TOPIC: Latest pathology shows 80-90% PMMA in my tissue vs. a normal pattern with Metacrill

As a biomed researcher in immunology, I work with pathology all the time. I was actually going to make a comment about the tissue section only representing a single "picture" and not being able to tell the size of the particle from this.
A few things that stand out to me or my random thoughts here:- Much less immune cells (macrophages) than I would have expected. -The clustering of the beads, and relative similarity in size of beads, in relation to the old PMMA, really shows how much product you had in such a small area. Even with the limitation of only being able to see a 2d/flat image, and not 3d, you can still see a consistency with product quality. - If there is a consistency in product size, I would think over concentration of product would not be likely. I have always thought that most nodules are due to the limited ability to evenly distribute product via syringe. The "extra push" eh? -TGFB-1 is a complex molecule immunologically, but highly doubtful macrophage function would be compromised to the point it would cause any noticeable effect, particularly as you had no signs of enhanced susceptibility to infection.

What I don't understand is, if this was due to defect product, given how these things are produced, shouldn't there have been a spate of these incidents? Surely it's near impossible for one vial to be carrying 90% PMMA. Surely an entire batch has to be bunk. And if that was the case why aren't we hearing about other people with the same issue who has this done at a similar time. We've seen plenty of lumps and nodules, but Restorations experience seems to be unique.

Maybe how I'm imagining the manufacturing process is all wrong, but i assume a big flask of product is made and then put in to hundreds of individual vials. Surely it's near impossible for only on vial to be bad, the entire batch has to be doesn't it? Shouldn't we therefore have at least a few guys who also had the same reaction as Restoration did from that time period?

Am I mistaken or is it the Linneasafe in top photo where the beads all look perfectly sized? And is it the metacrill in the predominant part of the lower photo, where the beads are random sizes and poorly spaced.

Assuming that is the case, I thought the Linneasafe looked better in the photos, based on particle size consistency and placement.

You're only looking at 2 slides of 3 mm of tissue, and these are slices through 3D spheres - so you don't really know how wide each one is in every slice. You could be seeing the top or middle of the sphere.

So, generally speaking, you can't draw too many conclusions about particle size and consistency without having the products analyzed by a physical chemist. This is just pathology. The point is that you can see that there are no immune cells and no fibrosis - and it basically formed little vacuoles that clustered together to form the hard plastic lumps. It's too much PMMA and not enough human tissue which is why it never felt normal or healed normally either.

The thing is farmerjohn 99% of the Phalloplasty industry is a complete con, I don't think you've quite realised that yet, you remind me of myself a year ago, you will be okay in the end.