lol… how ridiculous…
100% fake study
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by georgex6[/postedby]
http://www.omicsonline.org/2155-9554/2155-9554-3-138.php[/quote]
No words can fully describe how bad this “study” is, but I will offer two: “Completely Ridiculous”.
I wonder if it was even peer reviewed.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by walrus[/postedby]
I wonder if it was even peer reviewed.[/quote]
If you read the article, the author doesn’t even observe the basic conventions of reporting on a scientific study. He doesn’t define basic terms he’s using (like “soft”, “hard”, etc.), he doesn’t distinguish between a control group and an experimental group for the people treated (although he does have a non-bald group which presumably have not been treated, or have no need for treatment), and uses trial subjects as young as 6 and as old as 86, for some reason (why would we care about a 6 year-old?)
Note that I am not just saying the trial methods and reporting methods were wrong. The so-called “science” underlying this is also completely ridiculous. It completely discounts the androgen theory as the basis for most adult baldness, and proposes this idea as a completely alternative theory, as if he’s saying, “Don’t believe THAT bunk, believe MY bunk!” It’s also written with very poor and broken English syntax throughout the entire article, although I guess that can be forgiven.
I believe I’ve seen George flogging this bizarre theory before here on the forum.
As for peer review, I have to wonder who this guy’s “peers” might be. They certainly can’t be mainstream scientists.
If a freshman undergraduate student turned in a write-up like this at, say, Johns Hopkins University, he or she would receive at most a “D” grade.
George, you’d better quit while you’re ahead, posting stuff like this…
hmmm… I thought it was amusing 
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by walrus[/postedby]
I wonder if it was even peer reviewed.
[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
If you read the article, the author doesn’t even observe the basic conventions of reporting on a scientific study. He doesn’t define basic terms he’s using (like “soft”, “hard”, etc.), he doesn’t distinguish between a control group and an experimental group for the people treated (although he does have a non-bald group which presumably have not been treated, or have no need for treatment), and uses trial subjects as young as 6 and as old as 86, for some reason (why would we care about a 6 year-old?)
Note that I am not just saying the trial methods and reporting methods were wrong. The so-called “science” underlying this is also completely ridiculous. It completely discounts the androgen theory as the basis for most adult baldness, and proposes this idea as a completely alternative theory, as if he’s saying, “Don’t believe THAT bunk, believe MY bunk!” It’s also written with very poor and broken English syntax throughout the entire article, although I guess that can be forgiven.
I believe I’ve seen George flogging this bizarre theory before here on the forum.
As for peer review, I have to wonder who this guy’s “peers” might be. They certainly can’t be mainstream scientists.
If a freshman undergraduate student turned in a write-up like this at, say, Johns Hopkins University, he or she would receive at most a “D” grade.
George, you’d better quit while you’re ahead, posting stuff like this…[/quote]
george, this post by Dr. Nigam tells us what is important:
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-122757-page-0-category-1-order-last_answer.html
In this post Dr. Nigam is talking about seeing improved results from repeat injections coupled with 2ddp. This is what is important. This is what we need to be focusing on. And he can’t even determine yet if 3d spheroids will add even more improvement but they might. And then there is perhaps microfollicles still to be added into the mix.
This is what we need to be paying attention to.
Hairman what are you snickering at george for? You’re no smarter. You’re talking about going and getting a regular hair transplant while Dr. Nigam is reporting improved results with repeat cell injections and 2ddp. You don’t even know how much he has improved the results over single treatments and yet you’re preparing to have a regular transplant. What a laugh!
And Dr. Nigam can’t determine yet if there is even more improvement with 3d spheroids thrown into the mix and he hasn’t even gotten a chance to do the mircrofollicle injections yet.
You’d actually be better off trying the natural treatment that george’s link refers to rather than damaging your head with a hair transplant. At least the natural treatment george’s link leads to won’t damage your scalp and the follicles inside your scalp.
You need to have some patience and wait for Dr. Nigam’s results before you do anything st00pid.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
You’d actually be better off trying the natural treatment that george’s link refers to rather than damaging your head with a hair transplant. At least the natural treatment george’s link leads to won’t damage your scalp and the follicles inside your scalp.
[/quote]
this speaks for itself :rotfl: . More proof that you really are the dumbest member of this forum.
Now to the other points:
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Hairman what are you snickering at george for? You’re no smarter. You’re talking about going and getting a regular hair transplant while Dr. Nigam is reporting improved results with repeat cell injections and 2ddp. You don’t even know how much he has improved the results over single treatments and yet you’re preparing to have a regular transplant. What a laugh![/quote]
You have a history of jumping at anything that holds even the most minute promise of hair restoration, clinging to it, hyping it and attacking anyone who dares to thinks differently. You did this with PGD2, aderans and histogen (to name a few). In fact you discouraged other members from even talking about any other subject - accusing them of wasting time discussing other topics while the cure is already here 
. So I think you should be more understanding why people think that you are a dumb*ss. I do not share your optimism regarding Dr Nigams treatments.
In fact, the truth of the matter is I do not have great faith in Dr Nigam’s treatment. Of course I hope I am wrong but I have not seen a single image posted privately by an independent patient on this or any other forum. All we have seen so far are some extremely sparse photographs of pre-selected Indian patients of Dr. Nigams and his word for it that these are the results of pure HM. I have a certain degree of difficulty believing that Dr Nigam has achieved something, that multi-million dollar cooperation (Aderans, ICX) failed to do.
secondly, you can stomp your feet all you want but the fact of the matter remains that FUE is rather a minimally invasive procedure which does NOT damage your scalp as you put it. Virtually every expert (Dr Cots, Garza) that I have heard on this topic, has said that their treatments would all work in conjunction to a hair transplant.
In a couple of months I will be able to put my hair loss worries behind me for the next couple of years. Hopefully by then Dr Mwamaba will have confirmed that the donor doubling technique works. Of course it would be even better if Dr Nigam is successful with his HM technique, but so far I am not convinced that we will be seeing anything substantial soon.
In the meanwhile you are free to pursue george’s paper 
This forum is full of wisenheimers and self-proclaimed hair experts. George has only started a new thread with findings.
This is not a Dr. Nigam Talk only - forum!
Please be fair and objective.
I don’t like to be treated like a child and be suggested like: "We have to focus on Nigam …or we have to be focused on Gho…or Hitzig and Cooley are the holy grale and other stuff.
Everybody has the right to post his findings or his opinion. But we need not to be patronized by self proclaimed experts.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by matigol[/postedby]
This forum is full of wisenheimers and self-proclaimed hair experts. George has only started a new thread with findings.
[/quote]
nobody blame georgex6 but this is a fake study there are enough circumstantial evidence to support that