So I booked my Appt. with Dr C in Mid August and I recieved and email from Wade talking about Costs of the prodedures. Apparently for an additonal 250 dollars per procedure they will give you Linnea safe PMMA instead of the Metacril. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
I deleted the other thread found in this sub-forum since your comments have been copy & pasted to a few threads all over the forum, the redundancy saturates the content here. I\'ll copy & paste a response I made to one of your postings here as well:
Thanks for the attachment. This study has been touched upon in two threads found here (the third link is Dr. C\'s response to the article) :http://PhalloBoards.websitetoolbox.com/post/The-successor-of-Newplastic-has-just-been-released-5768316?highlight=piacquadio&trail=15http://PhalloBoards.websitetoolbox.com/post/Anyone-else-holding-off-for-now-on-Casavantes-5771122?highlight=piacquadio&trail=15http://PhalloBoards.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1302920
Smallja, I can\'t find the posts where newer generations of Metacrill are discussed. There are just too many threads and no obvious search terms.
But if you are worried go for Linnea Safe. I definitely remember Prof Lemperle saying it now has less than 2% small beads, as opposed to 50% when tested in 2006.
But to be honest, I\'m not sure it matters, as according to Prof Lemperle bead size is only really important when injected into the skin. When injected sub dermally, it doesn\'t seem to matter. Apparently it\'s because the skin has far more immune cells then anywhere else in the body and therefore is far more sensitive to foreign bodies. When injecting under the skin, as with the penis, Prof Lemperle doesn\'t think it makes a difference as says there is no point paying more for Artefil.
smallja , you better calm down; it is not like your physician urgently referred you to Dr. C. as a matter of life or'death; That is, you can (and must) take as much time as it is required in order to make an informed decision.
Furthermore, you are incorrectly undervaluing precious information from the PhalloBoards which Hoddle was kind enough to sum up for you; in particular, Dr. Lemperle\'s view cannot be regarded as second hand statement (funny how you can rush to judgements like that): he is one of the pioneers of PMMA research for plastic surgery applications and he has analysed linnea safe with an electronic microscope. Electronic pics of Metacrill, Newplastic and Linnea Safe have been posted on this forum and discussed in detail among members, some of whom with a medical background. Dr. Lemperle himself has contributed to the discussion with technical emails sent to a number of members; some of these emails have been pasted in the appropriate threads. It is a good thing that you seek more views from the scientific community but Dr. Lemperle\'s cannot be dismissed as second order; if you carefully study the PhalloBoards you will be in the position to understand this point.
You don\'t need to be freaked. I tried explaining in the reply i referred to above. It took me ages to type and I can\'t be bothered to do it again. But part of what I was saying is that a lot of the time we just can\'t face retyping old opinions on already discussed topics time and time again. So when newbies, such as yourself, post articles, thinking they\'ve discovered something new, it\'s kind of frustrating, as automatically one knows we are going to have to go over it all again. It\'s obviously not the fault of the newbies as they aren\'t to know what we have or haven\'t covered or indeed how the forum evolved (which is relevant). But due to the way the forum has grown, it\'s hard to get things organized in a way that prevents these kind of things happening.
Originally this forum started as a very tight knit group of about 20 or so guys that we simply looking for a PE solution and thus when PMMA came along we investigated it together and a kind of \"group think\" evolved. The forum has since grown so quickly that sometimes we forget that most guys haven\'t read or contributed to all the old PMMA discussions and that they aren\'t looking at it from our point of view.
The reason this article means so little to us is because we know that Artefil isn\'t an option. The carrier is different and take over 2 weeks to absorb. It is used a small volume facial filler, while the South American products are used for bioplasty. We compare bioplasty with other types of PE, not with other types of facial filler. That was central to the early \"group think\" I mentioned. The basic idea is that PE of any kind is usually a bad idea, hence virtually everyone is or was advised not to do it (though we tend not to say this as often now as people don\'t like to hear it). However, if you are going to do it, then let\'s compare methods. We need to avoid falling into the trap of comparing bioplasty with facial fillers, as it just isn\'t relevant. Hence when a study like the one you posted comes along, we end up get bogged down comparing PMMA products, even though the product we are comparing against (always Aretfil) isn\'t even an option. It\'s a total waste of time. On top of that the products are used in a different application and the worlds most renowned PMMA expert has said particle size doesn\'t matter when injected below the fascia.
But even so, the article you posted isn\'t an independent study. It\'s carried out by a company who have a financial incentive to promote their product as superior. It\'s peer reviewed by a publication I believe Prof Lemperle was chair of, so surely there is a conflict of interest there. The only reason you believe Metacrill to be garbage is due to the contention of Prof Lemperle. He\'s the one who contends particle size is key to FBG\'s, so it seems a bit selective to dismiss his more recent opinions on South American PMMA, simply because they aren\'t published. He has no financial incentive and answered our questions purely out of the kindness of his . He didn\'t have to respond to our emails, but he did and he is by far the most experienced Dr in the world where PMMA is injected so to ignore his opinion simply because he hasn\'t published would be naive in my opinion, as we know the only reason the original paper was published.
But they key thing to remember is that Artefil isn\'t an option, so the comparison is pointless. Doing nothing is an option and nearly always the best one. Other than that you have bioplasty FFT, Allografts, dermal grafts, silicone implants or various temp options.
smallja wrote: Thanks for the explanation, and yeah, sorry for the \'freak out\'. Been under a lot of stress lately then found this, and kind of panicked for whatever reason (even though as supa said, I\'m on no sort of emergency time constraint to get PMMA right now).
Thank you for the clarification - from what you typed, it looks like I have a lot of reading to do and a lot of catching up to do as well, thank you for dropping some knowledge my way.
I emailed Wade about my concerns (I\'m sure my email wasn\'t the first of its kind that he\'s received), so I\'m hoping to get further reassurance from him.
Hoddle, you seem supremely experienced as far as knowledge of these forums and its members are concerned. Can you (or anyone else who cares to guess) give me a rough guesstimate of what percentage of members you feel have received Metacrill, and what percentage have received Linnea Safe? I\'m not sure I\'ve come across many New Plastic progress logs, although with time hopefully I can cover some. I have been reading, but at a slower pace than I would like recently (life getting in the way).
Thanks again guys.
All the older logs are with NP. If I has to guess I\'d say 30% NP and 70% Meta.