From PubMed

Theoretically, it should be possible to inject stem cells into the tissues of the penis, where they would interact with existing cells and ultimately differentiate into the specific tissue cell types of the penis.

I agree. But skin is, well, skin - and the breasts are covered with it. I’m guessing from the limited data at the site one of two things:

1) It produces skin swell and it’s just a “better documented and heralded” product than say, nooses. (Keeping in mind the “doctors”, user testimonials and phony CE certifcations presented by noose manufacturers.)

2) It uses such low vacuum the skin isn’t encouraged to swell much, thereby transfering the vacuum’s tension to the underlying tissue.

I assume: The user places cups over their breasts (along with some sort of sealing gel) and administers a low vacuum. They remove the vacuum device, leaving the cups sealed under a slight vacuum. They then put on a special bra (or larger one) to hold the vacuum-tight cups in place.

If this is true, the penis isn’t a practical object for such a technique because it expands in both directions. A low vaccum would, at best, contribute some girth gains as it wouldn’t have the ability to pull the penis in any way toward its extended length.

If however, someone manufactured highly customized (on a case-by-case basis) tubes which provided perhaps only a 1/16” of an inch in all directions around the flaccid penis, the vacuum might be able to be applied uniformly. Accurate measuring would be a nightmare given the nature of the beast.

But then there are the problems of urination and erection - not to mention trying to maintain a light vacuum seal.
.

That’s how it works, the breast tissue itself grows.

From what I heard from the trials, an entire device that includes a pump unit (and, at least in the case of the trial, monitoring electronics) stays on all night. Presumably, the pump maintains a consistent vacuum even if there is slight leakage. In the trial, the monitoring electronics were sophisticated enough to gauge how much air was pumped out, and as the breast grew less air would have to be removed, so it could actually record the progress of growth.

FF

That’s fascinating.

It’s pretty much the conclusion I came to - something which would monitor the vacuum.

But the problems with erections and even pubic hair (or even folicles) makes it difficult if not impossible to duplicate for the penis.

The tube itself might have to be expandable which would be possible vertically by using a piston, but horizontally very difficult. Possibly an accordion-style fluid sack could be used as a tube - which could be inflated and deflated to maintain tube size at the appropriate dimension.
.

Of course, there’s probably another problem: the tissues of the breast might be consistent enough throughout to not care which ones are stimulated to grow - versus the penis having a variety of tissues.

Specifically, the tissue directly underneath the skin is the same as the rest of the milk jug. Whereas directly underneath the skin of the penis is quite different from the tissue just below that.
.

I fragmented your post to isolate this statement solely for the sake of pointing out the Andro-Penis device was never scientifically applied. The “study” is the most terse and incomplete medical study I’ve ever seen. I think it was a marketing document fashioned to look like a medical study to the novice.

.

I’m sorry. Does that suture business mean they sewed the guys dick to his leg?!?! OUCH! No thanks.

I see several studies that look like they were reasonably well designed, if not the most thorough, at

What do you think?

I don’t know about the reputability of the conferences at which the papers were presented and the journal in which the ones involving Peyronies were published - International Journal of Impotence Research - but it looks at least like the best information on the subject, and more than just marketing. The bibliography at the end is interesting as well.

FF

That’s one of the ones I’m talking about. It doesn’t look like any true medical study I’ve ever seen.

However, it looks very much like a manufacturer’s test data produced as a brochure. A lot of manufacturer’s run trials like these in order to present the pill/device/technique to doctors in hopes they’ll start prescribing.

The document has a lot of sneaky soft-sell statements buried in the text. Paraphrasing:

“homosexuls tend to discontinue use after gaining 1 or 2 cm, but they should be encouraged to continue use.” What?!

“one patient dropped out due to discomfort.” One patient? 29 out of 30 people could wear a silicone band around their glans with ~900 grams force for 3 months and develop no lesions or skin breaks?

“everyone gained in the 3 to 6 months.” How convenient.

But the most suspect part is both the results and conclusion are presented first and all are positive. I think they figured most people wouldn’t read the whole thing.

Also, a true independent study would be much more verbose in numerous areas. Particularly, the charting would’ve been presented on a weekly basis. There would be more discussion about progress of individuals and their difficulties. Notes would’ve been shared about patient experience. Recommendations or additional usage suggestions would likely have been presented.

Numbness, coldness, skin breaks and strangulation effects would’ve been addressed - as surely these conditions would’ve happened for some of the participants.

This isn’t to say applying 600 to 1500 grams of force to your penis woulnd’t make it longer - it’s just it’s not as simple as donning the device and happliy going about your life.

When independents are contracted to perform a study they are thorough. Sometimes in nauseating detail. But, that’s what they’re getting paid for - a study. They’re not selling the product, they’re selling studies. So the studies have a tendency to go on like this post of mine - forever.
.