Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:28 pm Mainly I am just reading up more and more about it and trying to gauge my comfort level with it. The thought of doing it makes me nervous but at the same time the thought of not having to take AAs anymore and being naturally at

[quote="Rocket Number Nine (impor

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:28 pm ted)" time=1466502840]
castration levels of testosterone

is really nice. It'd also be incredibly convenient.

But then this weighs against the risks. It is something only I can decide of course.

If the testicles are already shrunken a good deal, would this technique perhaps be more effective? Mine have become quite a lot smaller than they once were. I also wonder what the proper amount
[/quote]
of fluid to inject would be considering the size of my testicles.

I have one bit of advice for you and this is to read this

micdavi24 (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:24 pm thread from start to finish and

then to ask any questions of those of us who have successfully used this method to get our testicles surgically removed. I documented my journey very comprehensively and would be happy to answer any questions you may have for me after you have read the entire thread. This stuff works and yes it does cause a fair bit of discomfort, but this is worth it to reach your goal.

I have been in the process of reading through the thread, although it is quite long and I have taken many breaks considering its rather long length. It has already answered some of the things I was wondering and I do feel a bit more comfortable about the idea of it and I do feel more like I could do it.

I'm not so much looking to use it as an excuse to get surgical castration - I would be fine with keeping them in there for a while so long as they aren't producing testosterone. If I can keep them permanently but have them be totally useless, that'd be fine too because surgery scares the shit out of me.

Before I dive through the rest of this thread: should I abandon the idea of going through with this if I do not intend to have

micdavi24 (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:02 am my testicles surgically removed

within the next few years after doing it? Is it going to be an -actual- medical necessity that they have to be removed after doing this, and if so, within what sort of timeframe? I'm fine with having them removed I'd just rather not have to do it any time soon, and

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:54 pm if I can get away with not removi

ng them but also having castration levels of testosterone, then all the better for me.

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:54 am Before I dive through the rest of this thread: should I abandon the idea of going through with this if I do not intend to have

micdavi24 (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:02 am my testicles surgically removed

within the next few years after doing it?

No, there is no need

micdavi24 (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:22 pm to have them surgically removed.

I never intended to have mine removed but I had a complication (I used too much cacl) and had to have my left one removed. I had the option to have them both removed, but chose just the one. My urologist saw no issues with me keeping the one.

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:54 am Before I dive through the rest of this thread: should I abandon the idea of going through with this if

hopper44 (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:12 am I do not intend to have

[quote="

micdavi24 (imported)" t

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:54 am ime=1387548120]
my testicles surgically removed

within the next few years after doing it? Is it going to be an -actual- medical necessity that they have to be removed after doing this, and if so, within what sort of time frame? I'm fine with having them remo
[/quote]
ved I'd just rather not have to d

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:54 am o it any time soon, and

Rocket Number Nine (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:54 pm if I c

an get away with not removi

ng them but also having castration levels of testosterone, then all the better for me.

I would tend to disagree with Hopper44, my feeling is get them out ASAP after the injections. There have been some of the guys on the the thread who have experienced some level of regeneration of their testicles after injecting. Also, keeping dead tissue inside your body long term isn't the smartest idea at all.

Don't be scared of the removal surgery, it is quick and easy and the healing time is pretty short as well. Unlike some of the guys here who have been surgically castrated, I did not have a drain in my scrotum and it healed up just fine and with no complications, leakage or infection. I also had absolutely no post surgical pain at all, in fact, my daughter picked me up from the hospital and immediately I got home, I got in my car which is a stick shift and drove to the shops, this in less than 24 hours post surgery.

If you do go ahead and inject, then use a very fine needle as this does not even leave a mark on the scrotum after about 24 to 48 hours post injection.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Micdavi, I take some issue with the finer points of your argument. Calcium chloride prevents cell regeneration; unlike alcohol injections where the goal is to cause massive damage to the testicles until the testicle dies, calcium chloride prevents normal housekeeping, and cells are slowly lost over the course of a few months. I'm not a doctor, and this hasn't been studied in humans…LINK TO A BANNED SITE WAS POSTED!but it has been studied in dogs. Your point about those who experience regeneration was mirrored in the dog study; at the wrong concentration of calcium in ethanol, the studied dogs recovered testicle function after about a year. You can use calchlorin.org (http://www.calchlorin.org) as a jumping-off point. They also have pictures of - and advice on treating - the lesions resulting in case of a botched injection.

Aha! Here's the study! (http://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/a ... 014-0062-2)

As someone who did it even though they may not function there can still be discomfort with them. I had no pain at all with the one that was removed first after removal except a little discomfort with the spermatic cord not for a while. But the one that remained for a time and more injections did give some discomfort occasionally till removed.

ZeuterMe (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:14 pm Micdavi, I take some issue with the finer points of your argument. Calcium chloride prevents cell regeneration; unlike alcohol injections where the goal is to cause massive damage to the testicles until the testicle dies, calcium chloride prevents normal housekeeping, and cells are slowly lost over the course of a few months. I'm not a doctor, and this hasn't been studied in humans…LINK TO A BANNED SITE WAS POSTED!but it has been studied in dogs. Your point about those who experience regeneration was mirrored in the dog study; at the wrong concentration of calcium in ethanol, the studied dogs recovered testicle function after about a year. You can use calchlorin.org (http://www.calchlorin.org) as a jumping-off point. They also have pictures of - and advice on treating - the lesions resulting in case of a botched injection.

Aha! Here's the study! (http://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/a ... 014-0062-2)

You may well take issue with my post, but the recovery has been reported by some who have tried this method on this very thread, so don't shoot me for my post. I don't doubt that they possibly used incorrect concentrations, but the possibility of recovery is there..

micdavi24 (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:05 am You may well take issue with my post, but the recovery has been reported by some who have tried this method on this very thread, so don't shoot me for my post. I don't doubt that they possibly used incorrect concentrations, but the possibility of recovery is there..

I meant no disrespect, and I'm sorry if it came off that way - it was unintentional. My point was that if done correctly calchlorin is a very reliable sterilant, and people could avoid issues with unintended recovery by taking care to use the correct dose and protocol.

ZeuterMe (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:24 pm I meant no disrespect, and I'm sorry if it came off that way - it was unintentional. My point was that if done correctly calchlorin is a very reliable sterilant, and people could avoid issues with unintended recovery by taking care to use the correct dose and protocol.

Sorry ZeuterMe, I guess my reply sounded harsher than I intended it to be. I was merely trying to highlight the fact that there have been cases of recovery of the testicles after being injected. Actually there have also been cases of recovery reported where dogs have been injected as well.

When I went this route, I had always wanted my testicles removed surgically as I really didn't want any dead tissue left behind my body to possibly cause health issues down the road. I am now 2 years and 3 month post castration and

Cb2000user (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:04 am I could not be happier with the

situation. There is one more thing I would like to do and that is to have my scrotum removed and this will in all probability be accomplished over the Christmas period during a visit to Thailand. While there, I will also investigate the possibility of having my penis shortened as well. I do want this done and have considered DIY, but the risks are just too great and if I can't have it done in a safe affordable surgical setting, then unfortunately we will remain united till death do us part.

So I finished the whole thread a while ago and have been kind of pondering on it. I have a question in regards to making the solution.

Years ago, I had to get some everclear for some quite unrelated but interesting non-drinking purposes. Looked everywhere, couldn't find any 190 proof, only 150 proof, which ended up being good enough for my purposes so I never probed further. I've asked around again recently, apparently we just don't have it up here in Alaska, which honestly doesn't surprise me seeing as we tend to be fairly strict with alcohol laws and even have regions and towns/villages (over 75 communities) wherein drinkable alcohol is completely illegal. So far I am seeing nothing in regards to 190 proof everclear being explicitly illegal to possess/purchase/sell in Alaska, generally speaking i.e. no statewide ban on it. Can't find a city ban either for my location. But then, if that were the case why would nobody be finding any up here? I wish Alaskans were more responsible with their alcohol use so that I didn't have to worry about this problem

Regardless, I may attempt ordering it online, as one can purchase alcohol online here and have it shipped, but anyway on to the point.

If I do indeed do this I'd like to follow SamKelley's approach as closely as I can with what is available to me.

If I am incapable of obtaining 190 proof everclear and must instead settle on the 150 proof version, would it be a good idea to use the appropriately scaled amount of anhydrous CaCl2, in an attempt to come closer to the relative concentrations of alcohol, water, and CaCl2 described in SamKelley's post?

What would you guys think to be the appropriate thing to do if the only alcohol available is 150 proof everclear?