TOPIC: Linnea safe or metacrill

No one really seems to know, il ask Dr C when he\'s next on the board or email prof Lemperle when I have some free time.

Please see attached Journal Article on the particle size of Linnea Safe and how the homogeneity affects results.

I emailed Wade about it, here\'s what he had to say:

Both MetaCrill and LinneaSafe clinically work the same way with the same results. We have had many requests for LinneaSafe, and recently were able to import the product. We do not get the same high volume discount with LinneaSafe as we do MetaCrill, however we will continue to offer it as an option.

yeah, slk i have been lucky so far to have a very natural look, except a bit that is low in the circ are. it\'s in my journal - and it seems pretty good.

I just hope r3 doesnt expand the shaft so much and leave the circ area still unfilled....for another 3500 (with travel).

Musky whY the change of . Just curious. Looking at your other posts it seems you were leaning toward a temporary filler.

I know you\'re pretty frustrated resto, but I honestly think this thing is a crapshoot. As you know, I gained a massive amount, but I\'m not at all happy with my results. Maybe it was bad aftercare, maybe it was the placement, maybe it was the shape and size of my penis, or maybe it was a combination of all of those. Personally I\'m glad they\'re charging more because I think close to 30cc of 30% was causing too many poor results.

Let me put it this way: Would you rather have to go a minimum of 2 or 3 rounds by building up your size slowly, and maintaining a very aesthetic and natural looking penis, or having to go 2 or 3 rounds to correct aesthetic issues from round 1? I know it seems like a lot of money, but $10k is pretty normal for most other types of plastic surgery.

Yeah, honestly it\'s very hard to say given the limited sample.

I\'ve looked into everything that could be affecting me from pharmaceuticals to blood flow issues... so I hope that R3 is a bigger success than R2 where I basically gained nothing.

There are so many factors, certainly. Edupd has a really good journal on how his path was a total roller coaster of good/bad results - way before it became an \"issue\" that people didn\'t like their metacrill results. So, yeah I think it\'s more complicated... I just am trying to stack the deck as best as I can considering I am actually going to end up with a 10k penis that is smaller than where some guys on here start!

I\'m pretty sure I was one of the biggest gainers, & I had Metracril. Supposedly there\'s no difference in quality, but LS is just more expensive for them to acquire. I honestly believe that it really depends on the individual. As much as everyone wants to believe otherwise, I think it\'s basically throwing darts blindfolded & hoping for the best. There are too many variables .

All that said, I will be opting for LS on my touch up round.

Restoration wrote: The results from Metacrill haven\'t been consistent for a long time, now, on the board - at least. Perhaps, they have different opinion, though...since they see everyone. But, I think this is possibly why LS came back. Maybe patients were unhappy with metacrill.

It made no sense that in the early days, guys would gain 0.8\" from 20 cc 30% - and then in the last year, guys would barely gain 0.5\" from 35cc 30% -- I think metacrill quality went down. or, we are just seeing strange patient reports.

I gained from R1 - but my 10% metacrill was a year old - when it was still good... I think.

There are a lot of threads on here about the gains problem that went on...though it wasn\'t 100% of guys, it was more than in the earlier days...and they were getting higher CCs - so it was odd.

Except that in the last year there have also been reports of adequate gains from Metacril. Honestly, the sample size is too small and not enough men report on their experiences with Metacril in the past year to say definitively the product was to blame.

I don\'t think you will see much of a difference in terms of gains between the two products, but I could be wrong. I\'ve had both in me (I had Linnea when it was originally labeled New Plastic) and both have been yielded notable gains (visually, I no longer measure for purposes of maintaining-penis-sanity).

I don\'t know why Linnea costs as much as $500 more, but if they say both products are comparable in quality, then it is probably a matter of overhead (i.e. as in, Linnea charges more per cc). I guess it\'s easy to assume that the higher costing product is the more \"premium\" one, but we really can\'t say until we have more men report on gains. This forum is only as good as its contributors.

The results from Metacrill haven\'t been consistent for a long time, now, on the board - at least. Perhaps, they have different opinion, though...since they see everyone. But, I think this is possibly why LS came back. Maybe patients were unhappy with metacrill.

It made no sense that in the early days, guys would gain 0.8\" from 20 cc 30% - and then in the last year, guys would barely gain 0.5\" from 35cc 30% -- I think metacrill quality went down. or, we are just seeing strange patient reports.

I gained from R1 - but my 10% metacrill was a year old - when it was still good... I think.

There are a lot of threads on here about the gains problem that went on...though it wasn\'t 100% of guys, it was more than in the earlier days...and they were getting higher CCs - so it was odd.

I was told they were the same. There was no explanation why one was $500 more. Not helpful.

I\'m seeing Dr. C in 3 weeks. What did they tell you about the differences? What\'s the plus and minus of each?

It is $500 more for linnea safe (based on 20 cc).

I didnt know he was offering both. Is there a price difference?