TOPIC: the switch to 10% pmma

I do not know. I just can\'t imagine 20% plastic Balls costing the same as 10%!!! 20% is twice as many Balls in the same fluid. It cost money to mkle these tiny PMMA Balls and to make sure they are nice and round with no sharp edges....

Some one can find out the cost?

@Mustang2020
Actually it might even be the same price or more costly given that 10% would open access to specific filler applications which might generate more revenue than too massive a higher concentration, such as more precise facial sculpture for example. So I can\'t say for sure if pricing is related to the quantity of the initial raw material PMMA pellets, or to the availability of special purpose concentrations designed for different results according to their respective properties. This would make sense as if we do get better results using 10% for Phalloplasty then they could even make this level of dilution the most expensive one...
HC

@ Mikehok

Hey! Ok so basically it seems like gains are coming. I will update my thread now. Basicall on day 6 when I said the above I was still bruised and yes had no gains at all apart from the base which I thought was swollen.

I estimated the bruising would be gone by day 10 as before. But actually the day after I wrote this the bruising had all but gone. The day after my penis felt fuller not swollen just fuller and softer. So despite my better instincts and talk about waiting I measured and yes it is bigger.

I can only imagine that somehow my penis was retracting and tighter from the trauma and as I write this I remember something similar fom the FFT where a few days later after a top up there seemed to be no gain and then after ten days things had settled and relaxed and the gain appeared.

I cant think that collagen would form this quick and cause a gain in two days but my penis is certainly bigger.

Will post on my thread now.

Hi Mikehok,
I think the doctor has to inject more volume of the smaller concentration than the higher concentration just to have the same gain.
I have asked this Q. to Lemperle and that was his answer :-
it is a simple calculation : I have counted that 20% Artecoll contains 6 million 40 micron beads, which means that 10% PMMA contains 3 million and 30% contains 9 million beads. All will be encapsulated with about the double or triple their amount of connective tissue. As you said, you will need to inject 3 times as much 10% PMMA than 30 % PMMA, and I imagine, Dr. Casavantes sees less lumps with 10% and therefore injects rather twice as often than twice as concentrated. I also injected a mixture of Artecoll (20%PMMA) 1:1 mixed with Lidocaine into an elderly\'s dorsum of the hands because it was a liquid and easier to be distributed under the skin. The penis is the same ! So stick to the 10 %.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the 10% may have more than half the gain of the 20%. For example if the beads were more clumped together with the 20% you might have a situation where the same amount of new tissue encapsulates 2 beads for every one bead in the 10%, if that makes any sense ?

Well, Dr C and Wade are insisting that 10% will give the same gains as 20%. They have been very honest so far and we need to give them a chance to prove their claims. I am sure they are aware of this forum and its influence on their patients.

It is possible that the 10% will allow the same collagen tissue to grow as 20% in only the penis. As we all know, the penis is so complicated and so unique in its response to any changes that may be it reacts the same for either 10% or 20%...we shall wait and see.

It\'s true, what I know that for more dense implant ( skull bone defect) you will need higher concentration of PMMA e.g. 40-45% , that\'s why Dr. Nacule is developing this high concentration for skull bone defect reconstruction.
Check in this site the topic about Newplastic:-
www.facialwasting.org/buttock_wasting.htm
So if the 10% will give the same gains as 20% ---> it must mean that the end result of the 10% has to be softer (in texture) than the more denser collagen after the injection of the 20% , and of course as we know the 10% has an advantage of less chance of developing lumps.
So the gain in girth will depend mostly on the distance between the beads and how many layers (or sheets) of the beads on top of each other (in cross section of the penis) and rarely on the number of beads (of course it has some effect on the gain but less).
So if we have beads very close to each other (e.g. 30%) you will have much firmer collagen in the end result and also the chance of more lumps, ( also not to forget in 40-45% or more it will feel almost like bone), but the gain in girth in the end result of different concentration with the same volumes will be either little or no difference.
So if we have e.g. two identical penises who had been injected with same number of beads but :-
One had two sessions of 10% Newplastic 10 cc in each session = 20 cc in total ( as we know that 10% conc. i.e. 3 millions beads in 1 cc ---> 3x20 = 60 millions beads.
The other penis had only one session he was injected with 20% conc. and only 10 cc (---> 6 millions beads x 10 = 60 millions beads ).
So both had 60 millions beads but I am sure the 1st one will have more gain than the 2nd one because in the 1st one you have more layers of beads on top of each other ---> more gain in girth , so the gain in girth will depend on the distance between the 60 millions beads from each other in a giving area (so more distance more gain in girth)
Even if you inject the 1st one with 20 cc of 10% in one session instead of two sessions will also gain more than the 10 cc of 20% injected in the other penis (at the end both patients will have the same number of beads but the distances between these beads are different).

In the other hand if we inject the same volumes in the above examples with different concentrations (e.g. 10% + 20%) --> in the higher conc. sure you will have a more denser and firmer collagen but also IMO you will have some more gain (may be a little) than the lower conc.
In conclusion :- The gain will depend more on the volume and the number of the sessions (i.e. the distance between the beads) more than the concentration of the beads.
This is a Q. for the guys who had I think in the 1st session different concentration ( 10% near to the Glans, 20% in the shaft and 30% near to the base ) Was the collagen firmer or more denser near to the base than near to the Glans ??

There also can be a business decision to go to 10%. This is pure speculation on my part. It is safer for the patient and for the Dr to start with 10% and then see how the penis takes it, then do another session of 10%. This way, there is less chances of complications and there is more profit to be had. nothing wrong with this theory. they are there to make money and make bigger penises in the process.

Let\'s see if we can compare two patients on this forum. One with two sessions of 20% and one with two sessions of 10%. I know the patients will be different physically, but may be we can make an educated guess as to which percentage did better!

@ smart man (Mikehok9
makes perfect sense

@ Mustang2020
I think Dr C and team first and foremost are concerned that they have a clean reputation and the safer a method they use the better it is for them. DR C says he hates being pushed to fill in more and use higher concentration one of the reasons is that if it ends up being a less than great result then suddenly the patient forgets that it was the patient that insisted on the extra amount and eventually its bad advertising.

They are so busy now that if they wanted to earn more money they should just put the price up to 2000 its still worth it and chances are there would be no or little drop in patients.

I am a ten percent guy all the way apart from a 1 cc of 30% in the base during round one.

I am seeing more gains since my last update and now think I might end up with somewhere between 0.3-0.35 gain from round two. Considering that my starting point was 6.15 average this is a lot of volume. and would easily be the equivalent to a 0.6 gain for a 5.25 Cock or a 1 Inch gain for a 4.5 Inch Cock.

My round one gave me 0.6 and my starting point was 5.55 again this would probably be close to 0.75 if I had a 5 Inch Cock to start with.

So IMO my round one result compares well to most guys who had 20%

if I end up with 0.35 after round two then I would conclude that 10% is a good compromise. Maybe 90% as effective but safer and certainly not half as effective even if its half the concentration.

Check my thread for more stats and you can see how things progressed (are progressing)

@mustang2020
This could be a sore subject and after spending a great deal on many things I was myself on a tight budget so I did factor this into the equation. If I could save the extra fifteen hundred dollars (approximately) for a second session I had resolved to request a first one of 20% concentrate hoping that it wouldn\'t need any touch up. That seemed the most economical \'bang for the buck\' method of PE.
Then I arrived at the clinic and was readied for the operation. Until then most had been about formalities. Now once on the table it was about what my objectives were and how we might get there. And my earlier decision melted like ice in the sun as I realized I was messing with my one and only instrument of manhood. This isn\'t some \'eat all you can\' for a single price meal. It was \"Here\'s your Penis, what do you go home with?!?\"
So realizing the great power that Dr C and Zobel Wade wielded I took care to listen to them carefully. After all penises is something they know a whole lot more about than I do. They see them day in day out and have done so for years. This technique and substance is also their realm, having perfected it themselves and seen many configurations and results. I resolved then and there to do the smart thing and let them decide what is the intelligent thing to do. For they had the \"Intelligence\" on this subject which no amount of investigation on my behalf could ever bring.
This proved the right approach in my case. First it showed that they were being empowered to exercise their profession to the best of their abilities, not being harnessed by the preconceptions of a patient who might be disoriented or even deluded. And that is exactly what they did, using their understanding of penile mechanics and PMMA integration to its fullest by overcoming step by step the unusual morphological challenges which my somewhat misshaped penis brought to the procedure. They worked very hard for what seemed like at least two hours, painstakingly devising new solutions to each problem encountered. It was hard labor and I know having worked at many jobs. Not at all a walk in the park.
So of course they are deserving of earning a proper living on this method they have helped devise and are continuously perfecting. And it didn\'t fail to cross my mind that with the above calculations one would pay possibly twice as much to achieve the same girth objectives when starting with 10% and then applying much larger finishing touches. But this is if things were all so simple as basic math, which I am fairly sure they are not.
First, if they wanted to make as much money as possible, they would have made their rates different from the starting gate. It isn\'t hard to make sure you gain as much as you can, all you need to do is spend some time crunching numbers and formulations of various injection scenarios, with at each time costs which make it expensive no matter how you go about it. Instead they offered what one might call a groundbreaking er deal of girth per dollar. All your penis can take of highly effective 20% PMMA for one low flat rate of $1500. This isn\'t even being removed from their current offerings even if it is being discretely discouraged.
Why? Because all of a sudden a successful medical team turned greedy or did comparative marketing studies and found themselves underpriced? I seriously doubt this for several reasons. First I have worked with many unscrupulous people and am prepared to attest that this is not the case of Dr C and his team. Secondly were this the case they would officially rescind their former deal to stave off bargain hunters looking for a deal. Third they would be working at a number of different pricing formulas and intervention packages to attract clients more than to treat patients.
None of this is going on, so it is safe to assume that we are instead in presence of entirely different motivations. Dr C has done this procedure and it isn\'t easy to meet the varying demands of many patients while ensuring the utmost prudential care and making certain that there will be no permanent results which might bear criticism. Many patients come to his clinic demanding huge girth goals and seeking to have him engineer for them discount priced Beer Can shaped aesthetically \'deformed\' unnatural penises. Dr C is NOT a Penis Dr Frankenstein, making it an issue to manage unrealistic expectations (worse, pressure to produce insane unreal permanent results, but for real) from the onset, something which is best dissuade by pursuing a gradual process during which patients may have time to reassess their objectives and come to realize on their own over several months that \"Bigger isn\'t always Better\" beyond any rational limits.
Making rapid huge girth gains less instantly achievable off the starting line by insisting that people begin with 10% makes sense in reducing the risk of patient psychology making us go off the deep end. All you can eat is something that can be abused, for aside from serious conditions it can be vomited, digested or otherwise recovered from. Having too thick a penis from PMMA enhancement means however only one thing: having for the rest of one\'s life a \"monster dick\". And I doubt this has anything to do with Dr C\'s vocation or goal to help patients with their goals of \"Enhancement\". For can you call it enhancement when one\'s body becomes disfigured by the procedure? Or does it become a form of medicalized mutilation?
Let us also consider another factor, were this procedure lacking in customers one might imagine that switching to less concentrated PMMA might bring the small existing patient base to come in more often for follow-up procedures. This means more business for the clinic and at the end more cashflow. However, this shift to lower concentration PMMA didn\'t come during the years of few clients one might wish to \"farm\" and encourage to increase their patronage, but it comes at a time where Dr C is subject to a deluge of demand he can hardly meet. Let us also remember that within his price structure the actual product is far from the only cost, even if it is the main variable one changing mechanically according to injection typology. Instead it came at a time when business is booming and time slots are getting harder and hard to schedule. This actually means in fine a reduction in the number of patients since for the same number of available time slots fewer will be treated due to more treatments per patient.
My conclusion is that Dr C has chosen to further professionalize this procedure especially given its current high visibility brought to a great extent both by his previous reliable results and also by PhalloBoard\'s analysis and investigation of this method in the forefront of phalloplasty. Also thanks to this success it is also possible that Dr C is using his growing credibility to at last influence patients at large to the fact that PMMA must be for ENHANCEMENT and not to produce Freak Show Girth Sea Monsters. There is very noble aspect to his profession which he does much to defend, and it is only normal that he be attached to making this procedure as fail-safe and responsible as possible.
FWIW
HC

@ hc

you said it better than me lol

@Justabitmore
You will note my post was in reply to Mustang2020 - I wasn\'t trying to rephrase your post in other words even it this is what it looks like. Your reply came while I was drafting my overdrawn reply which due to its length gave ample time for others to post in the meanwhile. So it is a coincidence that we both say very much the same thing, something which lends possibly more credence to our arguments.
Cheers,
HC

All good info. I think that Dr C and Wade and his assistants are great people. this is a win-win situation.

Can some one verify if the cost to purchase 10% is different than the cost of 20%?

@ Mustang

I was wondering the same. It probably is but as a lot of the cost is in the manufactoring and distribution I doubt its much more expensive!

May be, but many times it is more to do with marketing cost strategy than the cost to manufacture a product....I can see the cost being 40% less or more for different percentages....not sure, just guessing. It would be nice to know.

So far, my 10% 1st session has no to minimum irregularities...We will have to wait and compare notes in the next few weeks.