Smooth Muscle and PE

ttt - That’s if you consider distruction of the elastic component and complete loss of the undulating orientation of the collagen fibers “growth” of the tunica. I consider it patholgic.

I absolutely agree, priapism is a pathologic condition, and more so megalophallus from priapism. (Some are functional though. The few I saw pictures of didn’t look very appealing though).

Thank you Stage.

You know, my understanding of the effect of growth factors on cancer is this:

The factors do not produce cancer, but they do stimulate the growth of already existing cancer in our bodies.

Many experts believe (and it may be a fact, I am not 100 % sure) that in our bodies there are permanently cells which become malignant; in general the grow so slowly that our defense system can overcom them. If however there is some imbalance between growth / and defense then addition of growth factors can be deleterious.

Some hormones can be considered as growth factors as well. Testosterone replacement for wexample is contraindicated in prostrate cancer patients becasue it might accelerate cancer growth.

I didn’t want to warm up the priapism/megalophallus story really.

What I wanted to say is that the tunica may be influenced by a primary change of the vascular system. And that there might be some potential to increase that potential by growth/stimulating factors.

Suggestions on how to apply that information?

Hi Sparkyx,

You have hit the nail on the head with your question. I don’t want to be seen as advocating the chemical approach to PE, as certainly those that are interested in that side will find the information here on their own accord. However, some of the results that I have had do seem to match the discussion here,

First of all, in regard to the various growth factors, there is only one available to the general public, and that is a big maybe. That growth factor is IGF-1LR3. In thinking about its use, and my experience with it, if regular IGF-1 were more readily available this would be the best growth factor to use in the penis. That this causes growth in the CC seems to be undisputed, and certainly in my case I can vouch for the growth.

One thing that just came to mind was the situation with megalophallus and its similarity to what I felt with IGF-1. (Technically, I used all of the components of the protocol, but the IGF-1 is what caused the growth in the CC). When using the IGF-1 in a short time it became apparent that the inside of my penis had grown a lot more than the outside. When erect, I was certainly aware of the constraints of my tunica. For a while, I thought that I had managed to get 10 gallons into a 5 gallon hat. Of course, I stopped using the IGF-1 and let things take their course. In a week or two, the tunica had stretched enough to allow my use of IGF-1 to continue. Growth continued along this pattern of reasonably quick growth in the CC, following by the feeling of being like a sausage, and having to wait for the tunica to catch up. This would seem to me to qualify for “tension” on the tunica, and the tension is in the right direction, which is outward. The tension is also constant, or at least as constant as the vagaries of blood pressure and volume in the penis allow it to be.

Looking back at my efforts so far, I believe that rather than having these up and down efforts of injecting, growth, and then waiting for the tunica to catch up, a smaller dosage may have been easier on me, and perhaps more effective.

True, this is certainly not a case of megalophallus, nor is it a priapism. But it is a case of putting pressure on the tunica from the inside through simply having more cells in the CC, it would seem to mimic the effects of megalophallus, only not with the destructive results of that condition.

Certainly the various other growth factors sited in regard to angiogenesis played their role, simply because I have more tissue and it is surviving quite nicely. The driver in this situation was the IGF-1.

I would certainly enjoy hearing other ways to put the information in this thread to a practical use.

Stage

Stage,

I love your posts and info! Post away! Chemical PE isn’t my bag, but no harm in discussing it intelligently, especially I consider your info solid. Just, as you have done, put in appropriate warnings.

It gets too far into chemical and it will move out of the Main Forum, be aware of that.

Stage, why don’t you start a thread where you can discuss this?

Hi Sparkyx,

I think that I have covered the basics in my short post. There does not seem to be much interest here on that part, so perhaps this should be deferred to another date? I certainly do not want to have it appear that I am trying to talk anyone into anything. Also we have a couple more guys going to try IGF-1 without much else. They have posted on my Chemical PE thread and perhaps as they progress, it will give us more to talk about besides just my experience. I am sure that you will agree that one trial is interesting, but does not prove much. The more posters that we get with that particular form of Chemical PE the more that we have to talk about in regards to performance of the various protocol’s.

The reason that I posted anything about Chemical PE here was because it was being discussed, or at least the various growth factors associated with one part of growth were discussed. You tried to tie the discussion into a practical use for the information offered, and that seemed like the correct moment to offer this to the conversation.

I am going on vacation here in a few hours and will not be back for 3 weeks. When I get back, if I know of the right forum in which to post the basics of the modified form of chemical PE, I will write a posting that explains how the others are going to try this method. I will invite those who are going to work on it to post in that tread as well. As I write this, I tend to think that this modified form of Chemical PE may well find a good deal of interest on the board. The reason being that it is much cheaper to use, and seems to give good results in girth increases. This form does little for length increases, but some people may find that acceptable. At any rate, I am off on vacation. Thank you for the invite to post. I appreciate it.

Stage

I don’t think its lack of interest, I think that very few here have the background to understand, let alone appreciate or APPLY what you are discussing. But we do have a few that do…so I think the exchange would be worthwhile.

Have a great vacation brother!

Well, chemical pe as suggested by stagestop is fascinating and chances are it works. However it requires injections in one’s dick and it’s quite expensive, so obviously it is not the preferred approach to everybody.

Other suggestions?

I think that ischemia (reduced blood flow to the penis) might be a growth inductor as ischemia may locally produce growth factors.

Unfortunately, ischemia is risky because it reduces the blood flow to the penis. Nevertheless we are accepting it up to a certain degree in hanging with compression type hangers as well as in clamping. I believe that ischemia induced by these procedures may contribute significantly to growth.

However, ischemia is risky and considered by many (and myself) as a negative PI. This should be considered with any PE-design.

Perhaps that is one of the “X” factors of clamping. Perhaps its the low level of ischemia that may be part of successful formula? If that is the case, it maybe that the 10 minute rule might be counter productive?

The problem with discussing ischemia as a growth inducement, is it takes off the safeguards that is so important when talking to the wide range of experience we have here at Thunders.

That is exactly why I mentioned the negative PI’s.

It is strongly suggested to respect these safety rules.