Bigben wrote: Adding silicone to areas where the body did not respond well to the PMMA sounds like a long term recipe for disaster if you ask me.. Regardless of the dose liquid silicone is notorious for long term complications.
What would be the end result of such a disaster? Say a guy has a dent filled in with Silikon micro droplets and in 5 years time his body starts to reject the Silikon, what do you think will be done to correct this? You\'ve seen guys on this site have problems with
PMMA. Darkstaff, FranBerlin and Resoration spring to mind. Doesn\'t their experiences suggest that the problematic area would just be cut out?
I\'m not saying it\'s not unpleasant or without risk to have lump removed from your penis. But in terms of what you have seen on this forum, would the scarring be anywhere near as bad or as noticeable as a huge T incision in the groin? Is the surgery anywhere near as invasive as taking the flaps from this T incision and holding them open so a surgeon can get access to the deep supporting ligaments that hold the penis is place and then cut through them?
Let\'s say there is a 10% chance (I can\'t believe it will be anywhere near that amount) that the Silikon will need to be removed. Doesn\'t that mean there is a 10% chance the patient will have to have surgery and face the risks that go along with it and the chance of a noticeable scar? Though on the penis, I\'d imagine that in most cases the circ scar line can be used to gain access to the inflamed tissue.
Now with Dr Ress\'s lengthening procedure, isn\'t there a 100% chance that the patient will have to run the risks involved with an invasive surgery and will certainly have a large scar in the pubic area?
Your post history suggests that if one of our members had to have Silikon1000 removed and for some bizarre reason the Dr did it by creating a huge T shape incision in the pubic area, which is viable, though unnecessary, you\'d be all over that thread.
Yet the other day, in the thread about Dr Ress\'s new lengthening procedure you wrote:
\"Happy and excited for both of you !\" regarding a guy who has had the procedure and another guy who is planning to have the procedure. Even though one of those guys is black skinned and thus more likely to scar badly and he has already expressed many times that he is depressed about the look of his penis. Doesn\'t that seem like a a recipe for disaster to you?
You also wrote: \"So nice this Dr is in the USA too\" Yet didn\'t you say you were left impotent by an American Dr?
I don\'t recall you saying anything positive about permanent fillers and I always thought the reason you were against them is because you know the dangers involved in surgery to the penis. Yet here you are saying you are exited about guys undergoing an experimental surgery, that is going to more dangerous and invasive than the majority of surgeries needed to correct issues with permanent fillers. There seems to be a contradiction there. You\'ve often been dismissive of people going to Mexico for procedures, yet you were damaged in the US and you\'ve seen loads of guys here damaged in the US. So why is it so nice a Dr is in the USA. He\'s still performing an invasive penis surgery, that will leave scarring?
In short, why is having a tiny amount of Silikon1000 injected in Mexico a \"recipe for disaster,\" whilst an invasive surgery in the US is something to be \"happy\" about?