This is going to be a very interesting ride for all of us and I am using every connection I can find to obtain more informtaion and confirm the legitimacy of what we have here. So far, it looks in the eyes of one MD I know and one more Urologist I know like it well might work.
I strongly advocate that each of you take the time and print out the 20 pages on the USPO site and study this in detail.
I personally "did the math" on this thing and if you break it down it gets a great deal more interesting, a wee bit scary and in some ways it becomes far more simple.
There is a great deal to break down in these pages. The patient figures are a good starting place so I will share that with you. I also suggest that each person purchase a cheap seamstress type of flexible measuring tape because then you can visualize the numbers.
Patient #1 Is a 41 year old male who did an initial course of treatment on the program that lasted for 18 months. Though he initially looks great his growth rate calculates out to .1555555 inches per month. This is the second worst growth rate in the entire study. In 18 months he went from 5.8 inches in length to 8.6 inches. His girth increase was 2.1 inches taking him from 3.7 to 5.8. A penis that under erection is only 3.7 inches in girth is indeed a very small penis with regards to girth.
This patient was off the protocol for over two years. He then goes back on the protocol with a few slight tweaks and in 10 weeks (2 1/2 months) gains an additional ".4-.5" inches. That growth rate computes out better at .20 or 1/5 inch per month.
If patient number one had extablished the higher growth rate from the beginning and had stayed stayed on the protocol for 24 months and assuming that we had no "plateauing" he would have at the end of 24 months reached 10.6 inches in length with corresponding girth increases.
Patient #2 In all normal theories patient #2 should do better because of his younger age (30 years). Patient number two in fact had the hightest growth rate of all at .35 inches per month. He was on the protocol for only 6 months and yet his gains were good. In six months he gained just under 2 inches in length. If we take his original numbers and run them on out assuming he would have maintained the growth rate what you have looks something like this. His starting length was 5.6 inches and increased to 7.7 in six months. Using that growth rate at the end of 12 months he would have reached 9.8 inches. If he had gone on as long as patient #1 and maintained the growth rate he would at the end of 18 months reached 11.9 inches and taken out to two years he would only have been able to find a sex partner in a zoo because he would have reached 14 inches in total length. His girth gains were incredible as well. At one year girth projections would have placed him at 7.4, 18 months would have been 9.5 and at the end of 24 months his girth would have reached 11.6 inches. To illustrate how truly monsterous that this would be lets take some common things that you have lying around and give an illustration. The average 12oz can of soda pop is 8 3/8 inches in girth. Two aluminum soda pop cans stacked one on top of the other reach 10 3/4 inches in height. If we stacked 3 soda pop cans on top of each other we have 14 1/2 inches. A penis in fact reaching these dimensions would sound great in a fantasy but the reality would be more of a problem than an asset. The other thing is that nobody knows how much blood and pressure it is going to take to get something like that to erect! The
weight alone at that girth would be a problem and underwear or clothing would present quite a challenge!
Patient #3, a 52 year old male achieved a growth rate of .1857142 inch per month. This was a better growth rate than Patient number one achieved and the duration of this treatment was seven months. Considering that Patient #1 was eleven years younger at time of treatment this begins to give an indicator that maybe age is not a factor at least by this data. In the seven month treatment period he gained 1.3 inches going from 5 to 6.3 inches in length. Again projections assuming the same growth rate could be maintained would be 7.22 in length at one year, 8,34 in length at 18 months and 9.45 inches at two years.
Patient #4 a 34 year old male achieved a growth rate of .22 per month which is just short of 1/4 inch. His total duration of treatment was a very short four (4) months and in that time he gained 1.1 inches in length. Again doing projections on that data one year would have had him at 8.64 inches at one year, 9.96 at 18 months and 11.28 at two years.
Patient 5 and 6 had identical data and measurements. This is unusual, but would be the case of we had twin brothers or some such thing in testing. Though the protocols were not exactly identical the results were. The age of both of these men were the same at 44. These two men achieved the second highest growth rate in the sample which was .325 inches per month. The higher growth rate in two men of this age again points to age being less of a factor than many would think. The men doing this testing had to get who they could get to do this to generate the data. Both men went from a length of 5.2 to 6.5 inches in length which was a gain of 1.3 inches in the 4 months they were under treatment. The projections were pretty amazing too! At one year this growth rate at their beginning point would have had them at 7.15 inches at 6 months, 9.1 inches at 12, 11.05 at 18 and finally a whopping 13 inches at two years.
Patient #7 was an incredible example of age not being a factor. He was a 72 year old man and in the program for only 3 months. In that short 3 month duration he achieved a length increase of .20 per month for a total of .6 inch. The fact that we had improvement in a 72 year old at all was more than amazing. Both Patient #1 and #8 had slower growth rates. This is an indicator that even a person well into their "golden years" could have benefit from this.
Patient #8 was 47 years old and stayed in the program for 6 months where he achieved the slowest growth rate of all at .1333333 per month. He still in that time grew 8 tenths or just over 3/4 inch in that 6 months period.
Patient #9 at age 52 achieved a growth rate of .233333 per month and participated for four months.
Patient #10 in all theories should have had the best result based on being the youngest at age 27. This was not the case with a growth rate of .26 three patients had higher growth rates at older ages.
As time permits I will continue to break down more of this data in hopes that we can really find something meaningful here.
I have a second posting with some different related information, but I do not want to place that information here.
Best,
Fuzzy Ken
'