Who measured Matt Barr and what medical protocol was used to verify the 14.4–14.5 inch claim?

1. Who is credited with measuring Matt Barr

The claim that Matt Barr’s erect penis measures 37 cm (reported as 14.5 inches) appears on a site that markets his story and book and explicitly cites “Dr Rena Malik” as the clinician who “recorded it at 37cm/14.5 inches” ^[1]. Popular press summaries that repeat very similar large numbers (36–14.2 inches) refer broadly to “another scientific study” or medical measurement but do not consistently name the clinician in those pieces ^{[2] [3]}. Earlier media accounts referenced a filmed urologist measurement and a named consultant (Dr Nenad Djakovic) for a flaccid measurement, showing that multiple clinicians have been involved in publicized measurements of Barr at different times ^[1].

2. What the sources say about verification and prior records

The promotional site frames the 37 cm reading as the “most recent recording” and contrasts it with other historical claims and records, noting that some famous claims were discounted after imaging (for example, Roberto Cabrera’s claim was reportedly contradicted by an X‑ray in earlier reporting cited on that same site) ^[1]. Media outlets repeat that Barr’s figure represents an increase from earlier measurements (e.g., from roughly 12 inches flaccid to around 14.2 inches in a later study), and that the measurement has been described in some coverage as “medically proven” or “scientifically measured,” but those pieces stop short of supplying the underlying medical documentation ^{[2] [3]}.

3. What is missing: no documented, standardized protocol in the provided reporting

None of the supplied sources publish or link to a detailed clinical protocol — such as the position of subject, method of measuring (dorsal straightening vs. skin stretched vs. ruler placement at pubic bone), whether measurement was of glans to pubic bone or skin, whether erection was induced pharmacologically or spontaneous, or whether third‑party verification and peer review occurred — that would be necessary to evaluate the rigor of a “medically verified” claim ^{[1] [2]}. The promotional site and the press pieces make assertive numerical claims but do not disclose measurement methodology, instruments, independent oversight, or a formal report that would permit replication or external validation ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Alternative interpretations and implicit agendas in the coverage

The primary source of the 14.4–14.5 inch figure appears to be promotional material connected to Barr’s personal story and forthcoming book, which creates an implicit promotional interest in confirming an extraordinary measurement; mainstream outlets amplify the claim but rely on that primary reporting without producing medical documentation ^{[1] [2]}. That does not prove the measurement is false, but it does mean the available reporting mixes named clinicians and appealing shorthand (“medically proven”) with an absence of published clinical methods, so readers should treat the claim as asserted rather than independently adjudicated by publicly available medical data ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Bottom line

The reporting attributes the 14.4–14.5 inch measurement to clinicians involved in media and promotional coverage — notably Dr Rena Malik on the promotional site — and references other medical consultations in earlier coverage, but the provided sources do not disclose a formal, standardized medical protocol or deliverables (such as an examined clinical report, measurement checklist, imaging, or peer‑reviewed publication) that would allow independent verification of the specific 14.4–14.5 inch claim ^{[1] [2]}. Without such documentation in the supplied sources, it is not possible from this reporting alone to confirm exactly how the measurement was taken to accepted clinical standards.