Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Go to the hair transplant board, Dr. Woods talks about Gho HST


#21

Lets say, a NW6 patient, with 66% bald scalp and 33% hairy scalp.
In theory, it would require 2 passes to get full restoration, isn’t it?
(harvesting all the donor).
Furthermore, as you don’t require full density to get good coverage, a single pass could be enough. So, in 1 year, it could be restored.
Lets suppose some of the donor grafts are not suitable for harvesting. Ok, then maybe you need 2 passes, thus, 2 years instead of 1.
Lets suppose other negative factors… ok, then 3 passes. I think 3 years would be more than enough to restore a NW6 with good density.

Gho claimed Nov-2005 that he had 80% donor regeneration, so he has had 5 years to produce full restaurations. He has done none.

Furthermore, he has not even mentioned this possibility.

» » Yeah ok but why is GHO stating " No full head of hair" ? Why? If his
» » technique works there should be no problem to get a full head of hair
» ^^:-D
»
» Only time will tell. But one thing is for certain, if these other HT
» surgeons continue to attack without lifting a finger to attempt to
» reproduce the results, it will take a very long time.
»
» Keep in mind, Gho’s procedure requires about a year for the donor to heal
» (as shown in Dr. Kim’s follicle transection regrowth studies). Since he can
» only move a limited number of grafts per year, the best case scenario for
» restoring a NW7 is probably 5-7 years of successive treatments.
»
» IMO, HST is most suitable for patients with limited balding who want to
» maintain a full head of hair as the years progress. But if a really bald
» guy wants to hang in there long enough, Gho’s website clearly states that
» he’ll treat any patient with male pattern baldness. Patients with other
» forms of baldness are unsuitable for the treatment for the same reasons
» they are unsuitable for standard HT–the lost hair eventually grows back,
» so you don’t want to put new grafts in the temporary bald patches.


#22

That’s the main thing. Somebody needs to see a NW6 restored fully, or else these claims mean nothing. Gho is the one making the claim, so he’s the one that needs to back it up with proof. And I’m not talking about hair counts in a published paper. Or somebody else confirming it in another published paper. That is still theory as far as I’m concerned. Promising? Perhaps. But it needs to go a lot further than published papers.

Unless you have real world evidence that shows a full head of hair being restored, these donor regrowth claims don’t mean anything. It’s just another paper in a sea of papers. If the donor regrowth is what he claims, there should be proof from Gho already in the form of a restored patient. I know if it were me, that would be the first thing I would do to show that my claims were what I said they were. Take a NW6 and restore him to a NW1. He’s made the claim now for several years, so there should be a patient close to or at NW1 already.


#23

» Agreed.
» Now other doctors can test the technique. Dr. Wood’s attitude and
» argumentation is really regretable.

Woods is out, but that doesn’t matter a whole lot in the bigger picture. He understands the macro-tissue model but lacks scientific training, experience, and sensibilities at the cellular level. He did a lot for the industry, and it should be remembered that a large portion of Gho’s current technique was invented by Limmer and Woods. Based on Wood’s past posts, I’m not surprised in the slightest he has refuted this procedure prior to putting an ounce of research or thought into it. If Dr. Cole comes out in a similar manner, I will be extremely surprised. It’s one thing to do some research and experimentation and say you don’t believe it works, but an entirely other thing to speak purely out of prejudice and bias. From here on out, we cannot trust a word Woods says about the procedure–whether pro or con.

The only doctors who can be trusted are those who state up front they are going to test the procedure, and fully document the entire test and outcome.

It’s going to take time. Woods first invented FUE many years ago, yet the majority of HT clinics out there are still using the antiquated Frankenstein techniques of yesteryear.

But we have lots of time on our hands, and there are plenty of very bright surgeons out there who have minds open enough to at least give this an honest try.

It comes down to who boarded the ship to get rich and who boarded the ship to make a difference in the world they live in. Eventually, many of those who boarded the ship to make a difference end up accidentally getting rich anyways.


#24

This is interesting. Apparently these doctors first came out and said Gho’s procedure couldn’t work. Then after doing some research they now say it works.

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/Rectificatie.dr.B.Feriduni.pdf

Google translation:

Ferduni
Closer examination shows that HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE indeed Its Stem Cell Transplantation run and indeed is capable of a follicle 2 follicles which make little or no hair loss in the donor area. With any inquiries and finding out that I have known and I had to acquaint themselves with the transplant results and the scientific work HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE done, but I unfortunately failed.

HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE holds a patent on this technology. I review this technique and apply "it not matter. I have no license to use the newest technology of HAIR SCIENCE INSTUTUTE apply.

Verdonschot Verdonschot
I think today showed that Hari Hair Science Institute Stem cells transplants while a follicle can make two follicles. Therefore there is little or no hair loss in the area where the hair follicle are picked because in that area usually produces a hair again.

I realize that I had insufficient knowledge of the technology of Hair Science Institute. I reproach myself that I have asked the withholding results in practice and research that underlies the technique of Hair Science Institute.

Boersma Boersma
Closer examination shows that HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE indeed Its Stem Cell Transplantation run and indeed is capable of a follicle 2 follicles which make little or no hair loss in the donor area. With any inquiries and finding out that I have known and I had to acquaint themselves with the transplant results and the scientific work HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE done, but I unfortunately failed.


#25

» It’s going to take time. Woods first invented FUE many years ago, yet the
» majority of HT clinics out there are still using the antiquated
» Frankenstein techniques of yesteryear.

That’s true …


The HT field needs further development - crucially!

By the way: It seems the Hair Science Institute (HSI) recently did some website changes …

Current available languages:

  • Nederlands
  • English
  • German

Check it out …


#26

With all due respect JB, all of those retraction statements seem… similar. Too similar.

I am beginning to think that these doctors might have made these statements to avoid legal confrontation, if for no other reason.

Why else would they all say something to the effect of: “HSI owns this amazing technology and I do not have a license to use it.” Sounds lawyer-ish to me.

By the way, if there is a huge body of evidence that supports the technique… where is it?


#27

» With all due respect JB, all of those retraction statements seem…
» similar. Too similar.
»
» I am beginning to think that these doctors might have made these
» statements to avoid legal confrontation, if for no other reason.
»
» Why else would they all say something to the effect of: “HSI owns this
» amazing technology and I do not have a license to use it.” Sounds
» lawyer-ish to me.

I explained this already here …
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-66704-page-0-category-0-order-last_answer.html


Reason #2:

EXCERPT
The most prominent doctor [Dr. Feriduni] who first criticized us, stated us in writing the day after publishing of the criticism, that he has been completely misleaded by these other hair clinics and that he has been dragged into this offensive attack by these other hair clinics against Hair Science Institute, and therefore he completely dissociates himself from his earlier criticisms. Moreover, the promoters of this offensive attack are now committed to him for this falsehood and forgery.

Source:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nieuwsbank.nl%2Finp%2F2010%2F01%2F28%2FR382.htm&sl=nl&tl=en

Do YOU know any lawyers, which are able to react within just one day to legally “force” somebody to rectify a false claim??? Pahhh!!!

» By the way, if there is a huge body of evidence that supports the
» technique… where is it?

Please define “huge body of evidence” …


#28

» Please define “huge body of evidence” …

… a NW6 to NW1 photo might be nice.
It would certainly put an end to this sorry story.


#29

Iron Man, your posts are like those of a salesman for Gho.
This pattern is also noticeable in James Bond, but in your case it is just too much.

» » It’s going to take time. Woods first invented FUE many years ago, yet
» the
» » majority of HT clinics out there are still using the antiquated
» » Frankenstein techniques of yesteryear.
»
» That’s true …
»
»


»
»
» The HT field needs further development - crucially!
»
» By the way: It seems the Hair Science Institute (HSI) recently did some
» website changes …
» http://www.hasci.com/
»
» Current available languages:
»
» - Nederlands
» - English
» - German
»
» Check it out …


#30

We have already talked about this.
The majority of doctors/clinics didn’t rectify (I don’t know if the situation has changed lately).
We don’t know why those 3 clinics rectified. Maybe they got scared, maybe they realized that the manifesto was written in a dangerous fashion, maybe Gho showed them the JDT-article (not yet published back then)… who knows.

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-64975.html

9 Belgian and Dutch HT-clinics sign declaration against Gho-- 3 of them rectify (Hair Loss Research & Clinical Trials)

posted by Spanish Dude, 11.03.2010, 23:30

9 clinics from Belgium and The Netherlands, signed on January, a joint declaration, warning patients against Gho.

The declaration basically says that Gho is doing a normal FUE, and donor doesn’t regenerate. Apparently, assaid this because they saw many former Gho patients with non-regenerated donor areas.

LIST OF CLINICS THAT SIGNED THE DECLARATION AGAINST GHO:
Aesthetic Clinics----Dr. B. Feriduni
Albert Schweitzer Ziekenrmis—Dr. I. Boersma
Hair Plus / Medical Care---- Dr. Eberson
Inter medica—Dr. E. Verdonschot
Laser Aesthetic—E. Kettmann
Laser Surgery----P. van Ispelen
Medisch Centrum 't Gooi----Drs. L. Habbema
Pro Hair-----Dr. R. de Reys
Transhair—Dr.F.Neidel
Transhair—Dr. K. Leonhardt

After the declaration was published, it seems that Dr. Gho immediately sent lawyers to threaten these clinics with lawsuits.

After this, 3 clinics have rectified, and now they say that they believe in Gho’s method. Very surprising change in attitude. Maybe Gho finally showed them proof? Also these clinics say that they signed a text that is not the same as the text in the published declaration.

Gho proudly announces at his website, that increased number of clinics are rectifying previous statements.

CLINICS THAT HAVE RECTIFIED:
Aesthetic Clinics----Dr. B. Feriduni
Albert Schweitzer Ziekenrmis—Dr. I. Boersma
Inter medica—Dr. E. Verdonschot

Example: Dr. Feriduni rectification:
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/Rectificatie.dr.B.Feriduni.pdf

Iron_Man reported all this before, but he had a “little error”. Little, but important: he said that ALL the clinics had rectified.

Anyway, the melodrama is served, and we will see how it ends.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

» This is interesting. Apparently these doctors first came out and said Gho’s
» procedure couldn’t work. Then after doing some research they now say it
» works.
»
» http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/Rectificatie.dr.B.Feriduni.pdf
»
» Google translation:
»
» Ferduni
» Closer examination shows that HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE indeed Its Stem Cell
» Transplantation run and indeed is capable of a follicle 2 follicles which
» make little or no hair loss in the donor area. With any inquiries and
» finding out that I have known and I had to acquaint themselves with the
» transplant results and the scientific work HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE done, but
» I unfortunately failed.
»
» HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE holds a patent on this technology. I review this
» technique and apply "it not matter. I have no license to use the newest
» technology of HAIR SCIENCE INSTUTUTE apply.
»
» Verdonschot Verdonschot
» I think today showed that Hari Hair Science Institute Stem cells
» transplants while a follicle can make two follicles. Therefore there is
» little or no hair loss in the area where the hair follicle are picked
» because in that area usually produces a hair again.
»
» I realize that I had insufficient knowledge of the technology of Hair
» Science Institute. I reproach myself that I have asked the withholding
» results in practice and research that underlies the technique of Hair
» Science Institute.
»
» Boersma Boersma
» Closer examination shows that HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE indeed Its Stem Cell
» Transplantation run and indeed is capable of a follicle 2 follicles which
» make little or no hair loss in the donor area. With any inquiries and
» finding out that I have known and I had to acquaint themselves with the
» transplant results and the scientific work HAIR SCIENCE INSTITUTE done, but
» I unfortunately failed.


#31

» We have already talked about this.
» The majority of doctors/clinics didn’t rectify (I don’t know if the
» situation has changed lately).
» We don’t know why those 3 clinics rectified. Maybe they got scared, maybe
» they realized that the manifesto was written in a dangerous fashion, maybe
» Gho showed them the JDT-article (not yet published back then)… who knows.

The old “I don’t know - We don’t know - I guess - I assume - maybe - who knows” - CRAP …

Besides all the other misleading crap …

» Iron_Man reported all this before, but he had a “little error”. Little,
» but important: he said that ALL the clinics had rectified.

… please PROVE & quote my “little error”! :wink:

Regards,
:smiley: “Iron Man = Dr. Gho (MD, Researcher & Salesman)” :smiley:


#32

» The old “I don’t know - We don’t know - I guess - I assume - maybe - who
» knows” - CRAP …

I think. Thus, I doubt.
You, Iron_Man, are not able to think, this is why you are so sure of everything, and you end up being proved wrong over and over again, and looking like a fool.

»
» Besides all the other misleading crap …
»
» » Iron_Man reported all this before, but he had a “little error”. Little,
» » but important: he said that ALL the clinics had rectified.
»
» … please PROVE & quote my “little error”! :wink:
»
» Regards,
» :smiley: “Iron Man = Dr. Gho (MD, Researcher & Salesman)” :smiley:

Yes, you said all the doctors rectified the manifesto against Gho. Twice.

Here:

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63721.html
posted by Iron_Man, 16.02.2010, 10:47
It seems, some antagonistic Docs out there, already did a big mistake against Gho, so they have been forced - indirect - to “confirm” Gho’s successful technique, because it definitely WORKS and that has been proven already!

He he, it seems they all (Docs) have just disgraced themselves with their attacks (and penitently signatures after that) against Dr. Gho … :smiley:

I would love to see their faces during their signature act. :smiley:


http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63810.html
posted by Iron_Man, 18.02.2010, 04:17
And here the current problem for these “bunch of docs”:
They are now practically UNABLE to offer/sell the same or similar HM technique to their patients, because they shouted very clear and loud from the roofs “Hair Multiplication (2 hairs from 1) do not work! Dr. Gho is a liar!”.
After that, these “bunch of docs” have been forced by law to undersign, that hair multiplication, in fact, as practiced by Dr. Gho, WORKS. :smiley:
If I would be Dr. Gho, I would let send a very nice letter by lawyers and by court to “chairman” Dr. Rassman too, because of his lie and untruth to the public … :lol3:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


#33

YES, besides my crappy English, the following is exactly what I said …

» Here:
» >>>>>>>>>
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63721.html
» posted by Iron_Man, 16.02.2010, 10:47
» It seems, some antagonistic Docs out there, already did a big mistake
» against Gho, so they have been forced - indirect - to “confirm” Gho’s
» successful technique, because it definitely WORKS and that has been proven
» already!
»
» He he, it seems they all (Docs) have just disgraced themselves
» with their attacks (and penitently signatures after that) against Dr.
» Gho … :smiley:
»
» I would love to see their faces during their signature act. :smiley:
»
» ---------------------
»
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63810.html
» posted by Iron_Man, 18.02.2010, 04:17
» And here the current problem for these “bunch of docs”:
» They are now practically UNABLE to offer/sell the same or similar HM
» technique to their patients, because they shouted very clear and loud from
» the roofs “Hair Multiplication (2 hairs from 1) do not work! Dr. Gho is a
» liar!”.
» After that, these “bunch of docs” have been forced by law to
» undersign, that hair multiplication, in fact, as practiced by Dr. Gho,
» WORKS. :smiley:
» If I would be Dr. Gho, I would let send a very nice letter by lawyers and
» by court to “chairman” Dr. Rassman too, because of his lie and untruth to
» the public … :lol3:
» <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

… and NOTHING has changed. :wink:

By the way: “forced by law” does NOT mean “forced by any lawyer”! In this context “By law” means “by law itself”. But try to find out, what “Rectification by law” actually means in your country …

» I think. Thus, I doubt. (By Spanish Dude, 2010)

» I think, therefore I am. (By René Descartes, 1637 & Iron Man, 2010)


#34

You said all rectified.
You never said “some of them rectified, others didn’t”.
You were wrong (once more).

End of discussion.

» YES, besides my crappy English, the following is exactly what I said …
»
» » Here:
» » >>>>>>>>>
» » http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63721.html
» » posted by Iron_Man, 16.02.2010, 10:47
» » It seems, some antagonistic Docs out there, already did a big mistake
» » against Gho, so they have been forced -
» indirect - to “confirm” Gho’s
» » successful technique, because it definitely WORKS and that has been
» proven
» » already!
» »
» » He he, it seems they all (Docs) have just disgraced
» themselves
» » with their attacks (and penitently signatures after that) against Dr.
» » Gho … :smiley:
» »
» » I would love to see their faces during their signature act. :smiley:
» »
» » ---------------------
» »
» » http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-63810.html
» » posted by Iron_Man, 18.02.2010, 04:17
» » And here the current problem for these “bunch of docs”:
» » They are now practically UNABLE to offer/sell the same or similar HM
» » technique to their patients, because they shouted very clear and loud
» from
» » the roofs “Hair Multiplication (2 hairs from 1) do not work! Dr. Gho is
» a
» » liar!”.
» » After that, these “bunch of docs” have been forced by
» law
to
» » undersign, that hair multiplication, in fact, as practiced by Dr. Gho,
» » WORKS. :smiley:
» » If I would be Dr. Gho, I would let send a very nice letter by lawyers
» and
» » by court to “chairman” Dr. Rassman too, because of his lie and untruth
» to
» » the public … :lol3:
» » <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
»
» … and NOTHING has changed. :wink:
»
» By the way: “forced by law” does NOT mean “forced by any lawyer”! In this
» context “By law” means “by law itself”. But try to find out, what
» “Rectification by law” actually means in your country …
» http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_(law)
»
» » I think. Thus, I doubt. (By Spanish Dude, 2010)
»
» » I think, therefore I am. (By René Descartes, 1637 &
» Iron Man, 2010)


#35

» You said all rectified.
» You never said “some of them rectified, others didn’t”.
» You were wrong (once more).
»
» End of discussion.

NO!

Again, WHERE, in fact, I said “all [Docs] rectified” ??? :confused:


#36

Go to suck Gho’s follicles. LOL.

» » You said all rectified.
» » You never said “some of them rectified, others didn’t”.
» » You were wrong (once more).
» »
» » End of discussion.
»
» NO!
»
» Again, WHERE, in fact, I said “all [Docs] rectified” ???
» :confused:


#37

» Go to suck Gho’s follicles. LOL.

hmm, seems “training” is pissed off now? :smiley:

Oh, by the way: I can suck Gho’s partial longitudinal (PL) follicles only, because unfortunately Dr. Gho do NOT transplant whole “intact” follicles … :lol3:


#38

We should work together and convince the top HT surgeons (Hasson & Wong, Armani, etc) to really look into Gho’s technique.


#39

Dr. Jones has tried a couple of hypes before: Acell and PRP.
He reported the experiments very transparently.
The fact that he failed, and quickly acknowledged the failures, proves to me that he is honest.
I would consider his experiments as quite reliable.

» We should work together and convince the top HT surgeons (Hasson & Wong,
» Armani, etc) to really look into Gho’s technique.


#40

Hasson & Wong do solid work (for strip scar butchers); unfortunately, they always make excuses to try anything new. They spun some tall tales when we asked them to try Acell.

Dr Armani is perhaps the only HT doctor more suspect than Gho. Remember his magical HM cure?

I’m with Spanish Dude on this one. Dr Jones would make the best candidate to attempt Gho’s technique. Even though I hold HT docs in low regard I will say that I have a great deal of respect for Dr Jones. He’s one of the very few folks in this business that acts like a doctor opposed to a used car salesman.

» Dr. Jones has tried a couple of hypes before: Acell and PRP.
» He reported the experiments very transparently.
» The fact that he failed, and quickly acknowledged the failures, proves to
» me that he is honest.
» I would consider his experiments as quite reliable.
»
» » We should work together and convince the top HT surgeons (Hasson &
» Wong,
» » Armani, etc) to really look into Gho’s technique.