@eccebombolo
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. This reply is not only to respond to some of your points, but to also happily announce some good news relevant to this topic.
You wrote: The Sponsorship renewal isn't an implication of efficacy in of itself. 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.
I never implied renewal was an indicator of efficacy, and I should have been more clear about why it was even necessary to cite this bit of information. You see, it's one thing to "sign a Sponsor" and another to "renew a Sponsor," especially after 3 years. This reaffirms a business metric, sure, but because of P-Long's time commitment, it somewhat can be interpreted as a second-hand metric for the protocol's overall reception & consensus -- keep in mind it just isn't Dr. Brandeis who would need to see positive results, but his many affiliates. This "reception & consensus" doesn't outright determine efficacy, but it certainly lends some credence nonetheless.
Frankly, metrics in this area are very hard to come by. Penis enlargement is elective and for that reason, sees much less R&D than actual pathologies, like Peyronie's Disease or Erectile Dysfunction. Sample sizes are limited to perhaps two or three dozen Clinics in North America that seldom collaborate, communicate, or collate data. So any metric can be useful in this regard, and I think
"conflated" is not apt all things considered, I think the "c" word we're looking for is
"correlated."
On a side note, I will assert that having Sponsorship at all strongly favors efficacy versus the field (as in, if you had to try your hand at a procedure, a PhalloBoards Sponsor and a local alternative, the odds are not slightly in your favor, but heavily in your favor of a better outcome with the PB option). Sponsors have a public-facing profile on arguably one of the most scrutinizing platforms on the web -- my username isn't a coincidence.
You also wrote: 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.
I'm well aware of how evidence works, I'm as strong a proponent of the STEM fields as anyone you can find, and empiricism is a fundamental hallmark in evaluating the efficacy of any methodology.
That said, it is absolutely a request of trust, but one I believe is legitimate when considering the whole. I would hope I have earned the collective trust of the community to make statements that have their best interest in mind, because not only is it the same community that helped me resolve my own personal size conquests, it's also the same community that has established this Forum for what it is: a fraternal group of like-minded men with shared goals, most notably among them the desire to become a more informed decision maker. I moderate this discussion channel as the de facto
patient advocate in an area so niche that this site still remains the
only independent site dedicated to the topic of medical male enhancement. I say all that to say that when I personally offer anecdotes, I want to believe it holds weight -- because if not, then it becomes difficult to place much value in the institutional knowledge this forum has accumulated over the years.
So while anecdotal evidence wouldn't hold up in court, much less the scientific method... we don't live in a world where this specific information flows like the sea, and sometimes certain sources (i.e. a guy who has read every penis enlargement surgery post ever made on any forum for nearly 20 years) might be a necessary
consideration (a lot of "c" words it seems lol) when evaluating the greater picture. If Sponsorship bias is your contention, I would remind you that (1) I voluntarily started and ran this platform in 2010 for an entire decade out of pocket with no vested commercial interests; (2) despite my current Sponsorship structure, I have and continue to turn away unethical practitioners in order to preserve the integrity of this site (just think what Loria + Elist and their affiliates could bring in?); and (3) we're having this discussion on a topic literally titled: "I'm Skeptical on P-Long."
You wrote: The core question I raised remains untouched: how does the protocol elongate the tunica albuginea?
I felt this one was more Dr. Brandeis-specific, and I'm glad he has and continues to chime in.
Lastly you wrote: 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.
Yes, precisely. While not
evidence of the sort you alluded to before, the largest penis enlargement forums (GettingBigger subreddit, ThundersPlace among a few) are almost entirely about manual equipment & exercises, with hundreds of thousands of men having engaged in these routines, many of them (purportedly) citing some meaningful gains. While not proof, it certainly suggests the
premise is worthy of investigation by people with medical backgrounds, not only to validate its merit, but to reduce its propensity for physical injury, and hopefully eliminate it altogether (without sacrificing gains).
The Good News:
We have a new P-Long Provider joining the roster of specialists contributing to the greater development of not only the field, but this discussion. You will not only hear from Dr. Brandeis, but one (or possibly two) of his affiliates in the very near future. While tentative, it appears to be a very solid chance this topic picks up again in June (of this year).
I do appreciate your skepticism, and you are right to point out what are normally very valid critiques, but my responses are meant to convey to you the relative uniqueness of this topic, the dearth of data outside this very platform, and the realization that certain (less-robust empiricisms) may need to at least be considered in one's overall calculations because of the reality of how underdeveloped this field still is.
