TOPIC: Waiver for 20%

I am booked for Dec 10th. I emailed Wade asking for 20%. He replied:

\"Once you have had a live assessment with Dr.C we will be happy to safely meet your expectations. If 20% will be well tolerated at the first session, you will sign a waiver stating that you are aware of the increased possibility of irregularities.
Please contact me with additional questions that you may have.




Has anyone else had to sign a waiver?

Like many members here i researched Elist, other Docs and procedures. I lurked around and saw the obvious shill issues at other sites. I started back on the old forum and have watched Dr. C and Wade become iconic so to speak. I really believe that they are exceptional in both character and ability. I was puzzled when I was asked to sign a specific waiver for a particular method that they perform, have performed and continue to perform as we speak. Do you see where I am coming from? Aside from this, all my research points to them as the N. American leaders in this specialty.

ndbig1 wrote: I believe its merely a ploy to persuade people to go with 10% and therefore cause more visits. If they have been using it before with minor issues , then what\'s the big deal now? What changed? I think I \"came on too strong\" When I explained the exact course of action I wished to pursue. I was specific that I wanted 20% in the first 20% in my second with a 10% blend in aesthetic issue areas, and then 10% in my third and last procedure for final fill and to address aesthetic issues , all visits would be conducted exactly 3 months apart. For some reason this must have seemed to raise a red flag but I am clueless why.

Dr. C and nurse Wade have behaved very ethically up to this moment. A ploy to make others pay more would be the least of my occurrences. If you have a doubt about why they follow a certain course, do ask them and then make up your mind.

Why are so many guys so keen to have 20% when Dr C clearly prefers 10%?

In my opinion the main threat to this procedure isn\'t the Dr\'s skill or PMMA itself, but patient demands. Prof Lemperle has said that risk increases with the more PMMA used and the higher the concentration. But very few of our members seem bothered by this and prioritize size goals over safety.

I believe its merely a ploy to persuade people to go with 10% and therefore cause more visits. If they have been using it before with minor issues , then what\'s the big deal now? What changed? I think I \"came on too strong\" When I explained the exact course of action I wished to pursue. I was specific that I wanted 20% in the first 20% in my second with a 10% blend in aesthetic issue areas, and then 10% in my third and last procedure for final fill and to address aesthetic issues , all visits would be conducted exactly 3 months apart. For some reason this must have seemed to raise a red flag but I am clueless why.

OK, Not legal absence, how about a lot of bending the rules and paying cash? This is not meant to insult Mexico, I love her, but like many Asian and other countries, corruption and bribery is at hand....in General. We have it here in the US but a lot less.

mustang2020 wrote: The whole reason to operate in TJ is lesser cost and legality absence. Of course Dr. C and Wade and his staff have proven ethical.

Sorry, but Mexico has no legal vacuums. Their laws are different, but there is no absence of laws and regulations. So there isnt such a thing as \'legality absence\' there.

I must add that PMMA is NOT FDA approved for use in the penis in the USA, so Mexico is the best closest country to the US for such.

Honest knowing them as I do I think it is simply because they don\'t recommend it and certainly since I spoke to them the first time 6 months ago the really didn\'t like using 20 for the first round. I re ember Wade telling me that although they haven\'t had any problems it was really annoying to get someone coming back with various aesthetical issues because of using 20 instead of 10 and then being made to feel like its their fault. I asked him which issues and he said a couple of guys weren\'t happy with how it looked Flaccid but they were fine Erect. Anyway I don\'t thing its because of anything terrible they just don\'t want complaints when people go against their advice which is fair.

The whole reason to operate in TJ is lesser cost and legality absence. Of course Dr. C and Wade and his staff have proven ethical.

Honestly what liability is there in Tijuana? I was under the assumption your on your own if something happens so the waiver sounds more like a tactic to persuade you to go with 10% for round one.

They are requiring the waiver precisely because they\'ve performed the procedure before, and there have been some issues. Waivers are borne out of past experiences.

I thought it was odd to ask for a waiver, being that they have performed it before.

I receive 20% in my recent third round and I do feel it is different and less smooth than the other two 10% rounds. They prefer to lay the 20% solution on top of a first layer of 10% as it is easier to work with and the chances of lumps and bumps slimmer. That\'s my experience but I know of other 20% first rounders who thought it was smooth and had no problems!

Nope, not concerning 20% for round 2, but if i had a choice to do things differently i would have used 20% for round 1 like some of the early pioneers did on the forum.