dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 24, 2011 9:30:50 GMT -5
@hoddle I agree supa is computer savvy and articulate. I belive he would make a great moderator. Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by justabitmore on Jun 24, 2011 10:28:55 GMT -5
@ SUPA
Thanks very good reads and very informative! I know your story and that combined with your analytical mind bring a great deal to the boards. SUPA for Mod!
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 10:32:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the link but in my opinion the opinions of the doctors here are completely useless. There is no telling what physician, what technique, and what filler was actually used. With such a vague inquiry, we can't tell if she's been given something unlike PMMA (i.e. silicone) or that she was administered a filler in an improper way. Furthermore, you have the worst possible people commenting on her problem. The bulk of those people are the type of surgeons that want to see PMMA go away for their own businesses sake. And Arnold Klein decided to chime in? This is the classic anti-PMMA sentiment from the American Market. Do a search on Arnold Klein on the forum (be sure to specify at least 350 days back), and check out what we uncovered. The lady even mentioned that her problem was NOT where the PMMA was injected, further complicating what in fact is going on. But the doctors had no problem throwing out diagnosis's on such minimal info... the same doctors who practice plastic surgery in BEVERLY HILLS...go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 10:32:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 10:35:55 GMT -5
The article concludes:
The soft tissue augmenting agent Artecoll has proven
to be a safe, effective, and long-lasting solution for
dermal contour deficiencies. It is widely recommended by physicians and sought after by patients.
In experienced hands, it is associated with a very low
incidence of adverse effects; indeed it has been argued that it has the lowest reported incidence of side
effects among long-lasting injectable fillers. The
main concern about its use is reports of granuloma
formation as a late complication. Although the rate
of granuloma formation has decreased significantly
due to product evolution from Arteplast to Artecoll,
and now to ArteFill, it remains a concern that needs
to be addressed.
From this large group of case observations, we believe that these rare granulomas are nonpermanentand most will resolve. If treatment is indicated because the granuloma is associated with erythema,
swelling, or induration or due to patient insistence,
we recommend that it be treated as minimally as
possible. Support of the affected individual through
the process of resolution should be the primary
aim of treatmentThis is with Artecoll, I wonder if the Brazilian products are any better/worse (i.e. New Plastic) |
|
|
|
Post by hoddle10 on Jun 24, 2011 11:17:09 GMT -5
I think we need to remember that when the Dr's oppossed to PMMA suggest complications are difficult to treat, they mean that there is no simple course of durgs or injections that can consistently deal with the problem. They talk as if surgical intervention is the end of the world. But in the PE industry surgcial intervention is par for the course! If you have serious problems with any of the current PE surgery techniques, it leads to further surgery. You simply can not compare injecting PMMA into the face, with injecting it into the penis. All our members need to understand that there is a risk with any type of penis enlargement. Unfortunately we aren't in a position to compare PMMA injections against "safer", non permanent injectables, such as Restylane or Juverderm. For us guys seeking a lager penis, we need to compare PMMA to Alloderm, Dermal grafts, FFT, liquid silicone or solid silicone. And if problems occur with any of these, then surgical intervention is inevitable. And from what we've read so far, the chances of problems with PMMA seem to be far lower than the chances of running into a problems from going under the surgeons knife. I'd say about 1/4 of the members here have had bad surgical experiences in the past. If we had a good temporary filler option, then of course the concerns expressed by those Dr's at RealSelf would be much more significant to us. All our members need to realise that there is no safe, sure fire way, to enlarge your penis. Once you are aware of that and have decided that you are prepared to take the risk, then you need to compare the different methods available. Hence PMMA's safety should be compared with other PE methods and not non permament injectables for the face.
|
|
dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 24, 2011 11:54:16 GMT -5
@hoddle I completely agree with your logic. This is the safest way(pmma) hands down. However, the problems we have are lack of data. We are comparing 3 diffrent kinds of PMMA. Artefill, Metacrill, and New plastic(Dr.C offers the last 2)We are also assuming that the PMMA will react the same way as it does in the face. We just dont know this. It may be worse, it may react better! Most DRS agree that granulomas are more likely to occur in dynamic parts of the face(lips, forehead) I for one belive that steroids and possible extraction will be easier in the penis given the Exit/entry point with the circ scar. Also most US drs keep bringing up this huge risk of infection. Through out most of my research this isint a realistic concern. But US drs use that and migration as the biggest inhibiters of using this material. They kind of lump it together with silicone. Are they that similar? Or is it just there ignorance? I have emailed the majority of the drs responding to patient complaints on real self and make me heal. I will be happy to share their responses and will keep their names anonymous.
|
|
supa
Contributing Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by supa on Jun 24, 2011 11:57:33 GMT -5
I try again: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4393/is_8_36/ai_n29200277/@so ... thank you for putting into (business) context the statements of some US surgeons. I now remember you warning me about their profit-biased views in an emaiil not a long time ago. Indeed, tt is about the available doctors as much it is about the available procedures. |
|
dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 24, 2011 12:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 12:46:41 GMT -5
I think we need to remember that when the Dr's oppossed to PMMA suggest complications are difficult to treat, they mean that there is no simple course of durgs or injections that can consistently deal with the problem. They talk as if surgical intervention is the end of the world. But in the PE industry surgcial intervention is par for the course! If you have serious problems with any of the current PE surgery techniques, it leads to further surgery. You simply can not compare injecting PMMA into the face, with injecting it into the penis. All our members need to understand that there is a risk with any type of penis enlargement. Unfortunately we aren't in a position to compare PMMA injections against "safer", non permanent injectables, such as Restylane or Juverderm. For us guys seeking a lager penis, we need to compare PMMA to Alloderm, Dermal grafts, FFT, liquid silicone or solid silicone. And if problems occur with any of these, then surgical intervention is inevitable. And from what we've read so far, the chances of problems with PMMA seem to be far lower than the chances of running into a problems from going under the surgeons knife. I'd say about 1/4 of the members here have had bad surgical experiences in the past. If we had a good temporary filler option, then of course the concerns expressed by those Dr's at RealSelf would be much more significant to us. All our members need to realise that there is no safe, sure fire way, to enlarge your penis. Once you are aware of that and have decided that you are prepared to take the risk, then you need to compare the different methods available. Hence PMMA's safety should be compared with other PE methods and not non permament injectables for the face. What he said. |
|
|
|
Post by sparticus on Jun 24, 2011 12:52:14 GMT -5
Dr. Klein alleges Dr. Carruthers had ties to Artes medical and possibly other pmma distributors:
"[PMMA] were highly endorsed by Alastair Carruthers who practiced medicine for companies such as Allergan,Medicis and Artes without a green card or a US License of any type."
SO posted earlier about Dr. Klein's possible ties to artificial fillers; however, this does not necessarily negate his allegations about Dr. Carruthers. I think we should investigate Dr. Carruthers ties as both men may not be telling the full truth as they have competing interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 12:57:34 GMT -5
To all the members who have shared and plan to share links regarding PMMA, please be sure to add a copy of that link to the RESOURCES ONLY forum if you can, thanks!  Also, this thread will be locked shortly in anticipation for Heard of PMMA (Medical Grade) OR Dr Casavantes [PART 2] at the new forum. A few days or less. |
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 24, 2011 13:13:18 GMT -5
sparticusGlad to see you posting again! I got your PM and plan to write back, sorry for the delay I tend to get a lot of PMs/Emails and can lose track. Dr. Klein alleges that someone else has "ties" to an "industry?" Wow, not sure what to say about that. I know that Arnold Klein's background doesn't necessarily negate his opinion, but it certainly cheapens it. I just find that the American Cosmetic-Medical community seem to be mostly in agreement with their distrust (i.e. ignorance) of PMMA, whereas the opposite is true abroad. Such polarity is indicative of competing agendas versus pure scientific objectivity (which is unfortunate). One thing is for certain, PMMA serves to be a major threat to the temporary-filler markets and Cosmetic Surgeons in the U.S. IF the product is demonstrated to possess a high degree of success (assuming quality grade product and physician). It is apparent the American market cannot use PMMA cost-effectively and therefore is better off de-legitimizing the product...think of it this way: Suppose multiple studies come out showing that years of improvement & innovation has made PMMA an excellent permanent filler for bodily application. Also suppose that the American patent on PMMA is still active and as a consequence, the prices per "cc" are simply too high for American doctors to use in their own clinics. Then suppose a patient comes to a Cosmetic Surgeon in Miami or LA and asks why he or she shouldn't consider PMMA versus the temporary fillers the Miami/LA doctor is providing. What do you suppose the doctor(s) would say? Granted, this is entirely hypothetical but it certainly makes you wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoddle10 on Jun 24, 2011 13:34:16 GMT -5
Does anyone know what happens if you don't treat a granuloma? My big fear is having to have the stuff cut out and as a result of this losing the shaft skin. But I'd only do that is it was essential the granuloma's were removed. So I wonder what would happen if you just accepted an inflamed and lumpy penis. Would the skin eventually breakdown or could one continue with a granuloma indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
Post by uptownblk on Jun 24, 2011 14:03:59 GMT -5
This thread is a gold mine with the amount of information it presents. Thanks to all who contributed!
|
|
?