TOPIC: Animation of Dermal Matrix Graft Augmentation Procedure

Animated short showing how the penis is augmented using Megaderm (a dermal matrix) to scaffold and enlarge the penis shaft:




[Administrative Edit: A full-length version of the video can be found by going to the PhalloBoards Video page and looking for the video titled "Highest Urology Clinic 3D" that's 4:10 long.]

This animation is deceiving. The animation shows the graft being a full cylinder and fully circling the penis and reaching from the base on the penis to the bottom of the glans. This is in conflict with information reported by several contributors in that they report the graft does not completely encircle the penis nor does the graft cover the full length of the penis.

Alittlebigger wrote: This animation is deceiving. The animation shows the graft being a full cylinder and fully circling the penis and reaching from the base on the penis to the bottom of the glans. This is in conflict with information reported by several contributors in that they report the graft does not completely encircle the penis nor does the graft cover the full length of the penis.

Let's pump the brakes on using words like "deceiving" -- this Clinic has Surgeons who performed the 5S Procedure for many years -- these animations are often outsourced to 3rd parties who are given a concept and do what they can to fulfill an hour+ surgery into a 30 second animation. Rather than suggesting dishonesty, why not provide constructive advice on how they can improve their video presentation? Not too much to ask.

The word "deceiving" does not mean " dishonesty" or "intentional." Deceiving means "give someone a mistaken impression." I never suggested "dishonesty"

My comment only means the video presents a mistaken impression based on some comments I read from contributors on this forum.

My comment was not intended to disparage any clinic. I had no idea this video was connected to any clinic since there was no reference to any clinic, that I saw, in the original post.

I was simply trying to convey information regarding the depicted process and some results I have read about.

I believe the following points from my original post are accurate:

* "The animation shows the graft being a full cylinder and fully circling the penis and reaching from the base on the penis to the bottom of the glans"
* " several contributors....report the graft does not completely encircle the penis, nor does the graft cover the full length of the penis."

As for the quality of the video and any related promotions this lies with the purchaser and promotor.

To conclude, it behooves anyone considering penis enhancement to do their own research so they can make the best decision possible for themselves. I appreciate information posted on this forum because I'm learning more all the time.

Thank you

Alittlebigger wrote: The word "deceiving" does not mean " dishonesty" or "intentional." Deceiving means "give someone a mistaken impression." I never suggested "dishonesty"

My comment only means the video presents a mistaken impression based on some comments I read from contributors on this forum.

My comment was not intended to disparage any clinic. I had no idea this video was connected to any clinic since there was no reference to any clinic, that I saw, in the original post.

I was simply trying to convey information regarding the depicted process and some results I have read about.

I believe the following points from my original post are accurate:

* "The animation shows the graft being a full cylinder and fully circling the penis and reaching from the base on the penis to the bottom of the glans"
* " several contributors....report the graft does not completely encircle the penis, nor does the graft cover the full length of the penis."

As for the quality of the video and any related promotions this lies with the purchaser and promotor.

To conclude, it behooves anyone considering penis enhancement to do their own research so they can make the best decision possible for themselves. I appreciate information posted on this forum because I'm learning more all the time.

Thank you

I appreciate your clarification -- and I take your word for it, you have a solid posting history here and my comments were out of an abundance of caution to remind not just you but the Community the need to be mindful of the words we choose. For the benefit of the Community, it's worth noting that the dictionary definition of "deceive" is: [ deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especially for personal gain ] which is why words like "misleading" or "inaccurate" are more appropriate when the intent is not being called into question. This isn't directed at any one person, but is a good general reminder for all of us when discussing Clinics and their practices. Sometimes we use certain words incorrectly, or we've used them in different contexts growing up... forgetting both their literal meanings and the connotations they carry.

Now I also want to be sure the Community knows that I'm not actively censoring criticism of a Clinic, especially that of Sponsors. If a Practitioner were in fact engaged in deception, there would be a serious review of their practices and a potential parting of ways. Any instance where the word "deceiving" or similar language is used (whether about a Sponsor or non-Sponsor) must meet a pretty reasonable standard of the following: [1] cannot be made baselessly or through loose association (this can teeter on defamation), and [2] must have objectively sufficient & validated evidence, if not downright irrefutable proof involving acts of deception and so forth.

Highst Clinic has been very forthcoming with generating new content early in their tenure here, which also explains why I felt the need to step in -- especially with language barriers (who knows how "deceiving" may be translated into Korean should a non-English speaking staff member come across it?). It is paramount that we engage in meaningful, constructive dialogue, to ensure they (any and all Sponsors really) feel welcome and valued, which in turn incentivizes a healthy discussion. Your critical analysis of the video, which is valid, will be forwarded to Highst Clinic for review, and presumably a response in the near future -- I believe they will appreciate this so stay tuned!

[Administrative Edit: Please go back to the original post at the top of this thread and you will find the full 4+minute version of the same clip; this was provided to me prior to having relayed your feedback, so I believe it contains the same fully cylindrical depiction that isn't entirely congruent with what we've generally understood about the implantation of Dermal Grafts.]

I sent your remarks to Highst, namely the following:
"The animation shows the graft being a full cylinder and fully circling the penis and reaching from the base on the penis to the bottom of the glans. This is in conflict with information reported by several contributors in that they report the graft does not completely encircle the penis nor does the graft cover the full length of the penis."

However I'm afraid after personally reviewing the video forensically I have found both your claims actually lack merit and I can prove it.

For your first contention -- there is actually in fact a gap at the bottom of the cylindrical-like graft, and the cylinder never fully closes circularly. All you have to do is pause it at seconds 00:53-00:54, as well as 00.59-01:00 and it is quite clear, however I can see how the error was made because the animation starts and ends a bit quickly. If you maximize the window, it becomes as plain as day. The video might have an exaggeration on how close the gap is, but that would be a nitpick given its animated nature. I feel the video can no longer even fall into the "inaccurate" or "misleading" category with this discovery. See the following exhibits:

[Exhibit A]




[Exhibit B]

---

Your 2nd contention I believe is also incorrect, except I think instead of fast animation, there was some creative liberties taken to manage proportions (since I think Artists feel compelled to do this instinctively) and this likely gave you the illusion of a graft going through the entirety of the shaft. Firstly it looks like the graft stops just behind the glans, and it becomes even more convincing and clear with each playback. The shaft itself appears elongated in the flaccid state which is to be expected with implants traditionally (cadaver or manufactured/synthetic). What I think happened (regarding the creative liberties taken that may have created the illusion that the graft bottomed out under the glans) was that the Artist ever-so-slightly enlarged the penis head to give it a better look. I know, however, that it was not the intention of the video maker or the Clinic to claim your glans are enlarged by the graft because: [1] later in the video it actually goes over the specifics on how they perform their glans enhancement, conclusively acknowledging that each procedure aims to enhance a specific area or condition independent of one another (see timestamp 01:20); and [2] the subtlety in how much of the actual penis head was enlarged clearly indicates the Animator is trying to preserve artistic integrity, without crossing the border into "misleading" or "inaccurate" in my estimation.

[Exhibit C - Summary: demonstrable proof that between repeated replays (which show a flaccid becoming elongated, which maybe for some people could give the illusion that the graft is covering the full length of the penis, but a few watches should easily dispel this), and the subtle increase of the glans at the Animator's discretion tells me that aesthetics had a slight priority over a 1-to-1 rendering (as for the attached photo, I did use grids and rulers built into media software that verified this innocuous visual enhancement). ]




I think sometimes a thorough analysis is worthwhile if contentions are to be made, no less comments suggesting anything short of faithfulness to the procedure(s). Mistakes can and do happen with published materials, and I believe more times than not they are on par with "typos" ... however I have concluded that your original claims are demonstrably false, and at best, the animators could take note of the feedback for future productions (which is why I sent off your feedback regardless).

Respectfully, I took this opportunity to demonstrate the importance of reviewing materials when offering critical analysis -- skepticism, scrutiny, and inquisitiveness is the backbone of any credible discussion forum, but I have to defend the defensible all the same. I genuinely believe you unintentionally misinterpreted the visuals and were sincere about your concerns regarding accuracy -- it was a fun exercise for us all, and if anything, it at least gets some discussion going on regarding some of the options abroad for male phalloplasty.