PhalloBoards - An Online Community to Discuss Penile Girth Enhancement

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now?

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295432033

mike81 wrote: PMMA will change your life. Take the plunge. I wasted 3 years of my life reading and re-readings threads on here hoping I\'d figure out the same thing your wondering. One day you\'ll be dead and rotten in the ground. One round of 10% changed my life. I used to think about my Dick 100 times per day or more. That is completely gone. But I am normal as fuck compared to a lot of people on here so who knows if it will work the same for you mentally . But I say go for it 100x over.

Mike81 I\'m at that stage you mention of reading and re-reading and researching. Have been lurking for some time now. Curious which Dr you used? I\'m a little stressed about Mexico but Dr.C seems to be mentioned a lot for PMMA? Any advice for peace of mind on your experience would be great. Thanks

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295374873

Hoddle you need to figure out a way to make money out all this knowledge. It is very specialized and not possible to get anyplace else but here, and most of the dense stuff is from you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373590

Okay, I was referring to Hoddle
But 117 I still pretty impressive, good lad.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373579

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

Reklaw wrote: You have a gift for being able to think independently, that was mind blowing. You must have an IQ of at least 140.


117 from a Mensa test I did a few years back.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373561

You have a gift for being able to think independently, that was mind blowing.
You must have an IQ of at least 140.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373137

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

hoddle10 wrote: Here is a post I made 6 years ago about why I saw PMMA as the best PE option at the time and why I thought the medical community should view it\'s application in the penis differently to in the face:

\"I think what you need to keep in mind is that you are highlighting the risks associated with PMMA and thus we compare it with doing nothing. A 3% (a pure guess, I\'m sure i read far lower) occurance of granuloma\'s may seem alot compared to the zero chance when not having PMMA. However, compared to the complications with FFT, Elist implant, Alloderm and Dermal grafts, it\'s a small percentage. The reason we are concerned about the chance of immune reaction or granuloma formation is that it could mean surgical removal is needed and it is in surgery that the greatest chance of serious damage to our penis\'s will occur. With every other option you have to have an initial surgery, which you don\'t with PMMA. The chances of infection with the Elist implant, alloderm or dermal grafts are much, much greater. The chance of serious nerve damage is also massively increased with surgery. Then there is the risk of fibrosis casing shortening, which PMMA doesn\'t have, but the other methods do. Hence straightaway, despite possible complications down the road, PMMA seems to be a lower risk option, as it avoids the pitfalls of surgery, which alone seem to have a far greater complication rate, than occurence of granulomas in PMMA.


PMMA means you\'ll avoid the dangers of the intial surgery, but I\'d also say it\'s the least likely method to require further reconstructive surgery if things go wrong. Given the dangers of surgery, the method that means you are least likely to need a second surgery, is likely to be the safest. Over the years I\'ve come across lots of guys who have required reconstructive surgery to remove lumpy FFT (i had this myself), partially absorbed dermal grafts, hardened alloderm and unnatural silicone implants. I\'d say as many as 25% of guys who have PE sugery will require a later reconstrucive surgery, again running lots of risks. Now if a small percentage of PMMA patients have granulomas or inflamatory rections later on, then surely that\'s much better than the percentage of guys requiring secondary surgery to fix problems at the moment. Some claim as many as 50% of Elists patients have to go back for further surgery and given the erosion seen in ED implants, it would seem likely that within 15 years, that isn\'t 100%.

People like Arnold Klein seem to be anti PMMA because it can\'t be removed and doesn\'t dissolve. Hence if something goes wrong, serious surgery is needed to cut it out. If you have PMMA in the face (Dr Klein specialises is facial fillers) and granulomas occur, the only way to get the out, is to cut them out, leaving serious scarring, badly disfiguring the patient. Hence he\'s anti PMMA. But is the penis like the face? Doesn\'t the penis have a surgical entry and exit point (ie the circumcision scar) that the face doesn\'t have. A surgeon can enter through the circ scar and peel the skin back, in the same way he does for most penis surgeries. Now obviously there is still the risk of damaging the facias and skin, which could cause necrosis. But those risks are also there in the even more likely event that one would require removal of alloderm of FFT. So when Dr Klein speaks out against PMMA, he obviously isn\'t doing so in comparison with other PE methods and the concerns he does have are more likely to be harder to correct in the face than the penis.

Unfortunately there just isn\'t a safe way to enlarge the penis. If there was PE surgery would be as popular as boob jobs. So all we can do is look for the safest method available. I believe that to be the method that offers acceptable results, but with least exposure to the surgeons knife. At the moment I believe that to be PMMA. I\'ve read every report I can find on the stuff, but did so knowing it was going to reveal lots of potential problems. However, I knew I had to compare these problems with other methods of PE and not to the safety of other minimally invasive cosmetci procedure such as Botox. From Dr Kleins point of view PMMA would seem to risky, but from a perspective PE candidate, it seems much safer. I think we all know the safest thing to do is not have anything done to our penis\'s, but sadly many of us are so consumed by the fact we feel as if we are lacking in that department, that by not doing something about it, we are arguably doing even more damage to our well being.\"

phalloplasty.proboards.com/thread/90/hea...e-casavantes?page=63

Since then, we\'ve seen hundreds of guys get PMMA. In my opinion, we\'ve only seen one really bad reaction (Restoration.) I\'m aware of two guys who had it removed and they both had the surgery I described in the post above. The Dr entered through the circ line, pulled the skin back and cut out the PMMA. Both guys saw their penis return to normal afterwards. That wouldn\'t happen in the face or buttocks etc. How can you get to the PMMA without cutting away at the tissue above? In my opinion neither guy actually required removal at that time either.

I\'m not trying to say PMMA has thus proven to be safe and everyone should go off and get it. I think most guys shouldn\'t get it and I don\'t really approve of large volume, high concentration procedures, which most guys get. However, if we followed a similar number of FFT, allograft or silicone implant patients over 6 years, I\'d confidently wager we\'d have seen a massively higher serious complication rate. I don\'t mean 20% or 30% but several multiples. In fact, in that time we\'ve seen loads of implant and allograft troubles, despite there only being a fraction as many guys reporting on those procedures.

I don\'t want to blow our trumpet, but I don\'t think people realize just how much Phalloboards has changed the world of cosmetic PE. The landscape now is entirely different to 6 years ago and that is largely down to PB\'s.


Just saved it in a notepad document. Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373101

Here is a post I made 6 years ago about why I saw PMMA as the best PE option at the time and why I thought the medical community should view it\'s application in the penis differently to in the face:

\"I think what you need to keep in mind is that you are highlighting the risks associated with PMMA and thus we compare it with doing nothing. A 3% (a pure guess, I\'m sure i read far lower) occurance of granuloma\'s may seem alot compared to the zero chance when not having PMMA. However, compared to the complications with FFT, Elist implant, Alloderm and Dermal grafts, it\'s a small percentage. The reason we are concerned about the chance of immune reaction or granuloma formation is that it could mean surgical removal is needed and it is in surgery that the greatest chance of serious damage to our penis\'s will occur. With every other option you have to have an initial surgery, which you don\'t with PMMA. The chances of infection with the Elist implant, alloderm or dermal grafts are much, much greater. The chance of serious nerve damage is also massively increased with surgery. Then there is the risk of fibrosis casing shortening, which PMMA doesn\'t have, but the other methods do. Hence straightaway, despite possible complications down the road, PMMA seems to be a lower risk option, as it avoids the pitfalls of surgery, which alone seem to have a far greater complication rate, than occurence of granulomas in PMMA.


PMMA means you\'ll avoid the dangers of the intial surgery, but I\'d also say it\'s the least likely method to require further reconstructive surgery if things go wrong. Given the dangers of surgery, the method that means you are least likely to need a second surgery, is likely to be the safest. Over the years I\'ve come across lots of guys who have required reconstructive surgery to remove lumpy FFT (i had this myself), partially absorbed dermal grafts, hardened alloderm and unnatural silicone implants. I\'d say as many as 25% of guys who have PE sugery will require a later reconstrucive surgery, again running lots of risks. Now if a small percentage of PMMA patients have granulomas or inflamatory rections later on, then surely that\'s much better than the percentage of guys requiring secondary surgery to fix problems at the moment. Some claim as many as 50% of Elists patients have to go back for further surgery and given the erosion seen in ED implants, it would seem likely that within 15 years, that isn\'t 100%.

People like Arnold Klein seem to be anti PMMA because it can\'t be removed and doesn\'t dissolve. Hence if something goes wrong, serious surgery is needed to cut it out. If you have PMMA in the face (Dr Klein specialises is facial fillers) and granulomas occur, the only way to get the out, is to cut them out, leaving serious scarring, badly disfiguring the patient. Hence he\'s anti PMMA. But is the penis like the face? Doesn\'t the penis have a surgical entry and exit point (ie the circumcision scar) that the face doesn\'t have. A surgeon can enter through the circ scar and peel the skin back, in the same way he does for most penis surgeries. Now obviously there is still the risk of damaging the facias and skin, which could cause necrosis. But those risks are also there in the even more likely event that one would require removal of alloderm of FFT. So when Dr Klein speaks out against PMMA, he obviously isn\'t doing so in comparison with other PE methods and the concerns he does have are more likely to be harder to correct in the face than the penis.

Unfortunately there just isn\'t a safe way to enlarge the penis. If there was PE surgery would be as popular as boob jobs. So all we can do is look for the safest method available. I believe that to be the method that offers acceptable results, but with least exposure to the surgeons knife. At the moment I believe that to be PMMA. I\'ve read every report I can find on the stuff, but did so knowing it was going to reveal lots of potential problems. However, I knew I had to compare these problems with other methods of PE and not to the safety of other minimally invasive cosmetci procedure such as Botox. From Dr Kleins point of view PMMA would seem to risky, but from a perspective PE candidate, it seems much safer. I think we all know the safest thing to do is not have anything done to our penis\'s, but sadly many of us are so consumed by the fact we feel as if we are lacking in that department, that by not doing something about it, we are arguably doing even more damage to our well being.\"

phalloplasty.proboards.com/thread/90/hea...e-casavantes?page=63

Since then, we\'ve seen hundreds of guys get PMMA. In my opinion, we\'ve only seen one really bad reaction (Restoration.) I\'m aware of two guys who had it removed and they both had the surgery I described in the post above. The Dr entered through the circ line, pulled the skin back and cut out the PMMA. Both guys saw their penis return to normal afterwards. That wouldn\'t happen in the face or buttocks etc. How can you get to the PMMA without cutting away at the tissue above? In my opinion neither guy actually required removal at that time either.

I\'m not trying to say PMMA has thus proven to be safe and everyone should go off and get it. I think most guys shouldn\'t get it and I don\'t really approve of large volume, high concentration procedures, which most guys get. However, if we followed a similar number of FFT, allograft or silicone implant patients over 6 years, I\'d confidently wager we\'d have seen a massively higher serious complication rate. I don\'t mean 20% or 30% but several multiples. In fact, in that time we\'ve seen loads of implant and allograft troubles, despite there only being a fraction as many guys reporting on those procedures.

I don\'t want to blow our trumpet, but I don\'t think people realize just how much Phalloboards has changed the world of cosmetic PE. The landscape now is entirely different to 6 years ago and that is largely down to PB\'s.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295373093

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

hoddle10 wrote: I don\'t want to trivialize the possible complications with PMMA, but sometimes I think we get a bit carried away with what could potentially happen. Keep in mind the penis can be degloved and sewn back up, which makes it very different to other parts of the body where permanent fillers are injected. I stress this that potential Removal surgery is risky and not something you\'d want to have to go through. But it\'s not like having problems with filler in the face, where the only option, if Removal is required, means cutting lumps out of your face. You can\'t enter through a circ incision and roll the skin back with the face.


Thank you, that post has put me a bit at ease. I don\'t mind if the penis was to change shape slightly over the years, I just don\'t want to have my Dick dying on me, you know?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372867

I don\'t want to trivialize the possible complications with PMMA, but sometimes I think we get a bit carried away with what could potentially happen. Keep in mind the penis can be degloved and sewn back up, which makes it very different to other parts of the body where permanent fillers are injected. I stress this that potential Removal surgery is risky and not something you\'d want to have to go through. But it\'s not like having problems with filler in the face, where the only option, if Removal is required, means cutting lumps out of your face. You can\'t enter through a circ incision and roll the skin back with the face.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372822

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

Reklaw wrote: Yeah I know you are sorry for trolling. To be honest with you I don\'t think anyone has the answer to your question, the best we have is an educated guess.


We can\'t win man. If we don\'t get PMMA we\'re stuck with a tiny Dick, and if we do get it, there is a chance we may not even have a Dick in twenty years.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372703

Yeah I know you are sorry for trolling.
To be honest with you I don\'t think anyone has the answer to your question, the best we have is an educated guess.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372603

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

Bolkonsky wrote: i\'m hoping that its freaking awesome. Because i\'m planning on getting it.


Imagine explaining to the mother of your kids why you can\'t fuck her anymore. It would be pretty embarrassing having to tell her you have cement in your Dick.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372597

  • Dr Oates
  • Dr Oates's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

Reklaw wrote: I rekon there\'s a 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1% chance it will make you bleed from the eyeballs and a 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1% chance it will give you projectile diarrhoea but apart from that your pretty much laughing.


I\'m referring to the possibility of having a disfigured Dick in twenty years.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372413

I rekon there\'s a 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1% chance it will make you bleed from the eyeballs and a 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1% chance it will give you projectile diarrhoea but apart from that your pretty much laughing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

What's the general consensus on the long term consequences of PMMA as of now? 7 years 22 hours ago #1295372384

i\'m hoping that its freaking awesome. Because i\'m planning on getting it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.