Thunder's Place

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

PE Study Results

PE Study Results

This is the closest thing I’ve found regarding a “scientific study” about PE - not coming from people trying to sell you something, of course. :)

http://www.usps.com/judicial/1977deci/5-102d.htm

It’s kind of long, but interesting. The study actually indicates gains, the defendant lost the suit on the basis of permanence - not that it was disproven, but that the defendant could not prove permanence. Therefore, he was not legally entitled to call his program Penis “Enlargement.”

I think it all hinged on Conclusion 2.
“Dr. Cordaro, a medical doctor qualified to testify as to the matters in issue, expressed the consensus of informed medical opinion that there is no device or method which will enable the male to increase the dimensions of his penis in the flaccid or erect state.”

Here we have the key words “concensus of informed medical opinion” ie “we havn’t seen anything work in the past so this can’t work” without actually testing it.

Have a look at the phrasing below.

“…. During the past six years, in his employment with the FDA, Dr. Cordaro has had occasion to examine and comment upon a number of products and devices advertised as enhancing sexual performance or increasing the size of the penis (Tr. 29). He examined and commented on the two products involved in this proceeding (Tr. 30). He did not conduct tests or studies of any kind with respect to either product (Tr. 93). Dr. Cordaro testified that he did not do any research in ethical, competent, scientific literature concerning such products “because it is generally well known by anyone trained in medicine or endocrinology that the size and girth, length or other *** aspects or characteristics of the penis cannot be altered by drugs, chemicals or devices” (Tr. 116). The record does not contain any indication that there is anything to be found in such literature concerning the exact products involved in this proceeding.

7. The essence of Dr. Cordaro’s testimony and opinion with respect to the “Chartham Method” is that its use would not enable a male to enlarge the dimensions of his penis because the size and girth of the penis are genetically determined, and except for some few cases of prepubertal underdevelopment caused by hormonal deficiency and treatable with testosterone, cannot be altered by drugs, chemicals or devices (Tr. 30-32, 47). Dr. Cordaro testified that he had found no controlled studies, no evidence of true scientific investigation, and no evidence of physiological rationale to the entire program to support the “Chartham Method” as a scientifically evaluated and proven effective means for a male to enlarge his penis (Tr. 47, 48). Based on his experience with other products or methods intended to enlarge the penis, in Dr. Cordaro’s opinion the “Chartham Method” does not incorporate any new of significantly different principles (Tr. 48, 49). However, Dr. Cordaro had never seen any other method which includes all the steps of the “Chartham Method” (Tr. 63, 64). “

two,
I think Cordaro’s “opinion” certainly led to bias, but Richards was also received as a distinguished expert:

“8. Dr. Brian Alfred Richards, a doctor of medicine in the United Kingdom, with bachelors degrees in medicine and surgery, testified for respondent. Following his internship, he served as a senior medical officer with the rank of major in Her Majesty’s 1st Brigade of Guards. Thereafter he returned to civilian medicine in general practice as a family physician, including areas of surgery, obstetrics, and psychiatry. His particular field of interest is sexual medicine which he described as a study of sexual dysfunction, its treatment and cure (Tr. 121-125). He is regarded by his peers as an expert in sexual medicine (Tr. 157). Approximately 50 percent of his practice is in the field of sexual medicine. He has seen many hundreds of patients in this area (Tr. 126). Many patients seek out Dr. Richards for his expertise in the area of sexual dysfunction and others are referred to him by other physicians (Tr. 202). For several years he has lectured on the subject of sexual medicine at hospitals and post-graduate medical schools (Tr. 126-127). He has written about 100 articles in the field and is a member of the editorial board of the British Journal of Sexual Medicine, a reputable journal read almost exclusively by the medical profession (Tr. 127-129).”

And Richards’ own testimony was powerful and, in some ways, damaging:

“13. Dr. Richards’ conclusion as a result of the test was that the “Chartham Method” is a very certain and very positive working method for enlargement of the penis (Tr. 146, 147). His rationale for the results observed was that as the result of the intense application of the “Chartham Method” for three months the actual tissue spaces of the penis had increased sufficiently to account for the changes in measurement; that the tissue spaces of the erectile tissue of the penis had been expanded to the extent that they would accept more blood during erection (Tr. 146, 147).

14. In Dr. Richards' opinion the “Chartham Method” will enable a large percentage of males to enlarge the dimension of the penis and, to his satisfaction, is a scientifically evaluated and proven effective means for so doing. Further, in his opinion, it incorporates new and significantly different principles from all other methods and products intended to increase the size of the penis that he knows of (Tr. 148).

15. Dr. Richards was skeptical that enlargement of the penis produced by the “Chartham Method” would be sustained for any considerable length of time. He will not be satisfied on that point until he has done further investigation (Tr. 208, 211).”

I think it was that conclusion that hurt Chartham’s chances.

“Dr. Cordaro does not possess the same degree of expertise in the field of sexual medicine as respondent’s witness, Dr. Richards. But he was qualified to testify as to the matters on which this decision turns, particularly the consensus of informed medical opinion in the various areas involved.

Dr. Richards has impressive experience in the field of sexual medicine. He conducted a careful and interesting trial of the “Chartham Method” and “Vacuum Developer”. It may well be that in time, with further testing of such devices, including observation of the long term or permanent results thereof, the consensus will change. But his test results and his opinion based thereon, particularly in view of his scientific skepticism as to the lasting or permanent results of such test, are insufficient to cause me to ignore the consensus of medical opinion to the contrary.

Originally Posted by wadzilla
This is the closest thing I’ve found regarding a “scientific study” about PE - not coming from people trying to sell you something, of course. :)

http://www.usps.com/judicial/1977deci/5-102d.htm

It’s kind of long, but interesting. The study actually indicates gains, the defendant lost the suit on the basis of permanence - not that it was disproven, but that the defendant could not prove permanence. Therefore, he was not legally entitled to call his program Penis “Enlargement.”

Thanks Wad,

In your discovered article I found this particular quote very interesting - “Dr. Cordaro testified that erection of the penis is the result of its engorgement with arterial blood and decrease in venous return resulting from compression of the dorsal vein of the penis by action of the bulbocavernosus muscle”. I understand the concept of increased arterial blood supply with the combination of decreased venous return for the production of an erection, but I never realized that the bulbocavernosus muscle was partly responsible for the reduced venous outflow. In other words, what exactly is happening during a kegel? Is it compression of the venous return causing the increased arterial pressure to produce the extra swelling while doing a kegel, or is it direct muscular compression that causes this kegel induced swelling? I have always assumed that kegeling directly pushed blood into the penis, but judging from the above article, I’m pretty sure I assumed wrong.

r0ad_h0gg

Top
Similar Threads 
ThreadStarterForumRepliesLast Post
Your PE schedule... best results?goingdeeperPenis Enlargement210-14-2005 05:21 PM
Best results with PeDaniPenis Enlargement Basics201-30-2004 07:16 PM
QUICK START GUIDE TO PElil12big1Penis Enlargement203-27-2003 11:47 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:59 AM.