Why do you disregard the Andromedical/University of Turin studies? You don’t trust the “no conflict of interest” statement? There are also a few other extender studies if you look through pubmed. Which members questioned the studies and what reasons were given? I think the facts that it is a fsl gain and not listed as an erect gain is a fair one though. I trust the studies (with the limitation of fsl gain).
I believe Thunder was one who did as was another member who claimed to be a statistician who disputed the methodology. There is actually a thread on it. I believe the Andromedical studies were conducted through a lab they employed correct? That was my understanding, so I found that to be a conflict of interest. If I am incorrect about the Andromedical studies please let me know, its been months since I searched for them, but that is what I recall. I do know the FDA shut them down, so they didn’t consider their studies legitimate enough to prevent them from getting the axe. I’m surprised Joel Kaplan of Kaplan pumps hasn’t received it yet as he got his FDA warning a few years back for not having research backing his claims. As for fsl, I’m not sure if its a good proxy or not for erect length. I posted on the other page that someone claimed the Wessells size study found it to be a good proxy. I didn’t read the full study; therefore, I can’t verify that claim. However, I think fsl loses my faith once the penis has been stretched significantly because I believe the elastic potential of the tissue can be reduced without increasing overall size significantly. I can see this personally when stretching out my penis, the flaccid stays longer temporarily, yet no significant effect on my erection. Basically going from grower to shower that would be my assumption, but I would like to see why researchers feel fsl is a good proxy.