duke_cicero wrote:tooyoung wrote:duke_cicero wrote:So now the study you cited as apparent proof of a contradiction between the original 82% 20-year survivability rate is part of the conspiracy? Give me a fucking break. But okay, I'll bite: show me where Clavell and Eid are debunking these claims in their videos. But then also explain why if there's a giant medical conspiracy why somehow Clavell and Eid, two of the highest-volume surgeons who are allegedly financially and reputationally beholden to Coloplast, are somehow exempt from the conspiracy. Do you seriously not see the contradiction here?
Yes. Present-day conditions get you better outcomes basically across the board. You've used the car analogy so often that I'm beginning to think you're somehow beholden to car manufacturers! Cars today provide better survivability in accidents than cars of the past—and they're less heavy and use less dense materials. More people were dying in those massive boat-like Oldsmobile killing machines of the past. You’re mocking a 53% 20-year survival rate across a 30-year swath of extremely diverse surgical outcomes like it’s some kind of failure or (again) somehow the consequence of an enormous urological conspiracy. But even with those caveats in mind, that’s a better rate of 20-year survival than breast implants, comparable to hip and knee replacements, and vastly outlasts pacemakers or spinal devices. Is there a massive conspiracy going on in those other surgical fields, as well? Get your pitchforks, I guess...
In a word, yes. I expect you to provide concrete evidence of every claim you make. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And so far, you've provided none. Also, if there actually were a conspiracy of the medical establishment, then wouldn't it make more sense to hide or somehow obscure the conflict of interest statement? If there actually were an elaborate conspiracy to defraud the public on this specific point, one that controlled the governing bodies and gagged doctors for telling the truth, you'd see papers like the 2022 meta-analysis making ridiculous, completely unverifiable claims. But that's not what's happening. You need transparency.
I'm very risk-averse, it's true. I didn't want to take even the very remote 1% risk of the IPP failure in my particular financial situation. But if I had the money for an IPP (my insurance didn't cover and I had to pay for the MPP out of pocket) it may have been what I went with first. I don't know. That's not the boat I'm in. Different conditions, different outcome. Just being honest.
Yes. And in fact the disclosure of conflicts of interest actually lends credence to the idea that the data are trustworthy. Disclosure is a safeguard, not an admission of guilt. Conspiracies require silence and suppression. That's not what's happening here.
One of the most renowned doctors—let alone those aiming for high-volume practice—confidently states a 1% failure rate per year, equating to an 82% survival rate past 20 years. Meanwhile, another con article claims only 52% survival past 20 years. That’s not a small gap, is it?
That said, I’m glad you acknowledged the discrepancy in the end. We’re getting somewhere. Watch Clavell’s podcast with Reena Malik and see for yourself. As for Eid—with all his experience—he said he has only seen one patient make it past 20 years (using the old classic pump). His exact words were, *“It always astonishes me when he comes for follow-up.”* This is a man with over 10,000+ implant procedures.
Now, regarding the idea that *"disclosure debunks any kind of conspiracy"* and *"why Clavell and Eid aren’t fired?"*—have you heard of the concept of relativity? We’re not living in complete lawlessness. Things still have to be *legitimized* through bureaucratic processes.
Moreover, Some representatives have a little room to speak the truth, adding credibility to their statements. It's all relative.
What is certain, however, is that expert opinions don’t align—neither with each other, nor with Miller’s study, nor with patient anecdotes by big fucking gaps.
I’m not saying that a 52% survival rate past 20 years equates to failure—though it is significantly lower..i think closer to ZERO. We’re fortunate to have any solution for a refractory disease; this is a major accomplishment in medicine. Don’t put words in my mouth. My point is that the numbers are a hoax, and there’s no need to sugarcoat them just to feel better about ourselves. What we need is more criticism, especially in a system where the regulator is the one being regulated. Criticism of other warriors in this forum gave me an insight and made me choose an mpp over an ipp.
So at the end still you buy ipp's risk is 1% ? Mpp is what 0% ?
Duke for the love of god stop being so politically correct
Again, you don't know how to read scientific articles. There's a discrepancy because they're two entirely different sets of data aggregated and evaluated under entirely different conditions. You're just a troll. I'm done here.
Where the fuck is perito's data ? Send me a link...where did u see that 1%..that you began to worship it like that?
