And here’s the qualifier:
For a long time now HT surgeons in the US have been offering what I call “subjective” evidence of how well their procedures work – from actual grafts and FUE to newer treatments like PRP, ACell and “ADSC” injections.
For instance, they say things like this:
“Patient feels his hair is fuller and thicker”
“Patient is much more satisfied with the way he looks”
“Patient feels more confident”
“Patient’s hair looks thicker and hairline looks natural”
Hair density is increased
Notice that ALL of those kinds of statements are based on visual observation and the opinion of the observer, or else they are hearsay (second-hand) statements.
Or, these HT surgeons will show before-after photos taken from a moderate distance, that only give the viewer a rough idea of how well the procedure worked. These “distance” (or whole head) photos are even more common when a HT doctor is trying to sell people on a new treatment, like PRP. The idea is always to give a “big picture” idea of how well the treatment works. But reports with serious details and specifics – such as actual before and after HAIR COUNTS in a pre-measured area – are never provided.
I think this old marketing tactic the HT industry uses of appealing to broad emotions and desires with vague and subjective indicators, but not providing hard, quantifiable evidence (such as hair counts) has got to be changed.
If these doctors want us to believe these new treatments REALLY work then I am afraid we are now going to have to demand detailed close-up photographs and precisely-measured hair counts – or these doctors should not expect us to believe them at all!