Yes, it's entirely possible

[Guest]

In my research of foreskin restoration, I found a website called foregen which claims to be able to clone genuine foreskins with every function included- I wondered if this was possible, so I did more research and found this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140410194326.htm

Tey even served normal functions as if they were original vaginas. Furthermore, I was wondering how they could attach the new foreskin to the Central Nervous System, and it turns out that tat is super easy as well. People who lose hands can, years afterward, have a new hand reattached, and it will connect itself to the CNS.

I'm still restoring obviously, but just so I can have something in case this doesn't work out, and to feel like I'm already working on it.

[greg_b]

I think you are wise to restore now. I have seen nothing to give me confidence that this will be available in the near (within 5 or 10 years) future. Nor have I seen any evidence that gives me confidence that restoring now is a bad strategy.

Regards

[Reality]

In my research of foreskin restoration, I found a website called foregen which claims to be able to clone genuine foreskins with every function included- I wondered if this was possible, so I did more research and found this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0410194326.htm

Tey even served normal functions as if they were original vaginas. Furthermore, I was wondering how they could attach the new foreskin to the Central Nervous System, and it turns out that tat is super easy as well. People who lose hands can, years afterward, have a new hand reattached, and it will connect itself to the CNS.

I'm still restoring obviously, but just so I can have something in case this doesn't work out, and to feel like I'm already working on it.

1. There is nothing in the article that indicates that it was "super easy" or possible at all, that those 2 artificial vaginas in fact "attached" to the CNS. Not a word was said about it.

2. You, yourself, phrase it thusly: "normal functions as if". "As if". Think about that. IF someone comes up with an artificial foreskin, it won't be the original. It will be an implanted artificial, lab-created ...whatever, requiring at least one, and probably at least several, surgeries. Sound inviting? More important, read #3;

3. There is no such thing as an artificial foreskin. Foregen doesn't have one, Wake Forrest/Atala doesn't have one, nobody has one. So obviously it won't be "super easy" to connect something that doesn't exist to the CNS, when that "something" has yet to be invented, let alone the fact that Science can't connect organs to the CNS on a regular basis.

4. Think about this: if it was "super easy" to connect anything, any organ to the CNS, don't you think that all those spinal cord injuries would be first on the list, and well into clinical treatment? Do some research into that. You owe it to yourself, for perspective.

5. The other 90% of the iceberg is all the complex steps that have to happen before any lab-grown organ is moved from the area of experimental research to something that is ever offered to the public. That's the other 99% of iceberg (I'm adding another 9% because it ain't gonna happen ). If it ever exists, won't matter because it will most certainly be something that only millionaires can afford; medical insurance carriers won't want to pay for it.

6. Greg is right. You can do far better than Foregen can, with your own, natural tissues. Restoration will restore naturally grown tissues, in your own privacy, no surgeries needed, no huge out-of-pocket costs, and you'll gain more sensation and function than you realize. All of it connected to your CNS. So you are wise to continue to tug. Foregen will never go anywhere, let alone beat you to the usual 8 to 10 year timeframe for restoration.

[Guest]

I think you are wise to restore now. I have seen nothing to give me confidence that this will be available in the near (within 5 or 10 years) future. Nor have I seen any evidence that gives me confidence that restoring now is a bad strategy.

Regards

It won't take me 8 to 10 years. I'm pretty young so my skin is going to be more elastic.

[Guest]

1. There is nothing in the article that indicates that it was "super easy" or possible at all, that those 2 artificial vaginas in fact "attached" to the CNS. Not a word was said about it.

2. You, yourself, phrase it thusly: "normal functions as if". "As if". Think about that. IF someone comes up with an artificial foreskin, it won't be the original. It will be an implanted artificial, lab-created ...whatever, requiring at least one, and probably at least several, surgeries. Sound inviting? More important, read #3;

3. There is no such thing as an artificial foreskin. Foregen doesn't have one, Wake Forrest/Atala doesn't have one, nobody has one. So obviously it won't be "super easy" to connect something that doesn't exist to the CNS, when that "something" has yet to be invented, let alone the fact that Science can't connect organs to the CNS on a regular basis.

4. Think about this: if it was "super easy" to connect anything, any organ to the CNS, don't you think that all those spinal cord injuries would be first on the list, and well into clinical treatment? Do some research into that. You owe it to yourself, for perspective.

5. Greg is right. You can do far better than Foregen can, with your own, natural tissues. Restoration will restore naturally grown tissues, in your own privacy, no surgeries needed, no huge out-of-pocket costs, and you'll gain more sensation and function than you realize. All of it connected to your CNS. So you are wise to continue to tug. Foregen will never go anywhere, let alone beat you to the usual 8 to 10 year timeframe for restoration.

Yeah, your probably right. Oh, did I tell you about this other thing they're doing? You know organ donations? Apparently they tried taking foreskins from dead people who agreed to it, and grafting them onto circumcised men! No joke, they really did this.

[Reality]

Yeah, your probably right. Oh, did I tell you about this other thing they're doing? You know organ donations? Apparently they tried taking foreskins from dead people who agreed to it, and grafting them onto circumcised men! No joke, they really did this.

If that actually happened (and I highly doubt it) it required surgery, and anti-rejection drugs for life. No thanks.

But I should say, thanks for the article. It's a follow-up on several that made the rounds a few years back, so it's appreciated.

[Reality]

It won't take me 8 to 10 years. I'm pretty young so my skin is going to be more elastic.

You'll see. Elasticity has nothing to do with it. But just tug, you'll get there at some point.

[Guest]

You'll see. Elasticity has nothing to do with it. But just tug, you'll get there at some point.

I think it does. That's why, when you're fat and you lose weight, young peoples skin snaps back much quicker without as many wrinkles. At my age, I am growing at my fastest point, which means my skin is naturally SRT to expand quicker to account for that.

[Reality]

Well, let's look at it. Does a peak rate of natural, maintenance-rate cell turnover mean that you will expand skin faster? You'd have to provide research findings to support that. Sounds logical, but so do other things that aren't true.

You have to realize that what we do is a chemical offshoot, as it were, of the maintenance rate, and not the maintenance rate itself. The skin expansion rate is higher than maintenance, but not faster. A higher rate does not equal faster. And the higher than maintenance rate involves different pathways. In other words, after your skin is stimulated to respond to tension, a different series of chemical events begin to happen; different from simple cell turnover. So can there be a direct comparison? Again, you need scientific support, not restoration forum "facts".

More importantly, does elasticity actually play a part in any of this? Consider this: if your skin is elastic, or in other words, stretches easily, does your skin see as much stimulus from tension as less elastic skin does? Does it see the same stimulus? And what part does a presumed but unproven "snap back" play in skin expansion?

And much more importantly, what does skin elasticity have to do with the chemical pathways involved in cell division at a higher rate?

"Thinking" something is true, and then making leaps in presumption based on personal thoughts, isn't the same as knowing it's true. Thinking is just thoughts in your head, and knowing requires established facts, information which comes from scientific study.

But just tug. Nobody would be happier than me if you beat the odds.

[Guest]

OK, I'm buying a tugger as well

[Guest]

Well, let's look at it. Does a peak rate of natural, maintenance-rate cell turnover mean that you will expand skin faster? You'd have to provide research findings to support that. Sounds logical, but so do other things that aren't true.

You have to realize that what we do is a chemical offshoot, as it were, of the maintenance rate, and not the maintenance rate itself. The skin expansion rate is higher than maintenance, but not faster. A higher rate does not equal faster. And the higher than maintenance rate involves different pathways. In other words, after your skin is stimulated to respond to tension, a different series of chemical events begin to happen; different from simple cell turnover. So can there be a direct comparison? Again, you need scientific support, not restoration forum "facts".

More importantly, does elasticity actually play a part in any of this? Consider this: if your skin is elastic, or in other words, stretches easily, does your skin see as much stimulus from tension as less elastic skin does? Does it see the same stimulus? And what part does a presumed but unproven "snap back" play in skin expansion?

And much more importantly, what does skin elasticity have to do with the chemical pathways involved in cell division at a higher rate?

"Thinking" something is true, and then making leaps in presumption based on personal thoughts, isn't the same as knowing it's true. Thinking is just thoughts in your head, and knowing requires established facts, information which comes from scientific study.

But just tug. Nobody would be happier than me if you beat the odds.

Actually I'm basing this off of what I've seen with myself, and what others claimed.

[greg_b]

And that is a good first step, looking at evidence, in this case anecdotal evidence. Just keep in mind that anecdotal evidence can have fundamental flaws that lead to the wrong conclusion. Typically anecdotal evidence does not include an attempt to identify biases. It does not include careful isolation of the factor of interest, nor suitable controls to compare against. That said, sometimes anecdotal evidence is all we have. Using it can be very helpful, as long as you recognize that it could be leading you astray just as easily as giving you insight. that is where being a critical observer and consumer of information will serve you well.

Regards