|
It is often advantageous to wait for scientific studies to be conducted on a product or technique, for the relevant authorities to pass it as fit, and maybe a number of years in the field to guarantee it's effectiveness, and long term stability and safety. Even when this path is followed, safety and efficacy are not assured: From Thalidomide to Cox Inhibitors and Asbestos to Sudan 1, there are regular scares which remind us that science and regulation provides only a partial guarantee.
The current vogue for the precautionary principle, that is assuming something is dangerous until proved otherwise, leads to small protest groups being given the power to demonise almost anything irrespective of worth, tainting our trusted sources of information with conjecture. We are used to being presented with a multitude of conflicting information. The minimum requirements for trusting something often include at base some kind of scientific proof. Increasingly the proof has to be defensive in nature, produced to fight negative public perception as with the MMR vaccine.
Penis enlargement is spammed heavily, using frankly ludicrous claims for products that have no hope of producing the results. In this kind of situation, penis enlargement needs heavy scientific proof for people to even consider trusting in the process.
There is no independent scientific proof for Natural Penis Enlargement.
Dr. Brian Richards, a UK based doctor of medicine - unlike many other people involved in penis enlargement and claiming a doctorate - specialising in sexual medicine, conducted the closest thing to proper research in 1975. The research followed the "Chartham Method", which consisted of muscle exercises, warm wraps and vacuum pumping. The research was published in a commercial medical publication but it's fame grew as a result of the vendors of the Chartham Method being sued for "obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations" by the United States Postal Service, a case the vendors lost.
Dr. Richards experiment lasted 3 months, consisted of a tiny random sample size of 64 of which 32 were a control. Of the 32 men involved pro-actively in the trial, 2 dropped out and 2 gained nothing. The remaining 28 gained between 0.94" and 1.4" inches in length and .55" and 1.2" in girth, a success rate of 87.5%.
If you compare this small experiment to the kind of research required to get a drug passed by the Department of Health, it is easy to see that these results are at best worthy of further research. Dr. Richards himself could not be sure of the permanence of the gains.
The comparison with the process required to pass a drug for market, even a potentially dangerous or useless one, also leads to the most obvious reason research is sparse. The amount of money required to run research of this kind is not inconsiderable, and the potential revenue is somewhere between tiny and non-existent. The money in penis enlargement is in the surgical field or the scams run by those pushing penis pills and patches.
|