TOPIC: I'm Skeptical on P-Long

As the title says, I'm very skeptical about P-Long. The study claims an average of .85 inches over 6 months with the largest Grower being 1.5 inches. This is HUGE growth and would be considered a medical miracle/breakthrough. Yet, where are the photos? A BPEL photo before and after? All these guys that took part in the study are nowhere to be found on reddit, here, or other forums. Why is that? Additionally, this procedure is pushing specific (and expensive) products. They are also pushing their own AFFIRM supplement. This automatically makes me think it's a money making scheme. Without before, during and after photos, we must assume these are just marketing claims. I know of only 1 member who is going through the process with updates, yet I've scoured the internet and nobody has posted the pictures or progress.

Rybrad wrote: As the title says, I'm very skeptical about P-Long. The study claims an average of .85 inches over 6 months with the largest grower being 1.5 inches. This is HUGE growth and would be considered a medical miracle/breakthrough. Yet, where are the photos? A BPEL photo before and after? All these guys that took part in the study are nowhere to be found on reddit, here, or other forums. Why is that? Additionally, this procedure is pushing specific (and expensive) products. They are also pushing their own AFFIRM supplement. This automatically makes me think it's a money making scheme. Without before, during and after photos, we must assume these are just marketing claims. I know of only 1 member who is going through the process with updates, yet I've scoured the internet and nobody has posted the pictures or progress.

You can choose to be skeptical and that's fair. The burden of proof now are in the hands of the Doctors and those who fulfill the program as prescribed. P-Long takes at least 6 months and Dr. Brandeis and his protocol has only picked up in popularity the last couple of months. You probably won't see results reported for weeks or months due to incremental gains. The vast majority of visitors on this site are lurkers who seldom post, if ever. We will have to hope those who (faithfully) fulfill the protocol as intended post their results honestly, and even better if they took a true before and after (which is much easier to do with girth than it is with incremental length gains).

Here is one validated progress report.

As for the Study's participants, who knows if any NDA's were involved so as to not paint the study with any needless bias or scrutiny (example: if an original participant came to the forums and was boasting and bragging about how amazing P-Long just as it was being introduced, it would have shill-vibes, and I'm glad we aren't seeing that. Or they simply may not be aware of PhalloBoards' existence, or like 90% of this site's traffic, wish to remain observers). Also, given the small sample size, it's not like we should be shocked that any of the participants haven't joined. Also, I have seen P-Long mentioned a few times on Reddit a while back, and the reason you don't see it on too many forums (yet) is because (1) it's relatively new and only now going fully public; and (2) this forum is the most appropriate platform since most other PE sites prefer organic methods and medical intervention is typically frowned upon.

I will say however, one of the oldest forum veterans has told me personally that he's seeing early and notable gains and he's not even following the protocol 100%, despite the fact that he knows he needs to (and I implore anyone who does this to PLEASE fulfill the program as prescribed otherwise we can't call it a failure or success without doing it as prescribed). He messaged me personally about it but I suspect he will share when he's further into the program, because unlike girth injections, this isn't some immediate Before & After judgment call.

Another consideration is that many men report gains with manual PE exercises on sites like Thundersplace, PEGym, and Reddit. So it isn't a stretch to believe that a medically tailored protocol by a Urologist who specializes in Sexual Medicine could prove to be even more effective in the long-run.

I'd stop short of calling those projections (0.85" average gain) a medical breakthrough or miracle unless it was seen quite consistently in the vast majority of subjects who follow the protocol 100%. For me, the benchmark isn't nearly as high: I'm looking to see if any tangible, measurable, visual gains were consistent for at least 2/3'rds of patients. Seeing how often people have complained on other sites about how PE works for some and not others, any significant consistency across all demographics of men would prove remarkable at the very least.. If the protocol ends up working but not to the degree or projections provided by the study, then it's plausible the routine can receive additional tweaking or modification for even better gains.

In other words, PE routines have been devised by Internet strangers through different variations of exercises & techniques (over decades) and yet still no Holy Grail method to be found. With P-Long, we now have a real start to the standardization of manual PE routines, which in turn can help contribute to the normalization of all types of penis enlargement among medical circles, which largely still perceive PE as highly experimental and ineffective. With every future study in PE, especially those with promising implications, it adds more merit and legitimacy to the field. In time, entrepreneurs, medical device companies, pharmaceuticals, and investors may one day see that there is more to this "dick-stretching thing."

I brought P-Long on board for it being the most promising look at alternatives to phalloplasty, and one not based on the pseudo-science that you often see speculated by armchair gurus on other PE sites (not to say they are all wrong, but frankly, there are still disagreements among the biggest PE veterans regarding some of the most fundamental tenets of manual PE exercises). I also brought P-Long on board because despite it not being a surgical or non-surgical procedure (which is what this site is all about), it was penis enlargement prescribed by medical practitioners, and I felt that was within the scope of the forum, especially for those who may still not be prepared or willing to consider Alloderm, PMMA, and so on.

To have a Urologist (a.k.a. Dick Doctor) conduct studies (which came from their own pockets because mainstream companies and pharmaceuticals aren't seemingly interested in dick-stretching R&D) adds a medical & scientific legitimacy, even if the Study itself isn't groundbreaking (e.g. sample size, control group, and a conclusion that is not able to ascertain which part of the protocol -OR- if the sum of the protocol was most responsible for the reported gains). I'm sure if the resources/capital were there, there would have been a sample size in the thousands, but due to the circumstances (and the stigma that still surrounds penis enlargement), we're fortunate to have an official published study at all.

I absolutely get the skepticism, but as I see it, the ball's in Dr. Brandeis's court --> if genuinely committed patients are either seeing success but are a minority -OR- a lackluster or inconsistency of gains among the average patient is presented to us over the course of months or years, then it'll be on him and his colleagues to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the effectiveness of the study isn't being replicated among current patients. On the flip side, we may see this protocol as remarkably effective for most who commit to it 100%, and also a great warmup to max out what you can before considering a medical procedure for additional size.

As my username implies, I am the Skeptical One, and admittedly I'm not sure to what extent the study's results can be replicated over a larger sample size, but given my aforementioned musings, I remain optimistic. I felt that at the very least, it's the safest of all methods promoted on the PhalloBoards, and the worst case scenario you'll deal with are little-to-no-gains, whereas I've personally turned away Doctors who use high volume silicone injections (and in turn revenue & livelihood). So while I am skeptical much like you, I'm a bit more optimistic that a medically designed PE routine should be as effective or better than most internet-sourced routines simply due to the fact that Urologists have a better overall understanding of the phallus, especially those who study the Sexual Studies side of Urology.

Not to mention RestoreX is the only device recommended by the Mayo Clinic, the Kaplan pump that has been around at least two decades and is known for its quality, PRP to expedite the healing & growth factors stemming from the stress induced by traction and suction, with a supplement aimed at increasing blood flow. The AFFIRM supplement by the way, is the only thing I've heard of in the study that Dr. Brandeis may have a financial stake in, and quite frankly, who cares? Unless he also happened to owned RestoreX & Kaplan pumps, I don't see the issue here -- if anything he's promoting devices that have actual medical backing known for their quality, and he doesn't make a penny on the monthly PRP session if you happen to see a separate P-Long provider. Yes, it appears P-Long providers make money by providing a prescribed routine, devices, supplements, and monthly PRP shots, tailored by medical professionals so that you limit injury and increase your chances at PE gains... it's only a money making "scheme" as you call it if it flat out fails for the vast majority of patients who commit 100% to the program. Till such time, I think it's a bit disrespectful to throw around the word "scheme" until authentic results start rolling in. He's been eager to engage this community and answer almost every question, he's submitted a Study that was accepted by an Andrology Journal, and I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing wrong with remaining skeptical, either seek out alternatives (which include surgery and so on), or play the waiting game and hope that the guys here who have mentioned wanting to try P-Long and commit as intended actually report back when appropriate. The lack of pictures are likely due to the fact that this protocol has been in the works, I've only heard about it a year or so ago, and they've only now gone public with it. In other words, questioning the Doctor's motives and such, before any member here has had a chance to even reach 6-months of full commitment isn't healthy skepticism, and borders on unfair criticism. P-Long is relatively new, I'd wait till not one, but at least a handful of reports come back before making any kind of judgment.

And while I won't reveal the details of our Sponsorship Agreement (other than the fact that I don't get commission on any referrals like ALL other Sponsors), Dr. Brandeis has so much faith in his program that he's going to be promoting P-Long for enough time for at least 2 to 3 generations (6-Month Spans) of patients to complete the program and share their feedback. If this was nothing but a "scheme" then we'd know it in a year's time (or less), and he intends on being around for a much longer time than that.

Dr. Brandeis being a part of our Community and being as engaged as he's been (arguably the most active Sponsor of 2023), answering questions and even considering feedback is nothing short of someone who genuinely wants to see this program work. Sure you can be cynical and call it a marketing pitch, but his Questions-and-Answers are technical & educational in nature, never resorting to the "BIGGER IS BETTER" or "ALPHA MALE" style of advertising.

Another thing to consider regarding his faith in P-Long is the fact that he's promoting this protocol in the face of demonstrably successful means of enlargement like injectable phalloplasty. He sincerely believes that manual PE can work when designed by those who spent a career studying penises, and he believes this "recipe" with its ratio of ingredients (devices, supplements, etc) is that "breakthrough," that can eventually compete with the other methodologies found on the PhalloBoards. Bold yes, but it's that kind of confidence and risk-taking you need to be successful in any industry.

I know this was a lot to read, but I felt compelled to stand up NOT for P-Long (because I can only rely on a Study that appears promising but not guaranteed until we see), but rather for a Sponsor (Dr. Brandeis) who provides so many answers to the community and is so receptive to ideas and information exchange that I'd hate to see him alienated by someone whose skepticism isn't worth starting a whole topic for, especially for all the many reasons I gave above.

This isn't meant to be an argument with you Rybrad, you're entitled to your speculations, I just ask you and others to be mindful of how your critique may come off. Visitors/Lurkers, Registered Members, Moderators, and even Sponsors are all a part of this fraternal community. I'm not saying Dr. Brandeis is immune to criticism, especially if P-Long fails to convince anyone of its merits or effectiveness, but till such time that it is deserved, I ask we instead offer something constructive, ask relevant questions regarding your concerns (respectfully), play the wait-and-see game, or move onto other methods and discussions which will prove beneficial for all parties. I hope you have my understanding.

Seems reasonable to me to ask for visual evidence (just as you relentlessly ask for members to post their own pics). Important to allow critics and skeptics feel free to be heard and totally reasonable to ask Dr B to “prove it.” After all, you are highly critical/skeptical of Loria.

Just some friendly pushback.

Wanna8x6 wrote: Seems reasonable to me to ask for visual evidence (just as you relentlessly ask for members to post their own pics). Important to allow critics and skeptics feel free to be heard and totally reasonable to ask Dr B to “prove it.” After all, you are highly critical/skeptical of Loria.

Just some friendly pushback.

First and foremost, do not compare the infamously incompetent and dangerous Dr. Loria to a Provider who isn't even injecting you with fillers or inserting implants; my scrutiny of Dr. Loria comes from years of observing him perform unethical medicine. Comparing this to a Urologist who is providing a Protocol rather than a procedure is, with all due respect, absurd.

As for Dr. Brandeis "proving it" - well his argument is that his studies have done just that, including the one accepted by an Andrology Journal. That said, I would agree with Rybrad and others that the proof will be in the pudding. In all fairness however, the P-Long just started going public recently and I doubt that anyone who knows this forum (yet) has hit the 6-Month mark.

Also, I never dismissed Rybrad's insistence for photo evidence, instead I offered logical explanations as to why something relatively new based on a Study with a small sample size that takes a minimum of 6 months might be hard to find so readily available. It's a lot easier supplying a Girth photo which shows a significant change in circumference that took one hour, versus incremental length gains that span months or longer (if you don't believe me, just consider how many Girth photos there are versus length photos on this site -OR- how on other penis enlargement sites, most length photos seem to boast 2 centimeters with a ruler pushed so hard against the groin you're sure it'd leave a mark, and even then it's tough to say whether these are legitimate gains or Cialis at work??).

I also made clear that I endorsed Rybrad's skepticism multiple times, including my own acknowledgment that I wasn't sure the extent that this would be successful, but remained optimistic that if men can achieve gains with PE exercises alone, a medically tailored routine may prove even more effective.

Critics and skeptics are free to be heard, otherwise his post would have been deleted and his account banned, no? The reason I wrote what may seem as highly defensive is because of the language used by Rybrad himself --> the implication of a "money scheme" based on nothing more than musings or speculation, and that was something I found disrespectful. If he rewrote everything he said short of that meritless phrase, I would have had a much briefer reply without the defensive tone.

Be Skeptical, hell it's in my name. But be respectful too, especially to a Physician who has been more active in voluntarily answering community questions, practically a free consultation to all and anyone who are registered members. I've had Sponsors in the past who slowly disengaged from community discourse because all it took was one person to not understand the line between critical and incendiary. I'd hate to see Dr. Brandeis ever feel the need to post less & less because some people aren't mindful of how to engage in meaningful discussion & debate versus nonconstructive commentary.

It's that simple. I'm not looking to argue or defend my original response, I think it's quite clear that the Community benefits in the long run by having the likes of P-Long as an alternative consideration. Many guys here are already pumping or stretching, and many of them aren't skeptics of manual PE exercise. This P-Long is largely for those men who are native to PE exercises and on the fence about things like PMMA, HA, and Alloderm.

There is reason to be skeptical if there is a very limited amount of patient feedback (like I know of someone who is currently at a 0.5" Erect length gain which is rather significant and he hasn't even completed 6 months, but that's only one guy so far). However, the reason I "shook hands" with Dr Brandeis (unlike Dr. Loria who I flatly rejected Sponsorship to) was because at the very least he was working on studies as a Urologist with an emphasis on Sexual Medicine, and was not participating in any methodologies known to have high a rate of complication.

In the end, P-Long can turn out to be ineffective for most or very effective for most, time will tell. My contention in my original response was about the language used. Just because we enjoy anonymity doesn't mean we should forget forum etiquette with other members, Moderators, and especially Sponsors, the ones we need contributing dialog the most (because unlike us armchair experts, these are professionals who have made lifelong careers studying the penis).

@Skeptical_One

I saw your comment from a couple of months ago about a user who was completing the protocol. Did that person finish? Can you share their results? Or at least give a gain/no gain? Seems like all of the user posts cataloging their protocol have been unresponsive for 2 months.

Jrob414 wrote: @Skeptical_One

I saw your comment from a couple of months ago about a user who was completing the protocol. Did that person finish? Can you share their results? Or at least give a gain/no gain? Seems like all of the user posts cataloging their protocol have been unresponsive for 2 months.

I'll gladly send him a private message and inquire. He did say he may post about his experiences publicly, as he has previously had posted about his experiences with PMMA.

Also, gains are incremental and the Protocol is a minimum 6-months. Unlike girth procedures (which see instant, immediate gains over the span of an hour), lengthening isn't meaningful day-to-day and week-to-week. This may explain some absence in comments, but I don't know for sure.

@Skeptical_One
Bumping this thread — it's been 2.5 years.

Is it really possible that nobody, in all this time, has posted updates on their progress? I'm not even asking for photos — just written reports from people who actually completed the 6-month protocol.

If the gains claimed by the study were real, by now there should be plenty of testimonies. Where are they?

Skeptical_One also mentioned in 2023 that 'one of the oldest forum veterans' was already seeing 'early and notable gains' and was expected to share his progress later in the program. That was 2.5 years ago. Did he ever post? What happened to that case?

We'd genuinely love to hear good news, if anyone has updates to share, this is the place.

eccebombolo wrote: Bumping this thread — it's been 2.5 years.

Is it really possible that nobody, in all this time, has posted updates on their progress? I'm not even asking for photos — just written reports from people who actually completed the 6-month protocol.

If the gains claimed by the study were real, by now there should be plenty of testimonies. Where are they?

Skeptical_One also mentioned in 2023 that 'one of the oldest forum veterans' was already seeing 'early and notable gains' and was expected to share his progress later in the program. That was 2.5 years ago. Did he ever post? What happened to that case?

We'd genuinely love to hear good news, if anyone has updates to share, this is the place.

A few things:
Many P-Long clients are not privy to this site's existence. Since the PhalloBoards is primarily discusses surgical-like enhancements, the forums may not necessarily be the kind of platform people would search for initially. However, given the medical oversight of the method and its aim to increase penis size, the overlap made this platform a natural place to have it discussed nonetheless.

Secondly, in my recent chat with Dr. Brandeis, he has a few Affiliates who would like to share what they've learned, and are in the process of reaching out to patients who have been reporting successful results; this initiative actually got discussed weeks ago coincidentally.

Thirdly, similar to length surgeries, results are not overnight, and heck may not even be obvious until you get months out. For this reason (and like lengthening surgery), incremental gains of this nature are seldom reported. Girth procedures, on the other hand, are demonstrably instantaneous and their recovery post-op is meaningful in terms of progress reporting.

Lastly, I still have P-Long providers as Sponsors and the program itself still presents the best alternative to full-blown medical procedures (while retaining medical supervision).

Perhaps @P-Long can add to this.

Thanks for the reply. Quickly, on the first two points: if Brandeis himself reached out to PhalloBoards, his patients likely know it exists too. And the fact that affiliates now have to actively solicit testimonials, after 2.5 years, says a lot on its own.

On the "results take time" point: this doesn't really apply to P-Long. The protocol promises ~1 inch of erect length gain by the end of the 6-month program. That's the explicit claim of the published study and the marketing. It's the opposite of traditional traction-based PE, which requires many hours a day across multiple years for modest gains. P-Long is sold precisely as the shortcut that skips that timeline. So if the claim is real, the documentation should be everywhere by now.

And if you take the claim at face value and project it forward, the math gets absurd very quickly. Just for fun: a man starting at 5 inches gains 1 inch in 6 months and reaches 6 inches. If he then continues with even a modest 3% monthly progression — which is far less than what some providers imply is sustainable — here's where he ends up:

- Month 6: 6.00”
- Month 9: 6.56”
- Month 12: 7.16”

In just one year, the patient would go from 5 to over 7 inches. The population average is around 5.2 inches. Numbers like these would have been documented somewhere by now — photos, measurements, court cases, anything. They aren't.

In fact, the one well-documented public case I could find points the other way. User phalloguy100 @phalloguy100 , who tried the protocol and cross-posted his experience here, ExcelMale and Thunders Place, wrote: "No noticeable erect length increase except right after pumping." That's the only honest, documented data point we have — and it confirms exactly what we'd expect: temporary tumescence from the pump, no actual structural elongation.

There's also a question that remains completely unanswered: how exactly does the protocol elongate the tunica albuginea? It's a dense, high-tensile collagen sheath designed to resist axial deformation. No one — not the study, not Brandeis, not the providers — has offered a coherent biological mechanism for how this tissue is supposed to remodel and stay elongated under the P-Long stimuli. Without that, the entire premise floats in the air.

Look, the entire world of men dissatisfied with their size is rooting for a protocol like this to actually work — something better than torturing your penis with traction for years, or going under the knife for invasive surgery. Of course we'd love it to be real. But we also need to be sure it actually works before celebrating. So far, we aren't.

On your two points:
Dr. Brandeis isn't the only provider of P-Long, and in fact he has some Providers who do far more in this area -- those are the patients I was referring to. Many of those guys don't know about this site (yet*).

As for your second point:
The math doesn't get absurd, you simply chose to disregard the observations made about men who gain incrementally over months are less likely to post -- this has been demonstrated over 15 years, your math doesn't exactly apply to forum behavior. Ligamentolysis is the most common/major lengthening procedure, are you telling me that no one gets it done? Because you can hardly find a progress report on it... it's progress is akin to P-Long in nature.

Guys who post about length gains on other penis enlargement (PE) sites seldom have any convincing photos, let's keep it 100. In fact, most of the protocols are armchair methods that may have worked for them but won't necessarily work for others (heck, they may even lead to injury). I have been following the online PE scene since the mid-2000's, I can count on maybe two hands where I saw convincing (i.e. measured correctly & pictured correctly) gains that weren't just improvements in overall Erection quality. In contrast, having a medically crafted protocol at least has its advantages (i.e. medical oversight & scientifically driven) if one chooses to go this route.

In fact, the vast majority of this site's traffic never posts even once; the men who do post often have something immediate and far more impressive at first glance, which may explain the posting behavior for Girth procedures.

You wrote: "But we also need to be sure it actually works before celebrating. So far, we aren't." No one is asking for a celebration, and yes, we should be sure it works. I hope more guys do post, and as I have alluded in the past, I've had feedback through back channels and can't entirely explain why more isn't posted publicly (other than the aforementioned factors). What I do know is that some Providers of P-Long are continuing to see happy clients (for good measure, P-Long renewed its Sponsorship this year, which personally acts as a strong indicator), and my recent talks with Dr. Brandeis is aimed at trying to direct guys who are not familiar with this site to post here, however that might be achieved.

Until then, my argument is that if you believe that traction, pumping, and other manual forms of PE can work, then the P-Long protocol serves to be a superior route all things considered, and remains the only established alternative to surgical & non-surgical male Phalloplasty that offers medical backing.

Fair points on a few things — I'll concede them honestly.

You're right that many P-Long patients come through clinics in cities where online PE culture is unfamiliar to them, and that the vast majority of forum users never post. The Ligamentolysis comparison is also valid: it's a real procedure that generates few documented reports here. And your broader observation — that 15 years of PE forums have produced surprisingly few convincing length gain cases regardless of method — is actually one of the most honest things said in this thread. I take that seriously.

That said, three things stand out in your reply:

The Sponsorship renewal isn't an indicator of efficacy. A sponsorship renews when the marketing program is working — i.e. when the forum generates paid referrals. That's a business metric, not a clinical one. The two should not be conflated.

The "back channel feedback I can't fully explain why it's not posted" framing is, with all respect, not evidence. It's a request for trust. In a discussion about whether claims are supported, "I have proof but can't show you" sits in exactly the same epistemic category as "trust me." That's not a criticism of you personally — it's just how evidence works.

The core question I raised remains untouched: how does the protocol elongate the tunica albuginea? You haven't addressed it, Brandeis hasn't addressed it in any published form, and the providers don't address it. The tunica is the biomechanical limiting factor of penile length — it's the structure that has to remodel for any real, lasting gain to occur. Without a coherent mechanism, even genuine reports of "feeling longer" or "measuring longer" leave open whether what's actually happening is structural elongation or simply better tumescence from improved vascular function. Those two outcomes look identical on a ruler but mean very different things biologically.

On the closing argument — that if traction and pumping work, then P-Long is superior because it adds medical oversight — I'd just note that this assumes the premise. If traction and pumping primarily produce elastic gains and tumescence improvements (which is what the most rigorous self-reports actually show), then layering PRP and supplements on top doesn't transform the underlying mechanism. It just adds cost.

I'm not arguing P-Long does nothing. The PRP almost certainly improves erectile quality — that's well-supported in independent literature on ED. What I'm questioning is whether it produces the structural tunica remodeling the marketing implies. That distinction matters, because patients are paying $5,000–6,000 expecting structural change, not just better erections.

If the back channel feedback ever becomes documentable — with measurements, photos, and post-protocol follow-up — I'll be the first to update my position publicly.

I just want to say that it's refreshing to watch two obviously intelligent people have a debate on something!!

Hello Phalloboard Members,
I apologize for the infrequent communications. I have been busy with a number of AI projects, including cloning myself (globalmenswellness.com), the Global Mens Wellness YouTube channel, the 21st Century Man Spotify podcast, completely automating my medical practice, and adding Exomind TMS to my office in Northern California.
I hear that you all wanted updated results on P-Long. I am currently contacting all active P-Long providers to obtain their medical practice results. I will share this information with the forum over time. The goal would be to collect the data to present an abstract at the Sexual Medicine Society of North America meeting and publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. This would certainly be the largest penile enhancement data set ever published!
I have received results from 13 P-Long providers already, and I am very encouraged by the outcomes! Very consistent with the results from my P-Long study and sometimes even better.
More to come!
Judson Brandeis MD

Dr. Brandeis @P-Long , it's genuinely good to see you participating in the PhalloBoards discussion again after such a long time. Your direct presence in this thread is appreciated and adds real value to the conversation.

A few questions I'd like to ask you directly:

**1. Your own patient results over 2.5 years**

In 2.5 years of running the protocol in your own practice, you must have personally treated dozens — likely many more — of patients. What results have you seen in terms of erect length gains? Documented data would be ideal, but even a candid summary of what you've observed firsthand would be valuable. Not stretched flaccid length, not subjective satisfaction — erect length, in patients you have personally followed through the full 6-month protocol.

**2. The mechanism on the tunica albuginea**

This question has been left unanswered through every iteration of this thread, in your published study, and across every provider page. Can you finally explain, from a tissue-biology standpoint, how the P-Long Protocol produces structural elongation of the tunica albuginea — a dense, high-tensile collagen sheath designed to resist axial deformation — in anatomically healthy men? Specifically: what evidence (histological, ultrasound, elastographic) supports the claim that the tunica is being remodeled, as opposed to the measured gains being explained by improved tumescence from PRP's vascular effects and AFFIRM's nitric oxide?

**3. About your AI clone**

You mentioned cloning yourself at globalmenswellness.com. I had a long, detailed conversation with that AI about the protocol. I'd like to share a brief summary because some of what it acknowledged is, frankly, more candid than the marketing on the P-Long website:

- On the **tunica mechanism**: when pressed on whether TGF-β1 in PRP could promote fibrosis rather than elongation, the AI conceded: "we don't have head-to-head mechanistic data comparing TGF-β1 signaling in healthy versus fibrotic tunica under these exact conditions."

- On the **measurement methodology**: when asked how at-home patient self-measurements distinguish actual tunica elongation from improved tumescence, the AI said directly: "That's not tunica elongation. That's a fluffier erection," and acknowledged that the study lacked standardized in-office measurements, blinded observation, and ultrasound imaging.

- On the **commercial rollout**: when asked whether the current pricing and marketing match the evidence, the AI responded: "the marketing says men will gain length and girth. That language doesn't match the evidence I actually have," and added that under the current model, patients "are partially funding the research that will eventually answer whether this works."

- The AI characterized the protocol as "in development, not a proven procedure" and concluded: "You've done this analysis better than I marketed it."

Full conversation here: www.delphi.ai/judsonbrandeis/chat/share/...3c-bf16-54ceec437faa


Looking forward to your reply.

Hello Eccebombolo,
You make some good observations. I have personally treated more than 100 P-Long patients. Measurement in the study was at home with an Erect penis using a rigid ruler for length and a special tape measure for Girth, documented with a photographic image. Men could do bone press or non-bone press as long as they were consistent. Ideally, I would have injected Trimix in the office and done the measurements in the office, but no one would sign up for a study like this if they had to endure Trimix and then Phenylephrine once a month. Let's be real, the NIH is not going to fund a study like this. I did the best I could under the circumstances with limited funding. My study data shows a 0.8 Inch increase in length and a 0.4 cc increase in Girth. About 2.5% per month for length. I have many patients who continued the P-Long protocol after the study ended and have continued to grow, sometimes impressively.

You make a good point about the Tunica. Having done hundreds of penile implants and other surgeries on the penis, I can confidently say that the tunica is one of the thickest and toughest vascular tissues in the body. I have opened up the Aorta on a number of men when I was doing general vascular surgery, and the tunica is thicker and tougher than the aorta. I have no histological evidence of changes in the tunica, and I have no ultrasound that would reliably detect a difference. All I can say is that the penis grows during puberty, so it is possible for the tunica to grow, and that I feel like the combination of PRP with traction and suction and AFFIRM results in growth. All men in the study had normal erectile function (men with ED were excluded), so that 'better' erectile function would be unlikely to cause growth.

As for my AI clone, it can only draw conclusions based on the evidence I provided. You are asking about growth factors and other issues that are more theoretical or difficult to answer without a very specific and scientific study. The P-Long study is the first and only (as far as I know) study to look at a natural way to increase the length, Girth, and function of a healthy man's penis WITHOUT any negative side effects. Are there flaws in the study? Of course. Are there unanswered questions? Of course.

My follow-up survey of P-Long providers should help me determine whether P-Long works the same way in other offices as it does in my office. The preliminary data seems to indicate an emphatic yes! The mechanistic research will have to wait until the NIH becomes more interested enough in men's sexual health and size to provide adequate funding to address these questions.

I hope that is helpful.