with a flaccid dick and sometimes I am able to generate a 50% semi after jelqing and/or pumping. Yet, I have been able to increase my girth by at least 1/2 inch using only elbow grease (oil).

I know others have used them to help with their erect PE work. However, I just wanted to point out that they are not required.

I use DMSO daily to transport detoxified iodine through the skin of my dick to prevent scar tissue from forming as a result of Trimix injections and reverse discoloration resulting from pumping. I do not believe DMSO, on its own, has any beneficial effect on my penis. At least none that I can detect after applying it several times a day for over eight months.

I know the above are fine points for the most part, but are worth knowing.

Very interesting Dtwarren. ‘PE when you have ED’ - that would be a great subject for a thread.

I don’t understand why people keep saying stuff like that. There are people over at Pegym who claim to have had success (Jackxxx for example). There are also people on this site (the five guys I listed in my earlier post for example).

CPE apparently works for many guys who have failed to gain from NPE.

And I don’t want to repeat myself in an annoying way, but the monkeys in the study I posted would not have practiced NPE of any kind. So there is the testomony of a totally objective professoinal that this can work. He may be wrong of course, but that is his testimony.

Rivalries being what they are, you have to take that sort of thing in stride. :leftie:

I’d say that’s fair.

It does seem that monkeys (other than the human ones) aren’t likely to be comparing jelqing techniques. Whether or not the study is exhaustive or ultimately definitive, it certainly is interesting and worth noting.

I think you mean ‘wasted’ - having to do with waste - rather than ‘waisted’, which is a tailoring technique for dresses or blouses, but I see your point.

I very glad you made it, actually. I think marinera’s assessment is both logical and valid, but it’s always good to hear from someone who is engaged in the practical aspects - especially if the experience differs. It opens up another point of view and that’s just what the point of discussion is to do.

Again, great point.

Big Girtha is know for his extreme PE and liberal use of Liquid C (generic Cialis), and it reportedly did very well for him, but your experience points to something that I have suspected all along: there’s no real substitute for hard work and it doesn’t seem these chemical solutions are actually shortcuts.

More like enhancements that have more to do with the quality of a person’s individual experience.

Fine points indeed. Glad you made them. Keep it up. :thumbs:

Nice catch. I guess spell check doesn’t pick up on incorrect homynyms. Perhaps we can use the term waisted for changing the shape of a baseball bat dick. I also did not mean to imply that using drugs for PE is a waste in general, just that I consider sex a higher priority for me than PE.

It is tailoring of a sort. :D

I completely got you. Times being what they are, it makes perfect sense. It’s no accident there’s a ‘being frugal’ thread around here; it appears that managing limited resources is on a lot folks minds. I’ve always tended that way. From squeezing the last possible bit out of the toothpaste tube, to rinsing the empty bottle of liquid C with Everclear (in case there’s some fraction of dose left in there), I’ve always been a little OCD about wasting things - food especially.