Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

If PE really works, why is there no scientific evidence

Yeah, and I believe, that if someone is an agnostic/atheist and not professing/practicing religion and all those religious rituals, God, if he or she really exists, will forgive him for that (on condition that he was a person of high ethics), if God is really kind and understanding.

But if someone has a small dick and not practicing PE, I’m afraid, women won’t be so condescending and gracious.

When I see before and after pictures I realize I am looking at scientific evidence which supports the claim that one’s penis can grow through PE. In fact, when I look down at my own cock and feel it in my hand, and push it deeper into my woman than it would go before it was longer, and watch her squirm because it is fatter, and when the ruler says my dick’s grown… How’s that unscientific? It’s not.


Recognize.

There’s alot of science hating going on here. Science is not the problem. The real issue is social acceptability. The reasons for this have already been discussed. PE will never be studied scientifically by a PhD student for the same kind of reasons they will not touch an ESP thesis with a 10ft pole if they want to be taken seriously. This is not to say that a particular area of study is false but rather that people’s perspective of it is that it is disreputable or pseudo scientific, and that shit will never fly.

Originally Posted by matutinal_euphony
When I see before and after pictures I realize I am looking at scientific evidence which supports the claim that one’s penis can grow through PE. In fact, when I look down at my own cock and feel it in my hand, and push it deeper into my woman than it would go before it was longer, and watch her squirm because it is fatter, and when the ruler says my dick’s grown.. How’s that unscientific? It’s not.

You seem to have little appreciation for the scientific method, which involves conducting repeatable experiments in a controlled environment, documenting the results and your method such that another individual/group can produce the same results by following your method, eg repeatability. If you don’t have these elements, contrary to what some people in this thread seem to think, it is just hearsay and will be rejected by the scientific community.

Think about it. How many times on Thunder’s have you seen people saying how not everything works for everyone and you have to see what’s best for you. We’re all different? This makes repeatability almost impossible. Add the difficulties of that with the ethics of human trials and you have a seriously difficult shitstorm of scientific, bureaucratic and funding difficulties.

And yet, Tweaking, one of the trends in medicine seems to be the recognition of the variability between us. There are cancer therapies, for example, that focus down to specific genes and mutations. There is recognition in drug trials that we are not all Caucasian males, and that, for example, the symptoms of heart attacks in women may manifest themselves differently than in men.

Just because reality is challenging and complex is no reason to turn a blind eye to the reality of that complexity. (And I know you are not suggesting that.) Not everyone responds in the same way to PE; not everything is equally effective for everyone. If that were so, we could be reducing this down to more of a specific universal approach.


For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

I agree with Lampwick. Just because people are different and not everything works the same for everyone doesn’t mean something cannot be scientifically proven.

For example, there are drugs that work for majority of people and don’t work for minority of people. Just like PE, it’ll work for most people, but there will always be unfortunate exceptions.

To scientifically prove PE there should be a sample of people (e.g. 100) and all of them should start off with newbie routine. They should have a team of people with a lot of PE experience as consultants to guide them through 1 year of PE and help them with PIs, routine modifications and such. Pretty much like we do it here on Thunder’s, but everything would be official, so to speak.

I’m confident that at least 90% would see results. And there you go, just like testing a medicine. Science.

To be even more specific, there could be various groups, one could concentrate on hanging, second on pumping, third on clamping etc. to see what works the best. The possibilities are endless.

Only problem is making sure that everyone is doing exactly what they are told with consistency and proper technique.


Start • 5.94''x4.92''

Now • 6.50''x4.96''

Goal • 7.00''x5.75''


Last edited by UpTo7 : 03-08-2010 at .

I don’t care if there is scientific evidence or not. My dick is getting bigger and that is prof enough for me.

Originally Posted by alborz
I don’t care if there is scientific evidence or not. My dick is getting bigger and that is prof enough for me.

I agree with Tweaking. I’ve seen a lot of people saying things like ‘as long as I can see my penis growing, whatever..’

We know PE works, but it’s basically empiric.

But if PE could be supported formally by science (histology, for example), it could maximize the gains and reduce the risks, time and effort to achieve the same (or better) results.


No campaigns for now

Originally Posted by wwdong

But if PE could be supported formally by science (histology, for example), it could maximize the gains and reduce the risks, time and effort to achieve the same (or better) results.

I doubt it. We have plenty of empirical evicence even as it is. If you want length, you know what to do. If you want girth, you know what to do. Finding what suits you the best is up to you, science can’t tell you that because it’s individual. It can make the statistics what works best for most people though, but that still may not be what works best for you.


Start • 5.94''x4.92''

Now • 6.50''x4.96''

Goal • 7.00''x5.75''

I agree with Lampwick too.

Humans are not a mechanical system to demand from them a 100% repeatability of the results. This repeatability only needs to be more or less distinct, but not absolute. More like a tendency, then a strict law.

For example, in PE people practicing jelqs and stretches in their 1st year of PE, let’s say for the sake of the argument, divide into the following percentiles: 15% see no gains, 40% see an increment of 0,1-0,5”, the next 40% - 0,6-0,8”, the rest 5% - above 0,8” of length gains. If it’s so, then it’s STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
I.e. you are much more likely to increase the size of your unit by doing PE, then by not doing it (for example, playing computer games instead).

And I dare to state that everything which is statistically significant is scientific ipso facto.

For example, like Lampwick said, the same goes with medicines. Three persons with the same cancer diagnosis use the same medical treatment. One dies abruptly, the second recovers slowly, the third gets healthy very fast. That doesn’t mean that pharmacology is anti-scientific. That simply means there is a quite wide range of possible outcomes and variations in them.

Another example. When a financial minister and a central bank conduct quantitative easing or devalue the currency by 20%, they act on the recommendations of dozens of guys with PhD in Economics and Finance, some of whom even hold Nobel Prizes in Economics. But none of them knows the eventual repercussions of these actions, ‘cause there is a set of possible results. Economics and Finance are even a more imprecise knowledge than PE is.

Originally Posted by wwdong
I agree with Tweaking. I’ve seen a lot of people saying things like ‘as long as I can see my penis growing, whatever..’

We know PE works, but it’s basically empiric.

But if PE could be supported formally by science (histology, for example), it could maximize the gains and reduce the risks, time and effort to achieve the same (or better) results.

You can choose to try PE on the basis of the empirical evidence and accumulated experience here, and have a pretty good chance of getting a larger and healthier dick.

Or you can wait for science to embrace PE, and embark upon studies and study histology, and develop an established protocol or protocols.

I think you’ll be waiting a very long time, but if you are willing to wait for PE backed with a more fully developed set of scientific studies, rather than embark on a program with empirical success (even if we don’t understand 100% the why of how it works), then wait. I suspect that you will be waiting a very long time.

Just keep in mind that scientific progress has, from time to time, had its roots in empirical observations. Those of a scientific bent have looked at real-world results and had the resources to explore and develop and routinize and systematize those results. An example would be Edward Jenner. He noted that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox gained an immunity from smallpox, a much more deadly disease in humans. We owe developments of the field of vaccination to Jenner’s exploration of that empirical observation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/


For Lampwick, becoming hung like a donkey was the result of a total commitment.

Originally Posted by keatu
I’m not trying to doubt PE here but if it really works, why hasn’t science given it evidence yet? Penis enlargement should be one of the top researched human body subject among others since penis size is one of the most controversial thing for men.

(1) Scientific studies require significant amounts of funding; apparently, no organization or university has sought fit to allocate those funds.

(2) I don’t know of any American “scientific studies” that *prove* weight training really works. The former USSR & Eastern Bloc countries did a lot of this - which they kept close to the vest - but I can’t think of any big American studies, off hand.

(3) Potential liability. PE can be dangerous - especially when an extremist and/or novice does something over the top. Thrombosis, nerve damage, even a chamber blow out. That’s massive potential liability - especially if it has been “sanctioned” by some official body.

(4) Very limited profit potential. Coupled with # 3, this would really deter any organization from shelling out the research funding - or facing the potential lawsuits. If you’ve noticed, the only actual studies involve devices (hangers, pumps) or paid procedures (phalloplasty)…. or, the questionable studies done by companies selling enhancement supplements. But what could some company “gain” by validating free exercises - especially when that research could potentially cut into the for-ca$h options? (devices, surgery, etc.).

Your question is predicated upon a simple fallacy: groups fund huge research because they “care.” Anytime studies/research are done, there is always the eye on profit (treatments, procedures, vaccines, etc.) - not for making somebody “feel good about themselves.”

secjay, I agree that such a thesis would raise snickering - if not virulent ridicule. And a lot of guys feel that it is a form of “weakness” to even discuss penis enlargement (as if they’re admitting they have a l’il peepee - else why would they be interested in the subject?).

While I do believe that PE is valid, I would argue that un-validated photos, posted anonymously over the internet, do NOT constitute “scientific evidence.” Any researcher would laugh at that, regarding any subject.

Nor, of course, do personal anecdotes - again, submitted anonymously over the net.

I would argue that what we should seek is not “scientific evidence,” but personal evidence (results) which have been tracked as honestly & as accurately as possible.

I have done this, to my own satisfaction, even if no “scientist” would assent to my findings. (I knew a few women who certainly enjoyed the “fruits of my labors” :) ).

Originally Posted by Lampwick
You can choose to try PE on the basis of the empirical evidence and accumulated experience here, and have a pretty good chance of getting a larger and healthier dick.

Or you can wait for science to embrace PE, and embark upon studies and study histology, and develop an established protocol or protocols.

I think you’ll be waiting a very long time, but if you are willing to wait for PE backed with a more fully developed set of scientific studies, rather than embark on a program with empirical success (even if we don’t understand 100% the why of how it works), then wait. I suspect that you will be waiting a very long time.

Oh, boy… I think you guys didn’t get what I mean at all.
I’m not attacking PE, arguing with something like ‘as it doesn’t lie totally in scientific methods, it doesn’t work’. It’s the opposite, if you read my previous posts.
What I said about science helping was highly hypothetical, as IF it could study PE, it could help it. But I’m aware it might not happen by all the interests involved, previouly said by other members. I’m not waiting for science to embrace PE to start my routines (indeed, I started few weeks ago and I’m commited to that).
I’m not trying to offend anyone and as I said before in another thread, I’m not trying to seed the ‘seeds of discordia’ either.
Sorry if it seemed so.

Originally Posted by Lampwick
Just keep in mind that scientific progress has, from time to time, had its roots in empirical observations. Those of a scientific bent have looked at real-world results and had the resources to explore and develop and routinize and systematize those results. An example would be Edward Jenner. He noted that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox gained an immunity from smallpox, a much more deadly disease in humans. We owe developments of the field of vaccination to Jenner’s exploration of that empirical observation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

Yeah, I knew that. I’m totally aware about empirical observations and I don’t undervalue them at all (if this was the impression you had reading my post).
Just to make my point: electricity was well known for many centuries, but electronics were possible only when the first was well studied and the materials and atomic models were improved.
But before electronics, the electricity was used already, but not with all it’s potential. Just it.


No campaigns for now

I have to agree with the posters: It works for me, hence it works for me. And if you’re wondering whether it works for you, just try it out for three months. You might not get any inches, but I can almost 100% guarantee you’ll get stronger erections, which is an earning in and of itself.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 PM.