Wad, fair enough. Sounds like a good framework in which to start.
Having said that, I want to remind you about one thing – you stated that the onus was on me to prove my theory, as if the prevailing view in this forum was a “Law.” Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Both views are theories – nothing more, at this point. So, the onus is on all of us!
Absolutely! I wasn’t just applying that statement to you. The burden of proof lies on us all. I was just saying if you throw out something new,
be prepared to back it up and defend it.
While I wait for you to summarize your information, I would like to clarify a few things and give a brief overview of my thinking on matters (I will elaborate later.)
Some things that I think should be a given in this discussion.
1. Assumptions will be made. Let’s face it, neither one of us (or anyone else who chooses to join this discussion) has a laboratory or the knowledge to conduct the proper studies if we did. When it comes down to it, we honestly do not know what goes on inside our penis that makes it larger. We can only make assumptions and conclusions based on:
a. Personal Observation
b. Observations and experiences of others
c. Studies that might relate to the same or similar tissues and/or components and
d. The outcome of testing what we assume to be true
2. We need to be reasonable. If the majority of evidence points in a reasonable direction and there is no hard core ultra specific data to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It shouldn’t be just dismissed as speculation. I’m not saying it should be accepted as Gospel either. Just that it should be noted as a possibility.
This is a quote I pulled from the TGC thread and I think it says it all…
I think most everything presented in these forums, or other similar venues, mostly qualifies as “underground science”, and thus, to expect the exact same standards of quality and exhaustive study, including clinical trials, as found in the standard peer reviewed medical journals is asking for too much.
Simply said, be reasonable.
First off, understand that I don’t prescribe solely to either theory. It is my opinion that one of the biggest errors in the majority of theories around here is that they assume that ALL tissue in the penis reacts the same way to applied stress. I think the information I have reviewed over the years shows that this is simply not true. We have to remember the penis is a very complex organ with many components and facets. It is not just one big blob of tissue. Stress on connective tissue will react differently than stress on the cavernous smooth muscle within. Our approach needs to take this in mind.
So, don’t think I am dismissing plastic deformation as a valid hypotheses. I think there are components of this theory that are accurate and I have made this known in other threads/posts.
Studies show that ligaments, which are similar in composition to the tunica, are sometimes subject to plastic deformation as a result of strain. Not that cell proliferation does not occur in connective tissue; I have found articles that suggest that this does indeed occur. But the majority of articles I have read point to elastic/plastic deformation. Probably because most are in reference to connective tissue injuries. There is much less information pertaining to the growth of connective tissue as a result of mechanical stress
But on the other hand, I don’t think plastic deformation is responsible for the enlargement of ALL tissues. Especially, the smooth muscle portion.
I think what I will present will clearly show this.
Furthermore, the cell/growth view is actually the one that has been roundly dismissed by the medical community (in other words, their rejection of natural PE is based upon the very view in this forum regarding the “mechanism,” which the doctors know cannot happen). So, the prevailing theory here is actually the one with a big strike against it – not my theory.
Agreed. But, you also have to look at what is being purported to be the impetus to growth here; penis patches, pills, and all sorts of other “snake oil.” I think the statement “…the ‘mechanism’, which the doctors know cannot happen” is inaccurate. From my research the doctors are very aware that these “mechanisms” and processes can occur. It’s just that the advertised commercial products and processes (with a very few execptions) do not effectively invoke these mechanisms and the average Joe has no idea how or what does. Nor does any doctor in his right mind want to risk his career or reputation to research or advocate any process that does.
The medical community has repeatedly & emphatically stated that natural PE cannot occur because the penis is not comprised of tissues that are conducive or responsive to GvM.
I don’t believe this statement to be accurate. Can GvM occur in penile tissues? Yes. Do commercial products elicit this, for the most part, no.
I have never heard them dismiss it within the framework of EtP (I don’t doubt they would caution against attempting to deform your penis via exercises – if only out of fear of litigation – but I’ve never heard them consider natural PE within that framework).
I have actually read legitimate comments pertaining to enlargement devices from a few doctors that were not totally dismissive. Some say it is possible that some methods may work (such as traction devices) but none elaborated as to how these methods work.
Many of your comments seem to assume I am totally against the idea of plastic deformation which I am definitely not. In light of that, it would be pointless to address those comments.
I await your return… :)
Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal: my strength lies solely in my tenacity.
Last edited by Iguana : 09-03-2008 at .