How I got rid of gyne without surgery.

[Blitz]

I know I've been asked to change the title but why? Just because there's been some conflict of opinions?  Actually, I find the debating very interesting and honest.  I wasn't reading this kind of stuff in the other threads.  I'll just say that all sides make a good point.  

[Blarneystoner]

I know I've been asked to change the title but why? Just because there's been some conflict of opinions?  Actually, I find the debating very interesting and honest.  I wasn't reading this kind of stuff in the other threads.  I'll just say that all sides make a good point.  

you should change it because it gets people's hopes up and then they realize it was just bullshit and get pissed off.

[Blarneystoner]

Well done Graham, your arguments are presented clearly and though I'm not trying to "side" with anyone, I think these boards as a whole have been a bit unfair to you.

[Spleen]

Are you equating taking an aspirin with undergoing surgery for gynecomastia? I don't think the risk (and cost) is the same; but I guess that's just me.

Nope.  I said "When you take an aspirin... there is an element of risk involved."  

There is a rare form of body dysmorphia in which sufferers detest a particular part of their body, such as a limb. Having the limb removed surgically, even though there was nothing wrong with it, would, at least in their mind, yield a 'positive' reward. So, yes, there is a relation between unnecessary gynecomastia surgery and perhaps having your perfectly healthy leg amputated.

OK, but the relationship only exists for mentally ill persons who want their legs chopped off.  No rational or reasonable person would want that, would they?

Those who've had successful surgery ARE INDEED lucky. What would you call it?

An expected outcome based on historical outcomes?   How exactly is it luck?  

This board, and perhaps people like you in particular, are the ones who admonish the unsatisfied customers for not having done enough research. This is just the reason why I keep stressing on the negative aspects so people are more aware and do more research before getting surgery.

The advice I give is to know the risks and do your homework.  I encourage people to stop obsessing on their chests and relax a little.  I adminished Blarney last night for being an impatient 15 year old, but that's just him being him and me being cranky.

What I don't get is why deliberately tailor your comments towards the negative?  Instead of creating balance I think it creates polarity.  It's more of a reactionary position than that of the Devil's Advocate which I think you want to be.  What we need is more reasonable, centrist advice for the young and frequently impatient guys that come here for help.

I think some of you, simply because you have had successful surgery, ARE telling people to have theirs. In fact, you falsely believe that based simply on your success with it, others will also be successful. This is simply illogical.

I'm guessing this isn't really directed at me because I've never told anyone blankly to have surgery.  I do think it's a bit simplistic to think that everyone who's had a successful surgery believes that all others will have success based on their personal experience.  I think we can give people more credit than that.  However, do you think it's strange that someone would be encouraged by a success story?  Or many success stories?  They appear to be the rule rather than the exception.

[Blarneystoner]

wow  

[Spleen]

You can't honestly believe 'history' had much to do with your successful surgery, do you? You were lucky your surgeon didn't screw up on that day, lucky your body responded and healed well and lucky you didn't actually have BDD (maybe you do), to name a few things.

Of course history plays a part.  I choose a doctor who has perfomed thousands of surgeries, and hundreds like my own, who demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the condition and it's treatment, and who has examples of success.  That is a historical record of ability.  Based on that information I can make a decision about whether or not to use him and what kind of results I might expect.  

If something is more likely to occur than not it isn't "luck", it's an expected outcome.  I had qualified information about my phyician, my body and it's ability to heal etc. and the results met expectations.  Just because there are no *guarantees* of success doesn't make a success "lucky".  

Absolute disasters may be very few but general dissatisfaction is not uncommon. 30% (conservatively) is NOT a small percentage. Dissatisfaction also comes in many forms, including the feeling of not having got your money's worth.

Graham, can you cite your source for this 30% dissatisfaction rate?  I googled to find studies related to cosmetic surgery satisfaction rates and couldn't find any study specific to gynecomastia correction.  I did find a number of other studies that put satisfaction rates at the lowest 80 to 97% at the highest (breast augmentation), but nothing as low as 70%, which makes me wonder if your 30% isn't a bit more liberal than conservative.  

[DamnPuffyNipples]

By definition something that is lucky is a result that is against the odds, and as you have already pointed out, there is a 70% success rate, taking luck out of the equation.

[Spleen]

The 30%, by the way, was put forth by the unquestionable Hypo, as a conservative figure, based on the multitude of papers he claims to have read. And that too, I might add, is not a worldwide statistic but mainly from the US & UK.

Maybe if Hypo's still around he can cite the source?  I can't find study that reports numbers that low.

Finally, when I say successful surgery patients are, 'lucky', I don't mean that that was entirely the reason. However, things that could just as easily have gone sour or are out of our control (even to a degree), despite the best surgeons, yet play an integral role in the sucess of the surgery; I classify as, 'luck' - for lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation.

"Variance" or "standard deviation" might be better terms than "luck".  Luck implies chance.  Variance is more specific in that it looks at the degree of variability or volatility (risk) from an average.  Variance can include a number of aspects including performance, history and "acts of god".  

[Spleen]

This is a perfect example.  Gynecomastia is the result of qualitative things like your genes, your endocrine system, your health, etc.  It was bound to occur almost from conception.  That anyone might have gynecomastia in a random sampling of men could be called luck, but that you specifically have it is the results of biology.  A better question than "why me" might be "what now"?  We are what and who we are.  What we do from that point forward is up to us.  Good luck!