Thunder's Place

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

Loss of erection, help!

Originally Posted by Shnordle
So should I cool it off with some light workouts until conditions improve? Or is my workout not that hard, and I should just drop the intensity of my grip?


I do not know enough about mechanical PE to advise you on the effects of your regimen, or changes you ought to make to it in order to regain erection power. About mechanical PE, I have lots to learn, nearly from the beginning; others here may probably advise you better on it’s variables’ effects on erection. Some in the forum indicate that PE has greatly improved their erections, while others indicate that PE has diminished their erection power. I do not know enough about such PE to explain within PE particulars those erectile differences in results. The Physiologic Indicators, given in an earlier post in this thread, looked useful, though.

I figure that the main difference in erectile results is the question whether jelqing, on one hand, is infusing expanded but sound penile tissues with a greater supply of blood, or whether jelqing, on the other hand, is weakening tissues, causing leakage, or toughening tissues as through scarring. That schema might not be exactly correct, but that is my approximation, what I figure, of the key difference between erectile results.

Based on that, I figure that to restore or improve erection power, one either would reduce the mechanical PE, so that the penile tissues are less physically stressed, or would improve the quality of the penile tissues to handled the applied physical stress. For instance, I believe that low testosterone causes atrophy and increased fibrosis of penile tissues. I believe that low blood oxygen, as from smoking and shallow breathing, causes increased fibrosis of the penile tissues. I believe that imbalances of fatty acids can tip tissue response toward inflammation and damage. I believe that low thyroid-hormone function lowers both circulation and tissue integrity, including blood-vessel quality.

I do not know enough about mechanical-PE dynamics to advise you on changes to your PE routine itself. The indications that I try to make here concern overall male and penis health, regardless of PE routine, with or without PE. Erectile power flows mainly from internal dynamics. If you have specific questions, set in practical context, more from this perspective, I could further discuss particular of my relevant understandings. Or maybe I could direct you to information.

Here, I want to say two things.

First, I thank ThunderSS for his post that spurred my followup on Dr Lin’s writings. I had not seen before the thread that ThunderSS referred to. And even though the thread did not change my ultimate impression of Dr Lin’s writings, my own reading of it did moderate my impression of Dr Lin in a way that I feel was called for.

Second, I want to clarify that, in my followup, where I use the words you and your, I do not speak specifically to ThunderSS, but rather to any of us readers.

Originally Posted by instance
Here, I want to say two things.


I think you mean two more things.

It’s not like you suffer from an inability to express yourself.

Originally Posted by instance
Second, I want to clarify that, in my follow up, where I use the words you and your, I do not speak specifically to ThunderSS, but rather to any of us readers.


Yes. It’s a common usage problem.

You’re using ‘you’ and its variants when you mean ‘one’.

I think we get it.

Some of Dr. Lin’s information may be good, but his primary motive is to hawk his products. These are of questionable value and are not all they are cracked up to be.

Using a little truth and mixing it with spin is a classic mode of a hustler/huckster, which is why he has such a bad rep around here.


Before: I'd like to show you something I'm very proud of, but you'll have to move real close.

After: I\'d like to show you something I\'m very proud of, but you guys in the front row will have to stand back.

God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time. - Robin Williams (:

Yes. Two more things, there, are what I sought to add.

Yet I did mean to use the single word followup, the noun (sometimes still written as follow-up, which, however, with the hyphen resembles an adjective), not the two words follow up, a verb use. This is a common usage mixup, yes.

About Dr Lin, I too advise against buying his products, even though, unless the ingredients lists are fraudulent, or the ingredients are of very poor quality, I would say that they probably do have some effects desired by those who take them. I do not believe that everyone must run to the hills away from his supplements. I do say, though, that such products in any case would not be all that Dr Lin cracks them up to be. I figure one may as well try them, as long as one has the money to spare, but I would not suggest that.

Still, I say that Dr Lin uses more than a little true — that he uses much truth — to hawk his products. And yes, I do believe that Dr Lin’s main motive is to hawk products, which, itself, is not blameworthy. What is troublesome, I believe, is that he purposefully exaggerates claims about his supplements in order to sell them. I have not tried or observed use of any of his supplements, though. I speak on them from the perspective of past supplement use and other observations.

Anyhow, mixing some truth with the primary motive to hawk products and procedures is indeed a common tactic. It is the same tactic taken by medical doctors, allied with and backed by their trade organization, the American Medical Association, which is merely a dominant trade organization, to hawk prescription drugs and certain procedures in alliance with pharmaceutical companies.

I believe that ultimately, as for men’s health, Dr Lin’s writings — in what they indicate as to habits and practices when his supplements are left aside — contain more far more application of truth than the American Medical Association’s indications made through it’s members called medical doctors.

Your evident dislike of Western Medicine and medical doctors seems to underpin your desire to embrace the writings of Dr. Lin.

I am quite sure that you are not in any branch of the alternative/complementary health field that has any congruence with Traditional Chinese Medicine, or you would be very aware from reading his writings that his understanding of Chinese Medicine is somewhat below that of a first year acupuncture student.

It is important when trying to reach one’s own conclusions or develop an understanding of a subject which does not form part of one’s own higher education, that one does not just seek information that concurs with one’s forming beliefs, but also information in opposition to them. Very often these are presented together, but one chooses to only see what one wishes to see and disregards the rest.

I have in fact, rarely seen a more extraordinary attempt to try to prove or justify something to oneself or others than this, from your second post in this thread:

Originally Posted by instance
Take, for instance, Dr Lin’s indication that semen is produced from cerebrospinal fluid. Now if you want to talk in prevailing physiology and semantics — today’s prevailing schema of semen production — that is untrue. Yet semantic jumbling aside, this claim may match an ancient Chinese view, a schema that till today, if heeded, produces favorable results. So that is one ancient schema about semen production, saying that semen comes in part from cerebrospinal fluid.

Today, one might instead say — and not seem crazy — that semen, and the nutrients that drive it’s ejaculation, is largely composed of, and are largely the same as, the nutrients that go toward making cerebrospinal fluid. One such nutrient is choline. So if one depletes one’s semen daily, demanding the body to aggressively produce more semen daily, one may not have the nutrition and one may not, if aging, have the spark to daily and optimally replenish optimal-quality cerebrospinal, too. That is a related yet different and second schema about the relation between semen and cerebrospinal fluid.

Either way, the bottom line, or the indication stemming from either above schema, is that moderating ejaculation frequency preserves or improves emotional health, creativity, sensation, reflexes, and drive. Those things involve the health of one’s nervous system. That includes the brain, which brain — according one dissection of Dr Lin’s words — produces the cerebrospinal fluid, presumably for the brain’s own health and functioning, true enough. But the dissection, saying that the brain produces cerebrospinal fluid, does not elucidate semen’s origins. Rather, the dissection evades that matter, and contributes no information, except to say that Dr Lin’s information is obviously false.

Still, I think it is held by prevailing physiology that the brain, daily, produces more cerebrospinal fluid than can be kept by the brain and spinal cord, and that much of this fluid must in fact enter the blood or the lymph, or both. Dr Lin apparently claims that this, then, goes toward producing the semen.

Which greatly reminds me of this:

Bubba and Couter were thinking about expanding their horizons by taking a few courses down at the local community college. So Bubba sees the list of classes available and notices a course in logic. Well, he wonders what’s up with that and wanders on over to the classroom and happens to catch the teacher. He asks the instructor what good this class would do him. So the instructor says, “Let me give you an example; do you have a weed whacker?” Bubba says, “Yup, got one.” The teacher says, “Since you’ve got a weed whacker, I can deduce that you’ve got a yard.” Bubba goes, “Well, hell yes, got one of them too.” So the prof says, “With that yard, I’ll bet you live in a house.” And Bubba replies, “Damn straight.” The teacher than says, “In the house, I’ll bet you live there with your wife.” Now Bubba is amazed and says,”That’d be Betty Mae,” Finally the teacher says, “Living there with a woman, I’ll bet that you’re a heterosexual.” Bubba says, “That’s exactly right, I’m signing up.”

Now Bubba runs into Couter outside and Couter asks him what the logic course is all about. So Bubba says, “Cout, let me give you an example. Do you have a weed whacker?” Couter says, “Nope, don’t need one.” And Bubba says, “You’re a queer, ain’t cha.”

Now that may seem a little (or maybe a lot) flippant, but it’s just my way of saying be careful about drawing conclusions that are not there to be drawn.

This also applies, only doubly so, to any books about Taoist practices written for the Western market, whose subject is medical, sexual, health or martial arts. Taoist books for the Western market on philosophy tend to be fairly safe.

So little of Taoist beliefs in respect to the other topics have been ‘translated’ by people other than to make money. Attempts at genuine translatation are frought with the problem that many concepts that the Chinese understand as implied are missed out altogether in the original texts, and to try to add these in to a translation for a non-Chinese reader results in the translator’s own understanding of the subject matter being crucial to the integrity of the end product. Most of the time the translation is as close to ‘word-for-word’ as is possible, which renders the translation useless to anyone not raised in China. Philosophical treatise fare better because of the nature of philosophy.

Incidentally, I assume the article you were reading about testosterone levels rising after abstinence from ejaculation was that by M. Jiang, as it is the most often quoted. It is quoted also by this article, along with other information which may be of interest to you. Testosterone and Ejaculation


Heat makes the difference between gaining quickly or slowly for some guys, or between gaining slowly instead of not at all for others. And the ideal penis size is 7.6" BPEL x 5.6" Mid Girth.

Basics.... firegoat roll How to use the Search button for best results

Originally Posted by firegoat
Your evident dislike of Western Medicine and medical doctors seems to underpin your desire to embrace the writings of Dr. Lin.
I am quite sure that you are not in any branch of the alternative/complementary health field that has any congruence with Traditional Chinese Medicine, or you would be very aware from reading his writings that his understanding of Chinese Medicine is somewhat below that of a first year acupuncture student.

It is important when trying to reach one’s own conclusions or develop an understanding of a subject which does not form part of one’s own higher education, that one does not just seek information that concurs with one’s forming beliefs, but also information in opposition to them. Very often these are presented together, but one chooses to only see what one wishes to see and disregards the rest.
I have in fact, rarely seen a more extraordinary attempt to try to prove or justify something to oneself or others than this, from your second post in this thread:


Which greatly reminds me of this:

Bubba and Couter were thinking about expanding their horizons by taking a few courses down at the local community college. So Bubba sees the list of classes available and notices a course in logic. Well, he wonders what’s up with that and wanders on over to the classroom and happens to catch the teacher. He asks the instructor what good this class would do him. So the instructor says, “Let me give you an example; do you have a weed whacker?” Bubba says, “Yup, got one.” The teacher says, “Since you’ve got a weed whacker, I can deduce that you’ve got a yard.” Bubba goes, “Well, hell yes, got one of them too.” So the prof says, “With that yard, I’ll bet you live in a house.” And Bubba replies, “Damn straight.” The teacher than says, “In the house, I’ll bet you live there with your wife.” Now Bubba is amazed and says,”That’d be Betty Mae,” Finally the teacher says, “Living there with a woman, I’ll bet that you’re a heterosexual.” Bubba says, “That’s exactly right, I’m signing up.”

Now Bubba runs into Couter outside and Couter asks him what the logic course is all about. So Bubba says, “Cout, let me give you an example. Do you have a weed whacker?” Couter says, “Nope, don’t need one.” And Bubba says, “You’re a queer, ain’t cha.”

Now that may seem a little (or maybe a lot) flippant, but it’s just my way of saying be careful about drawing conclusions that are not there to be drawn.

This also applies, only doubly so, to any books about Taoist practices written for the Western market, whose subject is medical, sexual, health or martial arts. Taoist books for the Western market on philosophy tend to be fairly safe.
So little of Taoist beliefs in respect to the other topics have been ‘translated’ by people other than to make money. Attempts at genuine translatation are frought with the problem that many concepts that the Chinese understand as implied are missed out altogether in the original texts, and to try to add these in to a translation for a non-Chinese reader results in the translator’s own understanding of the subject matter being crucial to the integrity of the end product. Most of the time the translation is as close to ‘word-for-word’ as is possible, which renders the translation useless to anyone not raised in China. Philosophical treatise fare better because of the nature of philosophy.


Incidentally, I assume the article you were reading about testosterone levels rising after abstinence from ejaculation was that by M. Jiang, as it is the most often quoted. It is quoted also by this article, along with other information which may be of interest to you. Testosterone and Ejaculation


I know little about Taoist practice. I do not mean to speak on the original Taoist texts, just on what I know, which, yes, is translation from Chinese to English to practice to results. I already say that I know little about Taoist practice. Anyhow, yes, the semantic confusion between — loosely now we speak — the modern West and traditional East is one that I have tried to touch on.

The modern Western medical semantic is one of dissection and microanalysis, the literal accuracy of a detail, and fixing that detail; the traditional Eastern semantic is one of relationships and balances, the overview in a system, and restoring those dynamics. This involves the divergence that Dr Lin straddles, approaching the Eastern understandings through the Western semantics, sometimes failing to resolve this coherently, but doing well in pitching supplements to Americans. Clearly, he does not deal in the paradigm of the organ systems and forces of traditional Chinese medicine. I said that if one sought herbal treatment, one probably ought to see a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine, rather, who would prescribe formulas to balance the system, and not to buy Dr Lin’s formulas. Myself, I have seen nothing where Dr Lin includes any traditional Chinese medicine at all into his writings. Some may be there, but I have not seen them. (His cupping system seems a take on acupuncture, loosely, and yet it is bereft of the context offered to acupuncture by traditional Chinese medicine.) Never did I say anywhere that Dr Lin applied traditional Chinese medicine.

About your analogy, and it’s possible flippancy, well, I mainly just feel that it suits your purposes for now, suits what you wish to gain for now, in that it gives you theoretical shelter for now. Your assessments of my views are mainly ad hominem, theoretical, and semantic, rather than based on practice and results. You have admonishments for me and yet you do not heed them, yourself. Are you, yourself, trained in original Taoism, in the ancient Chinese language, in translation, in traditional Chinese medicine, and in orthodox American medical school? Are these parts of your own higher education? Now we are quibbling.

The irony about your excerpting from my earlier post is that the excerpt, within it’s original context, was an illustration of varying semantics, and the twists that they can take, skirting the bottom line of results. The excerpt, within it’s original context, goes to illustrate that microanalysis of a first semantic by a second semantic can easily disprove the first semantic within that second semantic — what surely is a theoretical victory by the second semantic within that second semantic — and yet the first semantic may still hold the schema that, when applied in life, brings the desired result. I call this the desired result if, in fact, the pursuit is a pursuit of favorable outcome, not a pursuit of supremacy in semantics or theory. You carved an isolated chunk from my post, stripped it of context, omitted it’s result as actually used, and thereby, scoring a mere theoretical point, you discarded for yourself your own admonishment of me:

It is important when trying to reach one's own conclusions or develop an understanding of a subject which does not form part of one's own higher education, that one does not just seek information that concurs with one's forming beliefs, but also information in opposition to them. Very often these are presented together, but one chooses to only see what one wishes to see and disregards the rest.

Maybe a higher education in each of these matters means that you do not need to consider opposing information, or my information. Although the excerpt of mine that you took was not even used to argue that semen was produced from cerebrospinal fluid, you surely did zone on it as such, disregarding the rest of the information given with it, in order to justify your own view. And you do not qualify your own view, except with an analogy applied to a misused excerpt.

Yet I cannot say that these leaps are an extraordinary attempt to misrepresent my view. These leaps are typical tactics taken to sidestep a point in question.

First, you write this: Your evident dislike of Western Medicine and medical doctors seems to underpin your desire to embrace the writings of Dr. Lin. Well, for that, let me write this: Your evident dislike of Dr Lin seems to underpin your desire to embrace the popular medical views on male health that also oppose Dr Lin. And therefore? Either way, nothing is qualified, whether with particulars about Dr Lin, or whether with particulars about the popular medical view. Instead, we now tug on ad hominem strings, each implying that the other’s stance stems from an emotional grudge. You never qualify this implication that you make about me. This introduces the question of whether a grudge is the soundest basis for your own view, really.

From there, you imply that I indicated something that I never indicated — that Dr Lin deals in traditional Chinese medicine — and you use this to dispute my credentials, ad hominem again, based on my implied wrongness about something that I never did indicate. This is the same tactic that you took — disputing something that I never claimed — in order to lead into the analogy that supposedly revealed the error in my logic.

Theory appeals to some. Some profit monetarily from the theories that they believe. Others, with empty pockets, take emotional comfort in those very same theories. Theory appeals to me, too, but mainly when the object is not the comfort of semantic supremacy, and when instead the theory finds results.

I was a sickly child, who failed to thrive, and from the time that I was in elementary school, I began to research. I started with the medical books in my mother’s living room. From there, I went on in search and search of answers — answers with results, answers through trial, not answers of theoretical comfort — because supreme theories never healed me, and I needed results. I never had the health advantage that most persons can take for granted, never had that buffer of health which allows them to practice advice for years or even a lifetime on theory alone. Had I done that, I would be an invalid. I am very familiar with Western medicine. I have seen it up close, I have lived it, applied on me by people, by doctors, who, themselves, like most of my neighbors, in their own good health, knew it only as theories. And they, you see, were not schooled in any opposing views.


Last edited by instance : 08-31-2007 at .

Eastern and western medicine are slowly merging. When I was studying to be a nurse the effects of herbs were discussed right along with the effects of drugs.


Speak softly carry a big dick, I'm mean stick!

Western medical discussions of herbs discard the very paradigm of traditional Chinese medicine. Effects of herbs can be discussed right along with effects of drugs, then, because the herbs are handled and used as if drugs, analyzing and classifying herbs by their isolated chemical constituents. (This is the way of American herbalism, too.) This drawn similarity is how some pharmaceutical drugs, after study of constituents of herbs, were developed, like the drug digitalis, derived from the foxglove plant.

This is mostly how Dr Lin treats herbs. I say that if one wants to use herbs, using them the Dr Lin way will probably bring only marginal results. If Dr Lin’s supplements are taken with some of his other advice, though, then good results may follow; this may be a key to Dr Lin’s finding some happy customers, assuming he has some. As for Dr Lin’s formulas themselves, though, I believe that one would be better off applying herbs — in contrast to Dr Lin’s application of them — within the system of traditional Chinese medicine, then.

Traditional Chinese medicine, and the way that it discusses and indicates and incorporates herbs, is fundamentally different, seemingly bizarre amid Western medical terms and management.


Last edited by instance : 08-31-2007 at .

Originally Posted by instance

First, you write this: Your evident dislike of Western Medicine and medical doctors seems to underpin your desire to embrace the writings of Dr. Lin. Well, for that, let me write this: Your evident dislike of Dr Lin seems to underpin your desire to embrace the popular medical views on male health that also oppose Dr Lin. And therefore? Either way, nothing is qualified, whether with particulars about Dr Lin, or whether with particulars about the popular medical view. Instead, we now tug on ad hominem strings, each implying that the other’s stance stems from an emotional grudge. You never qualify this implication that you make about me. This introduces the question of whether a grudge is the soundest basis for your own view, really.

From there, you imply that I indicated something that I never indicated — that Dr Lin deals in traditional Chinese medicine — and you use this to dispute my credentials, ad hominem again, based on my implied wrongness about something that I never did indicate. This is the same tactic that you took — disputing something that I never claimed — in order to lead into the analogy that supposedly revealed the error in my logic.

To address your whole post would end up as two ‘philosophers’ arguing points of view which actually do not diverge as much as either of us are making out. We may both score theoretical points, only to have an opposing view negate that point.

I have no grudge with you, or indeed your points of view, most of which are valid and quite balanced. I do have a grudge with Dr. Lin. He promotes himself under the title of Dr., yet one has to search to find that he is a Dr. of Engineering; to the casual viewer he would appear to put himself forward as a Dr. of TCM. I may have implied that you indicated he deals in TCM, but never directly stated it; you do speak of the ‘excellence’ of much of his writings, which itself implies that you believe much of what he says. My analogy was not to attack you but to point out that you may have fallen for exactly what he wants people to believe in order to promote his products.

When I was living in Asia, I used both Western and Chinese medicine. In England, I have a Chinese ‘barefoot’ doctor, as well as a GP. I work with Naturopaths, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Chinese and Western Herbalists, Acupuncturists, Aromatherapists and a Bach Flower specialist. Each has advantages for different conditions. Like you, I am interested in getting results for my patients.

My dislike of Dr. Lin is not based on a desire to embrace popular medical views on male health; my dislike is based on his deception in order to sell, and his own lack of understanding of what he promotes as fact. As you quite rightly say, if someone has a problem which may be addressed by a Chinese herbal remedy they need to go and talk in detail to a Dr. of Chinese medicine, have their pulse and tongue read, and discuss all their personal lifestyle factors, not buy some pill off a site full of misinformation.

If I have an issue with you in any way, it’s because you promote him in your first post, and, because you are intelligent, people are going to go to his site, believe his sales pitch (not having the knowledge to do otherwise and having concluded that this intelligent chap at Thunders thought Dr. Lin’s writings to be excellent) and buy his product. It may do them no direct harm, but I cannot support someone promoting him here. My job as a moderator is to attempt to protect the members from misinformation and point them in the direction of PE that works (regardless of what Western medicine or Dr. Lin think).

I hope you gain a lot from Thunder’s Place and enjoy the many and varied topics of discussion we have here. But really, we have done Dr. Lin to death here so many times.


Heat makes the difference between gaining quickly or slowly for some guys, or between gaining slowly instead of not at all for others. And the ideal penis size is 7.6" BPEL x 5.6" Mid Girth.

Basics.... firegoat roll How to use the Search button for best results

Originally Posted by ThunderSS
Yeah, right. The fucking guy is a fraud and somehow he keeps getting guys showing up here to defend him, but they never fail to prove the point. Hmmm.wonder why that is so?


I agree that Dr Lin is making misleading claims about his supplements. What am I to do because of that, now make misleading claims about everything he has written? I myself have witnessed great effects from heeding indications that, it just so happens, I later found Dr Lin indicating. That is what I report: my results (most of which have nothing even to do with Dr Lin).

Of course that does not prove anything to those unwilling to try the information, themselves, through practice. Of course that does not prove anything to them. The source that they rely on to form their own views for them, on these practices, is a competing trade organization, which will not assess the practices, either, because there is no hope of patenting and bottling and selling those practices. So, until those practices begin to saturate mainstream culture through other avenues, this trade organization will ignore the practices, precisely because, as a trade group, it cannot package and profitably enough sell them. (When and if the practices threaten to saturate mainstream culture through other avenues, then the dominant trade organization will incorporate them in order to retain cultural relevance and therefore retain political dominance among medical trade groups.)

The only references from the people who bash everything written by Dr Lin, and who wish to throw out the baby with the bath water, are essentially claims saying that Big Daddy — some huge yet still competing trade organization hawking it’s own products and procedures — says Dr Lin is wrong. To not recognize that the American Medical Association is but a politically dominant trade organization — with wares to sell — among other medical-trade organizations is to miss a fundamental reality. And surely, it is being oblivious to Western medical history and politics and dynamics still occurring today.

The individuals here who want to throw out the baby with the bath water completely fail to prove their point. They can only chant, basically, “The big guys say Dr Lin is wrong.” These big guys are the same practitioners who tell us that we are all loony fools for attempting PE, that instead we would have to visit their colleagues for surgery. Why is that? (Do we really believe that it has nothing to do with their inability, as a trade group, to package jelqing and sell it?)

And would that change if one such surgeon just so happened to browse this forum? Would he send memos to his peers in order to initiate an honest inquiry, into our PE, for the sake of the male public’s good? Or would his profession remain the same for now, because our PE does not yet threaten to saturate mainstream culture and outmode his profession’s relevance? Until then, he will continue to hawk his scalpel, and call us crazy, and say that we are obviously wrong. Meanwhile, the politics of his colleagues have half of us here still behaving as their foot soldiers, saying only, in essence, “Big daddy says so”, and considering that proof of whichever else.

Please, some critical thinking here. Not everything that we have been told by dominant trade groups is all it is cracked up to be, either. Some of it is wondrous and great information and practice, but, just as Dr Lin’s information, not all of it is. Nothing is proved by saying only, “The big guys said so”, and yet our subservience to dominance has us believing that that is proof. Those same big guys, who with one breathe some of us reference as the endpoint of all truth on male health, are the same big guys who tell the public that all we PE’ers are loony fools.

And yet, we still regard them as the keepers of all relevant truths, and to disprove something, all we say is, “The big guys said so.” And yet, as inconsistent a formula as this is, this has always been the political mechanism of what a culture believes. Some things never change.


Last edited by instance : 08-31-2007 at .

Originally Posted by instance

That is what I report: my results (most of which have nothing even to do with Dr Lin).

Your personal experience is welcome here.

I don’t think anyone has really had much to say about the AMA one way or another in this thread.


Heat makes the difference between gaining quickly or slowly for some guys, or between gaining slowly instead of not at all for others. And the ideal penis size is 7.6" BPEL x 5.6" Mid Girth.

Basics.... firegoat roll How to use the Search button for best results

Instance: I agree western medicine is just big business, some of modern medical practice causes less good than applying leeches. But, Lin is no better, and that he isn’t mainsteam doesn’t automatically make him good guy! He sells snake oil, period. And whatever useful piece of advice he offers is buried in equal amount of senseless bullshiet.

Originally Posted by 7i667
Instance: I agree western medicine is just big business, some of modern medical practice causes less good than applying leeches. But, Lin is no better, and that he isn’t mainsteam doesn’t automatically make him good guy! He sells snake oil, period. And whatever useful piece of advice he offers is buried in equal amount of senseless bullshiet.


I do not mean to suggest that Dr Lin’s products are a good buy. Neither is my point that Western medicine is big business. My point is that all competing medicines are businesses existing to hawk products or procedures, and therefore someone does not legitimately refute one medicine merely by pointing out that it’s premise is to hawk products. The relevant question is the efficacy and the long-term safety of those products.

My point about Dr Lin is that his advice — except for his supplement recommendations — is not crap, and that most of what he writes is useful for men. It far more useful for men’s health than the offerings of the prime practitioners of the prevailing physiological understandings that we use here to dispute Dr Lin’s writings.

My reluctance to join the intemperate Dr Lin bashing stems, for example, from your reluctance to observe that most prevailing medical practices — except for emergency trauma and some reconstructive surgery and a few other practices — are in full results quite worse than applying leeches, and are more akin to administering mercury preparations. Despite the utter failure of Western medicine to support men’s sexual health with useful schemas for men to apply, but nonetheless then hawking products and procedures to us that are literally toxic and scarring, no one here is in uproar against that. Instead, like foot soldiers upholding the very politics that keep us powerless, we are here bashing information that, really, could empower us in managing our own male health.

So my reluctance to join the intemperate Dr Lin bashing has more to do with Dr Lin’s formulas, despite being poor choices, at least not being nearly as harmful as Western medicine’s protocols for men’s health. And at least Dr Lin took the time, when hawking his products, to write up much useful if jumbled information on habits for men to heed. It would be nice if his information were laid out more coherently. Yet even with some of the explained details of it being unclear, his indications as to practice — aside from his supplements — are clear and useful indications. I will not right now betray men, upon my own honor, by saying otherwise. You might not have the patience to read his writings, or the interest or will to apply it, but some men might and they would benefit.

Yes, I believe — as I say over and over — that his products are not worth the buying. But until I see a due uproar over other products and procedures, hawked to far more men, amid quite absent protective advice on habits, offered by other practitioners, I do not see the great cause to join the lynching of little ol’ Dr Lin. He might be scamming a few bucks from people here and there, but he is not cutting out and irradiating their prostates and killing their erections forever.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 AM.