why do doctors say pe impossible

[the spencer]

Mr. Sneakypants knows a few doctors and they're definitely NOT idiots- in fact, they're among the most intelligent people he knows. The amount of work, study and dedication required to even get into medical school is staggering. PE is probably too new, with not enough statistical data to support it. That will likely change over time. Maybe money is a factor, maybe not.

exactly. i am a 3rd year pre-med student and am far enough into the process of science and medicine to tell you that doctors in the west have little incentive to tell patients things that there are no legitimate tests for. how many patients even ask about this? how many unbiased studies have been produced? how many studies have been put through replication and peer review? case studies (which is most;ly what we have for PE) are weak in medicine and are unlikely to light up a serious clinician's practice

[Pegasus]

I see the start of the attitude I spoke of.

PS
A few capitals would help .

[HotRod]

exactly. i am a 3rd year pre-med student and am far enough into the process of science and medicine to tell you that doctors in the west have little incentive to tell patients things that there are no legitimate tests for. how many patients even ask about this? how many unbiased studies have been produced? how many studies have been put through replication and peer review? case studies (which is most;ly what we have for PE) are weak in medicine and are unlikely to light up a serious clinician's practice

Hi the spencer. You do see the catch-22 in this? Penis enlargement will never be studied until it has been studied and proven effective with a perfectly designed clinical study.

I'm curious what you think it would take to get an unbiased study. Who would be likely to take on such a project? How would that be financed? What makes a test legitimate?

I've looked at a lot of studies on addiction treatment and the effectiveness of certain pharmaceutical drugs while doing some other research, and it's astounding how many tens of millions of dollars get pumped into these studies and they are all essentially inconclusive due to design flaws and limitations, yet the treatments and drugs are widely prescribed. Do you know how many times they had to push Prozac trials before it barely squeaked by FDA approval? It's not a very effective or useful drug at all. That's what the science really shows. And yet most doctors are eager to get out their pad and write a script if somebody comes into their office belly-aching about life's ups and downs.

There will be more and more patients asking about penis size and penis enlargement, but there are currently lots of patients asking doctors about erectile dysfunction which many men have reported improved by several penis enlargement techniques. Don't you think it would be useful for doctors to be aware of these alternatives? If not, why not? What do doctors tell patients that need to lose weight? Do they tell them they are hopeless and need gastric bypass surgery immediately? Do they prescribe amphetamines?

How come there are doctors now and again who go against the grain, like Dr. Richards and end up supporting new ideas? He was a respected clinician before he took up the penis enlargement study, and he's not the only one. There are others who support Big Al's site, and another who wrote a foreword to Remek's book. These are just off the top of my head.

What will you tell your male patients who come to you with questions about these things? Will you count on them having less training than you do?

Hope this wasn't too bitchy.

[JohnSmith011]

Good post hotrod

[Big Al]

how many patients even ask about this?

I'm sure quite a few do. If not, PE wouldn't exist nor would there be such a demand for devices, phalloplasties, etc. I dare to say that, cosmetically as well as for performance, penis size is one of the biggest concerns many men have.

how many unbiased studies have been produced? how many studies have been put through replication and peer review? case studies (which is most;ly what we have for PE) are weak in medicine and are unlikely to light up a serious clinician's practice

Some "official" studies have been done (search for the latest on extender coverage in Pubmed; Chartham).

There is a difference between skepticism and denial. Though a lot of medical professionals don't take PE seriously (some do), for any one of them to completely discount what thousands of men have done repeatedly (the proof is right here on this forum as well as on many others) because it hasn't been peer reviewed by their colleagues or conducted under settings of their preference is not scientific.

In the end, one doesn't need to be a PhD/MD in order to apply the scientific method. Regarding PE, I like to say that "We are the scientists".

[pe_ZEN]

Not only scientists, but inventors!!! Or should I say, DareDevils??

[Big Al]

I'm curious what you think it would take to get an unbiased study.

Grant money, lab time, and the possibility of applying this towards a profitable venture. I can't see this happening just to prove PE works.

[Big Al]

WE ARE the PE DOCTORS!!!!

I didn't see this or I wouldn't have posted my "We are the scientists" link that way

[pe_ZEN]

haha no worries, we are so on the same page then. We are also PE psychologists, life coaches, etc.

[Big Al]

...but I don't think it was ever published in a journal. The data was submitted to journals for publication, but I think they never published it, probably because Chartham's company was sued by the US Postal Service for false advertizing. You can Google the story, but it basically looks like Chartham should have won that case. He probably lost just because the notion of penis enlargement was so weird to the judge. It came down to a battle of expert witnesses and medical consensus won the case. Science, or at least the best attempt at science lost.

According to Dr. Richards it was published in the British Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Regarding the Chartham suit, I posted this to another forum but I think it applies here. It was a post by post response (here) to a supposed attorney at LPSG critical of PE trying to use the Chartham Study to prove that PE didn't work:

The lawsuit was brought against the creators of the Chartham line of products, not Dr. Richards.

Let's examine the case. Note the part under CONCLUSIONS OF LAW which state:

Complainant failed to sustain the allegation that respondent falsely represents that the "Chartham Method" (and "Vacuum Developer") incorporates new and significantly different principles from all other methods and products intended to increase the size of the male penis. Dr. Cordaro testified that in all his experience with methods and devices intended to enlarge the penis, he has never seen one incorporating all the elements of the "Chartham Method" and that it may very well be new and different in respect of such combination (Tr. 63, 64). Dr. Richards expressed the opinion that the method incorporates new and significantly different principles from all other methods intended to increase the size of the male penis.

I would also advise you to compare the academic lineage of both of these professionals (items 6 anbd 8 under FINDINGS OF FACT), as well as the part where Dr. Cordaro states:

"...He did not conduct tests or studies of any kind with respect to either product (Tr. 93). Dr. Cordaro testified that he did not do any research in ethical, competent, scientific literature concerning such products "because it is generally well known by anyone trained in medicine or endocrinology that the size and girth, length or other *** aspects or characteristics of the penis cannot be altered by drugs, chemicals or devices" (Tr. 116). The record does not contain any indication that there is anything to be found in such literature concerning the exact products involved in this proceeding."

Also see item 12, which clearly states:

"After the initial measurements, test subjects were instructed in the 'Chartham Method' and told to start practicing it (Tr. 139). Insofar as possible the penis of each subject was thereafter measured, in the method above described, on a weekly basis (Tr. 139, 140). Dr. Richards recorded each measurement. Of the test subjects two dropped out of the test and two achieved no gain in dimensions. Dr. Richards recorded gains among the twenty-eight remaining subjects ranging from 2.4 cm. to 3.6 cm. (.94 in. - 1.4 in.) in length and from 1.4 cm. to 3.1 cm. (.55 in. - 1.2 inc.) in girth (Tr. 142; RX-5). No changes of any significance were found in the measurements taken of the control subjects (Tr. 145, 146). He reported the success rate as 87.5 percent in the test group (Tr. 143). In Dr. Richards' opinion, the study was conducted in accordance with prevalent medical and scientific standards (Tr. 142). The report of Dr. Richards' study has been accepted for publication in the British Journal of Sexual Medicine (Tr. 143)."

That's a summary of the results of the study.

The issue of contention was one of permanent effects, with Dr. Richards couldn't attest to at that time. PE isn't like a nose job or an eye lift- it's much more akin to a fitness regimen. Like any fitness regimen, a miminum of [stamina] work must be done to maintain gains, but hardly more than would be necessary to maintain optimal sexual functioning even without PE.

In order to know the whole story, you need to be able to read between the lines