Dr Gho has apparently changed the game

» After the experience of ‘Syrup’ (as was pointed out to me), I think we need
» to get another reputable HT Doctor to reproduce this process before we get
» too excited.

What other HT doctor do you recommend? After 20 surgeries with the best HT doctors in the world, Syrup doesn’t have much good to say about any of them. In my opinion, Dr. Bisinga is the best candidate. He is geographically close to Gho, and he is highly skilled producing results on par with the best.

"Why do you think you don’t see many veterans on these sites anymore who have been through all the surgery and good give advice and no all the pitfalls. The reason is they all know its a rigged game.

There are cartels of people all cheerleeding for certain doctors on all sites they have group emails to keep in contact with each other. They are constantly in touch with each other bumping up the posts to the top of the forums.

When they see someone with a good result from another doctor from a guy who is knowledgable and answers questions,competitors will deliberately set out to argue with the guy annoy him anything to get him off the site. In return they receive free grafts and heavy discounts on future surgeries. Surgery is an expensive business and people will sell there souls for free grafts.

Often the pictures you see look a lot better and will resemble nothing like the work in real life. You see a good result on the internet looking full then 6 months later you see they are having another 3000 grafts. Meet a few patients and you will see.

Graft counts are also wrong there have been cases showing 1000 grafts when really the guy had 2500. The doctor can throw the extra 1500 in providing he agrees to put pictures up and say nothing after all he only paid for 1000. The hair transplant business is a very corrupt and shady business everyone who has some experience in it knows it."…Syrup

For one, I am impressed by the paper that I have read about donor preservation using partial FU extraction.
The paper is well written, yet it only contained 5 test patients. That is fine since this method will have to be reproduced by others anyway.

On the other hand we like to see that this method can produce consistant results. Due to other geographic location we probably meet more ex patients than most other institutes. This is where it gets a bit difficult because what we see in reality does not match the theory. That is the reason I am very sceptic, nothing more or nothing less.

IF this new method proves indeed to be the real deal, providing consitant results I personally become on of the biggest fans of this method, believe me. It would open up windows for those who are basically not HT candidates or in need for repair.
But until then I remain sceptic.

»
»
» Bverotti is not a good idea, he spreads so much bad press about Gho
» already, I don’t think he will be objective and come out and say he has
» been wrong all along.

JamesBond, is there anywhere I can view the full publication without paying?

Cheers.

» » After the experience of ‘Syrup’ (as was pointed out to me), I think we
» need
» » to get another reputable HT Doctor to reproduce this process before we
» get
» » too excited.
»
» What other HT doctor do you recommend?

@James Bond: The only one I would trust in this field (and I’ve really good reasons to have faith in) is
Dr. Jerry Cooley:
http://www.haircenter.com/about.html

But there is – in general – a BIG problem behind a (real) successful reproduction of Dr. Gho’s HST technique, as it is described in this peer-reviewed journal …

Reason:
In fact, the described study is almost 2 years old (!), and “since technology never stands still” (you remember?), currently only Dr. Gho knows ALL (and the final) secrets behind a successful reproduction of his HST technique. So keep that in mind …

“In my opinion, Dr. Bisinga is the best candidate”

I agree, Dr Bisanga has a great reputation and would be ideal, but why are we talking about this, why hasn’t Dr Gho moved this forward himself? It is all very frustrating.

An example of why we should be sceptic.
In the study it says that the rate of extraction averages around 1.6 grafts per minute.

If you look at this video, which contains fragments of the extraction process you will clearly see that the rate of extraction is much higher.

How can this be explained?

Another issue that I have problems with:
in this clip the dr claims that the big secret of keeping the hairs alive and growing is the fluid they are kept in during storage.
I realize that there are different approaches, but even with normale saline it is possible to keep grats alive and kicking for prolonged periods of time.

Remember, I am not trying to put down this new technique, but I just want to point out some inconsistancies using information that is freely available.

» An example of why we should be sceptic.
» In the study it says that the rate of extraction averages around 1.6
» grafts per minute.

I have also noticed this. I am planning on trying to get an interview from Dr. Gho to get many questions answered. Another issue with the procedure is not all extracted grafts are suitable to be implanted into the recipient area. This does not cause a loss though, because these grafts left too much tissue in the donor FU, which grows back. Even with lost grafts the technique still resulted in a multiplication rate of > 90%. Also, the 1.6 grafts/min extraction is not a true hurdle with this technique. If it can be done at all, it can be improved upon.

Saline solution does not work and leads to apoptosis, as Swinehart showed many years ago when experimenting with horizontally transected follicles. The regrowth is inconsistent and the hairs are thinner. You have to use cell growth factors, such as in Gho’s solution, which promote cell proliferation. That’s the KEY to this technique. The donor regrowth is no big mystery and has been understood for years by those in the know. Here is a study I posted from another clinic perhaps 5 years ago. Note the problem the authors experienced with reharvesting the follicles is not a true issue. They harvested too early. Kim showed the follicles take about a year to fully reform complete with sebaceous glands etc.

Once again, the donor regrowth is the easy part. They key to Gho’s technique is in the soaking solution to support cell proliferation of the partial follicles transplanted into the recipient area.

One last thing, Jahoda showed implanted pieces of dermal sheath tissue into his wife’s arm resulted in new follicle formation, which supported thick hair growth, but injecting DP cells didn’t create new follicles. This is because the DS tissue contains follicular stem cells, and DP cells do not. Gho’s procedure is technically stem cell transplant and is a form of stem cell-based hair multiplication.

Please realize that being skeptical of emerging science and directly attacking researchers whose science you don’t fully understand are two very different things.

In vivo Follicular Unit Multiplication: Harvesting an Unlimited Donor Supply

ERGIN ER, MD * , MELIKE KULAHCI, MD * , AND EMIRALI HAMILOGLU, MD * ,

  • TRANSMED Hair & Cosmetic Surgery Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey

INTRODUCTION

The limitations of the donor area reserve is the most important problem to be solved by all physicians dealing with hair restoration surgery. The studies for increasing the potential donor supply such as hair cell implantation and in vitro hair follicle regeneration are still under investigation due to their poor results. The only recent advance is the follicular unit extraction technique also known as FUE. This technique allows the surgeon to obtain an increased number of follicular groups from the scalp and other body areas. However, as the level of baldness advances the number of grafts needed is not sufficient for a satisfactory result.

Several authors have proved that follicular epithelial stem cells should be located in the bulbar region as well as the bulge area. In 1995 Kim et al1 and in 1999 Reynolds et al2 reported that the outer root sheath cells cultured from different parts of a hair follicle could regenerate into a differentiated hair follicles. Based on Dr. Kım and Dr. Reynold’s studies, we hypothesize that transecting the hair follicle from different levels should allow doctors to obtain several viable donor grafts from one donor hair. Therefore, the number of donor hairs available in a patient’s donor area would increase in comparison to the techniques used today. This manipulation will result not only in hair growth in the recipient site, but will also allow for hair regrowth from the remaining part of each follicle in the actual donor site.

In this clinical study, we transplanted different parts of transversly trisected hair follicles, harvested by the FUE technique, from the donor site. We then tested the hypothesis by duplicating the available donor hair grafts in hair transplantation. We then evaluated the efficiency of the transected follicles by checking the growth rate of each type of transection. This evaluaton is especially important for surgeons using FUE since transplanting the transected follicles is sometimes a problem.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the follicular unit extraction technique, normal human occipital scalp hair follicles were obtained from 5 healthy male patients. A total of 45 hair follicles were isolated for each patient. The follicles were divided into three groups. Group A (N:15): The upper one third of the follicles were extracted from the donor site, leaving the remainıng two thirds of each follicle intact. Group B (N:15): The upper half of the follicles was extracted, leaving the remainıng lower half of each follicle ıntact. Group C (N:15): The upper two thirds of the follicles were extracted, leaving the lower one third of each follicle ıntact. Extracted follicles from each group were placed into the slits at the recipient site. To monitor the growth in each site, the area was divided into 1 cm2 boxes using permanent tatoos. Follicle count and thickness control was performed for one year by an independent third party

RESULTS
At the recipient site at the 15 follicles meanly 3 (2-4) of upper one thirds, 4.4 (2-6) of upper half and 6.2 (5-8) of upper two thirds were observed as fully grown after 1 year. The regenerated hairs were thinner than those from intact follicles. At the donor site a regrowth rate of meanly 12.6 (10-14) of extracted upper one thirds, 10.2 (8-13) of extracted half and 8 (7-12) of extracted upper two thirds was observed as emerging new follicles. The growth rate at the donor site and regrowth rate at the recipient site is given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.

Figure 1: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
Growth rate at the recipient sit

Figure 2: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
Regrowth rate at the donor site.

DISCUSSION
The hair follicle is a complex organism. It contains stem cells that not only govern the rate of cell loss, but also the regeneration of the hair during its life cycle. These stem cells are located at the bulb and outer sheath close to the erector pili muscle which is called the“bulge” as well. Oliver Et Al showed that rat vibrissae can still regenerate after removing the lowest one-third of the follicle. Similarly, Inaba Et Al, Kim and Choi proved that grafted hair follicles can regenerate after removal from the bulb. This data showed that the upper half of the follicle can regenerate outside of the bulb area. In our study we observed a growth rate of 29.3 % in the upper half of the follicles after 1 year. The regrowth rate was 76% at the donor site during the time period.

Recently, Rochat and Kobayashi proved the bulge hypothesis as true by isolating keratinocyte colony-forming cells from human hair follicles. They determined that cells were located in the follicular bulge area. This area is the outer root sheath to which the erector pili muscle is attached. This muscle is located nearly at the midportion of the follicle. Raposio Et Al identified these cells as follicular stem cells. Therefore, theoretically each half of the follicle should contain a stem cell reservoir and allow for new shaft production and hair growth which means an unlimited donor supply. They also transected hair follicles from the level immediately below the bulge area. They proved that the lower half of the follicle had the same growth rate as the intact follicle but that the upper half exhibited a reduced shaft production capacity. Although, the upper half of the follicle exhibited a reduced capacity for shaft production, it still had the capacity to form a hair shaft which means that it still contained some follicular stem cells. We have observed similar results ın our studies; just 13% of the upper one-third of the follicle can regenerate as a new follicle after transplantation. the upper half resulted in 20% and the upper two-thirds resulted in 33%. So we have observed that if only the bulge area is included in the graft the survival rate increases. If the transection level goes lower and the number of outer root sheath cells included in the graft increases, the survival rate will also increase, just like in the success rate in the extraction of the upper two-thirds of the follicles. This data supports the bulge hypothesis that implicates that the stem cell circulation begins in the upper outer root sheath and moves downward through the bulb area. Therefore, it is logical to include both stem cell locations and as much outer sheath as possible to increase the graft yield after the transplantation.

To our knowledge our clinical study is the first written study that compares trisected hair follicle growth and donor regrowth with single follicle extraction system. The most important problem in FUE procedures is the unacceptable levels of transection (damage due to cut hair follicles) in some patients. Sometimes surgeons are not careful enough when inserting the transected grafts into the slits. The results of our study reveals these transected new follicle can emerge in the recipient site. However, the number of new follicles depends on the transection level. New follicles are thinner than the original ones and they cannot cover the recipient site sufficiently. We think the bulge area stem cells can regenerate to build a new follicle, but without the bulb, the new follicle is thinner than the original one. We suggest that surgeons reconsider placing any transected follicle in the recipient site and maybe it is better to switch to strip surgery or to cancel the operation if the transection rate is above 10% in any patient.

We have also observed that in all FUE patients new hair follicles can regrow in the donor site. So we thought a kind of in vivo multiplication can be achieved so that the donor site can be harvested several times. This is basically true because we harvest the upper two-thirds of the follicles and 76% of the follicles regenerate at the donor site. This ratio increases as the level of transection gets higher ( 98% for the upper one-thirds). Also, new hairs emerge from 33% of these transplanted follicles in the recipient site. However, if a surgeon tries to extract the same follicle again it is really very difficult to extract the follicle intact. The punch suddenly buries into the skin and extracting the same follicle gets practically impossible.

In conclusion, the survival and growth rate of transversly sectioned human hair follicle increases as the level of transection decreases. However, we don’t recommend the surgeon to transplant the sectioned parts because the growth rate is not more than 33% and new follicles are so thin that they have no coverage effect. Also, at the donor site new follicle growth is observed but it is not possible to extract them again; therefore, the surgeon should be very careful with the patients whose transection rate is high during FUE procedures.

  1. Rassman WR, et al. Follicular unit extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation.
    Dermatol Surg 2002; 28: 720–728.

  2. Kim JC, Choi YC. Regrowth of grafted human scalp hair after removal of the bulb. Dermatol Surg 1995; 21(4): 312–313.

  3. Reynolds AJ, et al. Trans-gender induction of hair follicles.
    Nature 4 November 1999; 402(6757): 33–34.

  4. Gho CG, et al. Human follicular stem cells: their presence in plucked hair and follicular cell culture.
    Br J Dermatol 2004; 150(5): 860–868.

  5. de Viragh PA, Meuli M. Human scalp hair follicle development from birth to adulthood: statistical study with special regard to putative stem cells in the bulge and proliferating cells in the matrix.
    Arch Dermatol Res 1995; 287(3-4): 279–284.

  6. Raposio E, et al. Follicular bisection in hair transplantation surgery: an in vitro model. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998 (July); 102(1): 221–226.

  7. Rochat A, Kobayashi K, Barrandon Y. Location of stem cells of human hair follicles by clonal analysis.
    Cell 25, March 1994; 76(6): 1063–1073.

  8. Oliver RF. Whisker growth after removal of the dermal papilla and lengths of follicle in the hooded rat. J Embryol
    Exp Morphol 1966 (June); 15(3): 331–347.

  9. Inaba M, Anthony J, McKinstry C. Histologic study of the regeneration of axillary hair after removal with
    subcutaneous tissue shaver.
    J Invest Dermatol 1979; 72(5): 224–231.

» I realize that there are different approaches, but even with normale
» saline it is possible to keep grats alive and kicking for prolonged periods
» of time.

Saline - what?

I know that there currently doesn’t exist a well accepted standard in the HT field, when it comes to “graft holding solutions” and most doctors out there use either chilled saline or some prefer Lactated Ringer’s solution or saline with a more physiologic pH.

Anyway, actually “saline” IS a cell killer!! And that is one reason, why many “Mega Sessions” fail in this field, because large procedures routinely performed today, may take eight to 15 hours to complete – and this is mostly FAR too long for grafts using any sort of “saline”.

For enhanced graft survival, compared to saline, there already exist far better S O L U T I O N S out there - since years! Sure, most of them are far more expensive than saline crap, but who cares?

BTW – E.g. your Ex-Medical Doctor (Dr. De Reys) do NOT use “saline” anymore since weeks, because I helped (successful) to enlighten him, but this “solution” is NOT the same material as Dr. Gho is CURRENTLY using it for his procedure/method …

» » After the experience of ‘Syrup’ (as was pointed out to me), I think we
» need
» » to get another reputable HT Doctor to reproduce this process before we
» get
» » too excited.
»
» What other HT doctor do you recommend? After 20 surgeries with the best HT
» doctors in the world, Syrup doesn’t have much good to say about any of
» them. In my opinion, Dr. Bisinga is the best candidate. He is
» geographically close to Gho, and he is highly skilled producing results on
» par with the best.
»
» “Why do you think you don’t see many veterans on these sites anymore who
» have been through all the surgery and good give advice and no all the
» pitfalls. The reason is they all know its a rigged game.
»
» There are cartels of people all cheerleeding for certain doctors on all
» sites they have group emails to keep in contact with each other. They are
» constantly in touch with each other bumping up the posts to the top of the
» forums.
»
» When they see someone with a good result from another doctor
» from a guy who is knowledgable and answers questions,competitors will
» deliberately set out to argue with the guy annoy him anything to get him
» off the site. In return they receive free grafts and heavy discounts on
» future surgeries. Surgery is an expensive business and people will sell
» there souls for free grafts.
»
» Often the pictures you see look a lot better and will resemble nothing
» like the work in real life. You see a good result on the internet looking
» full then 6 months later you see they are having another 3000 grafts. Meet
» a few patients and you will see.
»
» Graft counts are also wrong there have been cases showing 1000 grafts when
» really the guy had 2500. The doctor can throw the extra 1500 in providing
» he agrees to put pictures up and say nothing after all he only paid for
» 1000. The hair transplant business is a very corrupt and shady business
» everyone who has some experience in it knows it.”…Syrup

I was talking about the hair transplant industry in general unfortunately its rotten to the core.
Lots of guys here secretly working for the doctors spending hours of their time online desperately tring to influence peoples decisions to have surgery with their doctors.
Luckily enough you do not see me on the boards perhaps a couple of times in the last five years to defend my name.
With great thanks to two doctors on this site i am lucky enough to have moved on with my life. I cannot thank these guys enough for their efforts. I am at a stage now where people who meet me have no idea that i have ever suffered hairloss.
It took a hell of a lot of effort both financially and emotionally but i got there in the end.
My experience with gho was 2003 its history fish and chip paper.
Please can you try to keep me out of your arguments.

» I was talking about the hair transplant industry in general unfortunately
» its rotten to the core.
» Lots of guys here secretly working for the doctors spending hours of their
» time online desperately tring to influence peoples decisions to have
» surgery with their doctors.
» Luckily enough you do not see me on the boards perhaps a couple of times
» in the last five years to defend my name.
» With great thanks to two doctors on this site i am lucky enough to have
» moved on with my life. I cannot thank these guys enough for their efforts.
» I am at a stage now where people who meet me have no idea that i have ever
» suffered hairloss.
» It took a hell of a lot of effort both financially and emotionally but i
» got there in the end.
» My experience with gho was 2003 its history fish and chip paper.
» Please can you try to keep me out of your arguments.

I’m happy you have moved on with your life. Nobody knows your name. Syrup is a pen name, so technically you are not in our arguments. You have to realize, when you post things on public forums, that information becomes public domain. That might have been history fish and chip paper for you, but please try to understand, people still use your posts from that era to publicly discredit Dr. Gho. I suppose 20 years from now, the situation will remain unchanged. The problem with good history is nobody remembers. The problem with bad history is nobody forgets.

As for me, respectfully, I will chill on your name.

» Anyway, actually “saline” IS a cell killer!!

I suspect all HT doctors learned this in med school. They learned how little it costs compared to superior soaking solutions there as well.

What they didn’t learn in med school, and what they should have, is donor regrowth is absolutely not a problem when doing HT. Recipient growth is where you run into trouble, especially if you leave a portion of the FU in the donor site. To get around this problem, you must use the expensive soaking solutions. This abstract is from 1998, and no HT doctor should have failed to have read it. :smiley:

Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Jul;102(1):221-6.

Follicular bisection in hair transplantation surgery: an in vitro model.

Raposio E, Filippi F, Levi G, Nordström RE, Santi P.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the National Institute for Cancer Research-IST, University of Genova, Italy.
Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate, in an in vitro model, the survival and growth rates of transversely sectioned human hair follicles to assess experimentally the soundness of this approach as a future possible method for “duplicating” available donor hair grafts in hair transplantation procedures. A total of 300 human anagen hair follicles was obtained from 10 healthy male patients. Follicles were thus randomly assigned to one of the following groups: group A (control; n = 100 follicles), cultured intact as dissected, and group B (experimental; n = 200 follicles), transversely transected, parallel to the epidermal surface and immediately below the bulge area, to obtain 200 lower-half follicles and 200 upper-half follicles. Isolated hair follicles from both groups were maintained in culture for 10 days. The length of each follicle was measured immediately following isolation and at the end of the 10-day culture period. No statistically significant differences were found between the growth rate of intact follicles (mean 10-day growth rate = 2.71 mm) and of lower-half follicles (mean 10-day growth-rate = 2.64 mm), whereas a statistically significant difference was found between the growth rate of follicles from the two above-mentioned groups and the growth rate of the “upper-half” follicles (mean 10-day growth rate = 1.07 mm). Histologic analysis demonstrated that both intact and lower-half follicles maintained a normal histologic appearance, whereas in upper-half follicle sections we invariably detected a region of intense cell proliferation, reminiscent of a regenerated follicular papilla, surrounding the lowermost part of the follicle. In our opinion, the reported in vitro survival rate of transected human hair follicles might represent an interesting starting point in striving to augment the number of donor hairs available during a hair transplantation procedure.

» Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Jul;102(1):221-6.
»
» Follicular bisection in hair transplantation surgery: an in vitro model.
»
» Raposio E, Filippi F, Levi G, Nordström RE, Santi P.

We can take many things away from Raposio’s study. Here are a few that come to mind:

  1. Cell culture mediums support the growth of transected lower follicles in a manner that studies that used saline solution did not. This is probably part of what led Gho to the idea of leaving the lower follicle undisturbed in the skin. That and the fact that culture mediums can only support the follicle for a couple of weeks, where the body will support them for a lifetime. As much of a no-brainer as that is, nobody had ever thought of it or tried it before. Dr. Kim previously transected the follicles outside the skin prior to reimplantation, which led to inconsistent regeneration due to excessive trauma.

  2. Transected uppper follicles attempt to remodel the lower transected portion (also shown by Oliver/Jahoda) in order to support healthy hair growth. Unfortunately, they must be removed from the skin prior to implantation into the recipient site. But alas, we have an advantage. Raposio’s study showed transecting the follicles triggered the upper halves to send stem cells from the bulge down to the wounded follicle in an attempt to perform remodeling of the end bulb. This remodeling is a natural phenomenon that occurs every time your hair cycles. Oliver/Jahoda showed remodeled transected rat whiskers grow thick hair fiber. Hmmmm…with the right growth factors, a 2 for 1 HT might be possible. This is probably part of what led Gho to the brilliant discovery of soaking the upper graft portions in cell-proliferation medium prior to implantation into the recipient area. As much of a no-brainer as this seems, nobody had ever tried it prior to implanting transected upper follicle parts into recipient sites.

  3. Since Kim showed the transected lower follicles fully reform under optimum conditions, complete with sebaceous glands, Raposio’s study truly was the basis of a 2 for 1 HT technique.

»
» BTW – E.g. your Ex-Medical Doctor (Dr. De Reys) do NOT use “saline”
» anymore since weeks, because I helped (successful) to enlighten him, but
» this “solution” is NOT the same material as Dr. Gho is CURRENTLY using it
» for his procedure/method …

Interesting, this ads one more mystery: how come that Prohair team and dr. De Reys have achieved fantastic results using saline in the past?

Nevertheless it is good that you have enlightened him about other possibilities, well done.
FYI we have moved on to other solutions as well for a longer time, and we are investigating more goodies as we speak.

Greetings,

»Dr Gho, for several years now, has talked about hair multiplication.

I never checked it myself, but I was told that he claimed he could remove a follicle from the donor, and despite being removed the follicle would regenerate in the donor, and also create almost perfect yield in the reicipient area

I was told this by patients several years ago and I believe it has been put out there on the net

I discarded this as being utter nonsense and typical of the myths peddled in this industry

And now there is a thread here which cites a “peer reviewed” publication in a respected journal where Dr Gho proves this is a reality.

So , I went online, found the journal, amongst the plethora of other online “journals”, Paid $86.00 US and read it

And it was worth every cent. I have not been so entertained since Dr Jones publicly stated he was “ removing the spiral apocrine glands from armpit hair with a pair of tweezers”….no no, its the guy who is running a multi spiked roller over your head , and then drenching it in your own plasma…etc etc.

But the tragedy is, there are desperate guys who want to believe, there are operators who will sell anything to the desperate…and there is nothing funny about that

So here is some background, and then a summary of what Gho is up to

Dr Bob Limmer was the guy who , back in the late 80s said that strips removed should be dissected into intact individual FOLLICULAR UNITS under stereoscopic control, ie magnification.

While struggling with my concept, the only doctor worth talking to was Dr Limmer. We first spoke in 1993. He thought my work was interesting , but impracticable due to the inevitable high transection rate. He thought it was of no practical significance. But I still called him from time to time to give him updates

The following year, he sent me his published paper. He implied that FUE would generate a majority of transections, and transections produce a grossly inferior yield

The idea that stem cells could make follicles magically multiply was a fascinating academic pursuit however

In his study, he took a completely bald guy, and placed transected follicles, at varying points along the follicle , into different areas.

And he reported his results , the same as I witnessed on countless occasions

YES, transected follicles, be they lateral or partially longitudinal can regenerate a terminal hair….too bad that the yield is very very very low. In my own observations since 1993, about 5% .
And Dr Limmer also observed that while regrowth can occur, the success rate is negligible and NOT viable .
The same holds for partially transected hair in the donor . Regrowth varies between zero and negligible

But the fact that a tiny percentage of hair will regenerate is fascinating to academic scientists working in the most acclaimed multidisciplined reputable institutions in the world working with multimillion dollar annual budgets…AND they still can’t crack it

But Dr Gho has. By simply coring out a follicle, with 2 power magnification, he is claiming to do what no other scientist on earth can achieve. He is turning one into two. But it gets more impressive. This then becomes an ENDLESS supply

I paid $86 bucks to read this. It is long , convoluted and denched with scientific jargon and tables. But here is a summary.
Now remember, Gho has been claiming he has been doing this for several years.

“this technique enables us to generate 2 hair follicles from 1, with CONSISTENT RESULTS and preserve the donor area “

“95.9% of implanted hair survived ….AND 97.7% of removed donor hair had COMPLETE REGENERATION…

The study had 5 PATIENTS…it was for 12 months, and approx 800 hair was transplanted.

And how many hair did they show regrow from the approx 800 transplanted with a STATED 95.9% survival…ONE. You read correctly. One shaft. I repeat . ONE HAIR.

They could only show ONE hair after 12 months. But wait, they did state most will grow out in 5 to 8 months. And word is they have been doing this technique for years !!

And finally, the conclusion.

“the weakness of the study is the limited number of patients……therefore a larger group of patients is necessary to study the REAL CLINICAL RELEVENCE of this technique “

What Dr Gho says in this “peer reviewed journal” is diametrically opposed and contrary to everything I have observed seen and studied over the past 20 years, and I am not alone.

Every guy who suffered permanent scalp shock and trauma simply because techs jabbed incisions too close to pre existing hair knows that this study is flawed

To anyone seriously contemplating this treatment, please take this advice

Pay $86 bucks, get the paper, and spend a long consultation with a credible non aligned, independent dermatologist to review this for you. It may be a good investment

Dr Ray Woods

» » » I would like to see Dr A doing it because, it seems that Dr A is one
» of
» » the
» » » few docs who actually give a sht about us. Thats what i like.
» » »
» » » @ Bverotti : Your Pro Hair Clinic should give it a try. If it works
» you
» » » could be one of the leading clinics for a long long time. But
» therefore
» » you
» » » have to stop bi
ching around cause thats stupid and you will loose
» » » customers.
» » »
» » » Actually i was thinking about a FUE for a long time, but when i see
» » this
» » » bithing and moning i will think about it and actually dismiss my
» » thoughts
» » » about it.
» »
» » Best suggestion I have heard so far, we need to get a doctor who is
» » willing to interact with the forum to try this for us, someone whom we
» can
» » trust and we know will tell us the truth, good or bad. Dr. A and Dr.
» Jones
» » are the best in my opinion, Dr. Jones was great when he did that Acell
» » trial for us, I say let’s ask Dr. A and Jones to try for us.
» »
» »
» » Bverotti is not a good idea, he spreads so much bad press about Gho
» » already, I don’t think he will be objective and come out and say he has
» » been wrong all along.
»
» Thanks for your positive feedback, its rare to hear something like that
» these days.
»
» You are right i read some articles or postings from bverotti…too
» bad…why are people always so stubborn,its ok if a FUT-Doc is stubborn
» because i would never ever consider a FUT but a FUE-Doc, damn thats sad.

Exactly, I think people are running around in circles, we can talk all day but it ain’t getting us anywhere, all we need is to ask another doctor or several others who are willing to test this new method for us. Dr. A seems very genuine, if he is willing to do this that’s even better. It’s no brain surgery, if you hand me one of those punches I might even try that on myself haha :slight_smile:

» It’s no brain
» surgery, if you hand me one of those punches I might even try that on
» myself haha :slight_smile:

Haha?

And how about this (VERY IMPORTANT) part ?


EXCERPT
Suitable longitudinal partial follicular units were visually and stored in the preservative medium for 2 hours
until implantation. The medium is composed of the following ingredients:

  • sodium chloride,
  • potassium chloride,
  • magnesium sulphate,
  • sodium phosphate,
  • calcium chloride,
  • glucose,
  • sodium bicarbonate,
  • sodium lactate,
  • sodium pyruvate,
  • human serum albumin,
  • insulin,
  • bis(maltolato)oxovanadium (BMOV)
  • and a-tocopherol (vitamin E)

That means, how much of each ingredient you have to add, in order to finally get the perfect (correct working) storage solution? :wink:

thank you for your input and putting this into perspective dr. woods. i’ve been following dr. gho since he first was attempting HM back in early 2000 so this comes as no surprise.

» thank you for your input and putting this into perspective dr. woods. i’ve
» been following dr. gho since he first was attempting HM back in early 2000
» so this comes as no surprise.

And the board is better for it. Gho is a sca mmer, period. We should stop wasting our time talking about him.

EXCERPT
Suitable longitudinal partial follicular units were visually and stored in the preservative medium for 2 hours
until implantation. The medium is composed of the following ingredients:

  • sodium chloride,
  • potassium chloride,
  • magnesium sulphate,
  • sodium phosphate,
  • calcium chloride,
  • glucose,
  • sodium bicarbonate,
  • sodium lactate,
  • sodium pyruvate,
    - human serum albumin,
  • insulin,
  • bis(maltolato)oxovanadium (BMOV)
  • and a-tocopherol (vitamin E)

Thats right. Your partially transected follicles are soaked in a BLOOD PRODUCT. I assume it is a DONATED or BOUGHT BLOOD PRODUCT from a blood bank Otherwise it would be specified as AUTOLYGOUS BLOOD PRODUCT, meaning, your own donation.

Could the authors please specify, is the HUMAN BLOOD SERUM donated or bought from a blood bank or is it AUTOLOGOUS,

Apart from the serum and insulin, I read equally complicated formulas on ENERGY DRINKS AND CUPA SOUP

Dr Ray Woods

Dr. Woods,

With all due respect (and I do sincerely respect your clinic and your efforts in pioneering FUE) we asked for your expertise, not your wit.

If Dr. Gho is so dumb, you should have no problem scientifically refuting his outrageous claims. This discussion was supposed to be scientific, but it is quickly becoming childish.

We all want a solution for our hair loss. Dr. Gho purportedly has one. Everyone on this board is skeptical, but our skepticism is not sufficient to disprove his technique.

Because you are well-respected in this industry could you:

  1. Contact Dr. Gho, explain your concerns, and see how he responds?

-or-

  1. Try the method, publish the results, and let the peer-review process take its course?

Thanks.