“Now it’s up to you guys … to decide … whether “the hair transplant business is a very shady business” or not.” Learned that 10 years ago. That is why I would wait until we can see consistent results of this gho technique on here or other sites before we buy into it. One potential patient that is going to ask gho questions is not good enough for me. Even when I met gho in 2003 for his talk on hm and his then version of fue. He did not even bring any patients with him for the audience to see. That is how I judge if a technique is legit. But for everyone here I hope it is.
Its not that funny actually. Cause everybody who knows someone who is into microbilogy can tell you that this kind of donor regrow is possible due to our human regeneration abilities.
On a small scale we can grow things back, thats not a problem.
Hairs work like “plants” if you will. If you cut a plant in the right direction you can multiply this plant with ease.
I can give you that, at first it seems those plants are small but after a short period those plants grow to their normal status like nothing happened.
Ans also you can do the same procedure all over. Even with the splittet plant you can split this plant too.
So afterall you can make 4 out of 1 Plant after one period.
So lets say some NW7 has a rest of 15.000 Grafts left in his Donor and he is a risky SOB, he could easielie graft all those 15k grafts put it on his head and wait for the next turn.
Man, 15k grafts in the frontal area, you will totally look like as*. I doubt that anybody here is that stupid to put 15k grafts only in the frontal zone, right?
» » Oh, really?
» » “It is certainly not the case, damaged hair roots are destroyed through
» » transection” ???
» »
» » On the other hand, bverotti (prohairclinic) claims, even during a
» hearing
» » with a commission (!), “hair regrow in the donor area is impossible! –
» » there isn’t any scientifically poof for that!” :surprised:
»
» By the way …
» 
» Well, take your thoughts out of the present tense for a second and see the
» bigger picture. Dr. Gho has been making these claims and failing to back
» them up for many years already.
In simple words:
A product, a technique or whatever, is READY for the market or mass, when it is READY. Is ARI ready for the mass ? Is Histogen ready for the mass ?
Something is ready for the mass, WHEN IT IS READY !
Besides that, Dr. Gho and Prof. Dr. Neumann, since 2007 (not sure if not earlier already) Dr. Gho started (HST wasn’t fully ready for the mass) to present his HST approaches and experiences at the ISHRS meeting, and in 2008 and 2009 too. Almost NOBODY, not even the ISHRS itself, tried in a fair manner to report about Dr. Gho’s QUANTUM LEAP in this industry. Again, almost NOBODY! But a few did (e.g. this fully independent doctor/clinic from the U.S. simply reported what has been presented e.g. at the ISHRS meeting in 2007 in Las Vegas):
http://ushairrestoration.com/follicular-stemcell-transplantation.php
So what?
It seems, that almost all ISHRS members just try to hide and blame Dr. Gho’s HST method whereever the can. Similar like those idiotic HT clinic’s and doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium, who have absolutely NOTHING to offer - right? And that, although doctors (like ProHair’s Dr. De Reys) KNEW already, that donor regrowth is absoluty possible. So what?
Something is ready, when it is ready. And as far as I know, they started very slowly to offer HST to the broader mass/public anywhere in 2008 and 2009, which actually has been the reason, why and when those idiotic clinic suddently noticed Dr. Gho’s Hair Science Institute. So I wonder what’s so complicated to understand here - really.
We have many years of claims from Gho, and still no case evidence.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
» » Well, take your thoughts out of the present tense for a second and see
» the
» » bigger picture. Dr. Gho has been making these claims and failing to
» back
» » them up for many years already.
»
» In simple words:
»
» A product, a technique or whatever, is READY for the market or mass, when
» it is READY. Is ARI ready for the mass ? Is Histogen ready for the mass ?
»
» Something is ready for the mass, WHEN IT IS READY !
»
» Besides that, Dr. Gho and Prof. Dr. Neumann, since 2007 (not sure if not
» earlier already) Dr. Gho started (HST wasn’t fully ready for the mass) to
» present his HST approaches and experiences at the ISHRS meeting, and in
» 2008 and 2009 too. Almost NOBODY, not even the ISHRS itself, tried in a
» fair manner to report about Dr. Gho’s QUANTUM LEAP in this industry. Again,
» almost NOBODY! But a few did (e.g. this fully independent doctor/clinic
» from the U.S. simply reported what has been presented e.g. at the ISHRS
» meeting in 2007 in Las Vegas):
» http://ushairrestoration.com/follicular-stemcell-transplantation.php
»
» So what?
» It seems, that almost all ISHRS members just try to hide and blame Dr.
» Gho’s HST method whereever the can. Similar like those idiotic HT clinic’s
» and doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium, who have absolutely NOTHING to
» offer - right? And that, although doctors (like ProHair’s Dr. De Reys)
» KNEW already, that donor regrowth is absoluty possible. So what?
»
» Something is ready, when it is ready. And as far as I know, they started
» very slowly to offer HST to the broader mass/public anywhere in 2008 and
» 2009, which actually has been the reason, why and when those idiotic clinic
» suddently noticed Dr. Gho’s Hair Science Institute. So I wonder what’s so
» complicated to understand here - really.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. Why would ISHRS members try to suppress a technique that would undoubtedly be a boon for their business?
» We have many years of claims from Gho, and still no case evidence.
NO case evidence ? Again, no HST case evidence ?
And why is it that I’m aware of about 20 different “case evidences” ?
Whereby 10 different patients have been very closely recorded by independent tv stations and reportage magazines? There you can even see which brand the tools have they are using, and yeah, there you can even see the “after - donor regrow” scenes.
Patient videos, produced by their own clinics, go to hair transplant board on HairSite, there you can find some shi’ty comb over videos - a few, from the rest of the whole HT’s producing HT field.
“No (=narda) case evidence” comments like yours, just indicates, that such guys didn’t even try to check out EVERY video (I can count about 20) they can find on Dr. Gho’s website. But instead of “still no evidence! … “still no evidence!” … still no evidence!” paroles …
Which “evidence” do you need? Evidence from the pope or what ?
By the way: If you have something really good to offer, there is no need for “evidence videos” or “live patients presentations” like traditional HT clinics are practially forced to do so. That’s the reason why tv stations come to him, and not Dr. Gho to them. Guess what happens if one day some American tv stations are making reportages about HST - eh? Dr. Gho couldn’t even handle such situation with just 4 clinics.
» Why would ISHRS members try to
» suppress a technique that would undoubtedly be a boon for their business?
NOT sure, but I guess this is one reason …
… and this is the other reason:
Partnership HSI Worldwide
Hair Science Institute receives clients not only from the Netherlands or Western Europe but from North and South America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, we want to be able to provide for all our clients and, wherever possible, establish regional clinics to be staffed with HSI-trained and certified local doctors and technicians who can speak the language of their clients.
At present, there are HSI clinics and consultancies in the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Austria. HSI will soon be opening clinics in countries outside of Europe.
If you are interested in partnering with HSI, please contact using the form below. We are open to cooperation with existing hair transplantation clinics that are willing to discontinue the use of previous, outdated techniques.
Yes, I am interested in a partnership with Hair Science Institute. Please contact me to discuss the possibilities.
Source: http://www.hasci.com
Actually, I’ve absolutely NO IDEA, how such a deal between the Hair Science Institute and other Doctors/Clinics could look like.
- Have they to pay any fees?
- Just a one time payment for training and equipment?
I have absolutely no idea. I think, for instance, even for young physicians, this could be their chance. Because to learn very fast to perform perfectly such HST procedures with such tools and solid background, is normally not such a big deal, if somebody is really interested. But again, I’ve no idea about such deals.
I can understand why everybody is crying for proofs and pictures.
All the other HT surgeons are literally “bombing” us with pictures and videos and dossiers etc.
So its in mankinds nature to ask for pictures.
But its not acceptable when people talk like " its not working he is a lier"
I give everyone the advice to ask someone in the field of molecular biology for possible regrow in hair.
As i stated before hairs and plants are not that different at least when it comes to plug them and multiply them.
I’m not arguing that transected donor follicle regrowth is impossible.
I’m pointing out that most of a decade after the claims started, Dr. Gho is still not producing patients with any more hair than what conventional FUE can offer.
Possible or not, Dr. Gho has never produced the final result. That “final result” being a major league Norwood level reversal without donor depletion.
Well, again, and again, and again, I come across Iron_Man’s messages, that are so ilogical, that its difficult to imagine that they come from a human brain. Not even a robot’s brain. Well, maybe a faulty robot’s brain.
An ilogical message, but accompanied with a screenshot of a german board, and translations to english, to give it a “professional touch”.
This is Iron_Man’s logic (or rather, lack of it):
- Pro-Hair clinic says in a forum, that, they observed, that when donor hairs are transected (horizontally), the donor roots survive, and hairs regrow again.
- Iron_Man says that this is proof that Gho’s technique works!! Iron_Man concludes: Pro-Hair clinic knows that Gho’s technique works, but they go out and say the contrary.
How can Iron_Man be so dumb? Any clue?
Pro-Hair clinic indeed said that the roots regenerate after transection, but they don’t say that the upper fragments survive. In fact, we can imply that the uper fragments don’t survive because otherwise, Pro-Hair would be advertising HM. Also ProHair said that “transection is undesirable”.
Well, if the upper fragments don’t survive, then oviously nothing is proved regarding Gho’s technique.
» This is a posting by the prohairclinic (bverotti) in a German hair loss
» board, December 2008:
» 
»
» Translation (German/English):
» ---------------------------------------------------
» I’m going to try to explain this again.
»
» When we extract the grafts, it sometimes happens, for example, that if we
» have a 3 hair graft, in fact, could extract just 2 hair roots. But what
» happened with the 3rd root, which doesn’t came out ? Did the damaged root
» die or is it simply regrown?
»
» Therefore, we [Dr. DeReys, Prohairclinic] have in a test in a very small
» area purposefully transected ALL grafts (i.e. intentionally used the wrong
» extraction angle so that the grafts [follicles] are purposefully transected
» und so the follicles are extracted without their hair roots).
»
» After a few months, we have reviewed the same area and found out that
» ALL the transected hair has grown back, that means, their roots weren’t
» damaged.
»
» Although a transection is undesirable from our point of view (after all we
» want transplant hair as much as possible) it is certainly not the case,
» damaged hair roots are destroyed through transection.
»
» This is our knowledge in our work with the FUE hair
» transplant.
»
» Source/Origin:
» Haartransplantation Forum : Ärzte und Kliniken - VOR dem Eingriff » Thema donor - mottenfrass - FUE - video
» ---------------------------------------------------
»
» Oh, really?
» “It is certainly not the case, damaged hair roots are destroyed through
» transection” ???
»
» On the other hand, bverotti (prohairclinic) claims, even during a hearing
» with a commission (!), “hair regrow in the donor area is impossible! –
» there isn’t any scientifically poof for that!” :surprised:
»
» Now it’s up to you guys … to decide … whether “the hair transplant
» business is a very shady business” or not.
»
» For myself, I’ve already redefined the “patient rights” …
» Well, again, and again, and again, I come across Iron_Man’s messages, that
» are so ilogical, that its difficult to imagine that they come from a human
» brain. Not even a robot’s brain. Well, maybe a faulty robot’s brain.
» An ilogical message, but accompanied with a screenshot of a german board,
» and translations to english, to give it a “professional touch”.
»
» This is Iron_Man’s logic (or rather, lack of it):
» 1. Pro-Hair clinic says in a forum, that, they observed, that when donor
» hairs are transected (horizontally), the donor roots survive, and hairs
» regrow again.
» 2. Iron_Man says that this is proof that Gho’s technique works!! Iron_Man
» concludes: Pro-Hair clinic knows that Gho’s technique works, but they go
» out and say the contrary.
»
» How can Iron_Man be so dumb? Any clue?
Yes, here is the clue:
THIS is the PART what I meant, you POOR focking idiot:
The claims of ALL doctors and HT clinics (Prohairclinic too) against Dr. Gho:
C. “Gegarandeerde hergroei in het donorgebied.”
Dit is absoluut onwaar. Praktijk heeft uitgewezen dat maximaal 5% van de getransplantreerde haren volgens de haarstamceltransplanatie daadwerkelijk hergroei geeft in het donorgebied. Het voegt niets toe aan de haartransplantatie.
Source: Nieuwsbank, waar nieuws meerwaarde krijgt | Nieuwsbank
Translation (Dutch/Einglish):
C. “Guaranteed regrowth in the donor area.”
This is absolutely untrue. Practice has shown, that max. 5% of the for transplantation extracted hair [grafts], due to remaining hair-stem-cells-grafts in the donor area, indeed grow back in the donor. It adds nothing to the hair transplant.
Absolutely untrue?
Prohairclinic’s practice has shown this as well?
Just 5% ?
But let me look, where they found the mentioned 5%:
posted by Dr. Woods, Australia, 03.05.2010, 06:04
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% .
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-67172-page-1-category-2-order-last_answer.html
Ahhhh, Woods my friend, caught you: Don’t use such big extraction tools!! No way for regeneration!! 
And now back to the very very very very poor and big fool Spanish Dude:
How often did I told you, that it isn’t necessary to show over and over again the whole world your stupidness? No need! We all no this already! Since a long time!
Oh, and by the way:
PLEASE, PLEASE don’t tell me something about “horizontally”, “vertically” or “longitudinally” transections, because even Leeroy seems to know how to “transect” IDIOTS like you:
» Yes, here is the clue:
»
» THIS is the PART what I meant, you POOR focking idiot:
This is the part that you meant? So, you posted a screencapture of a forum but you really meant a totally different thing? Hahaha, you are totally screwed man, LOL.
Your previous post was referred to Bverotti’s post in a forum. Not Woods posts, nor the famous manifesto signed by several clinics.
Now you are mixing everything to confuse the reader and conceal your stupidity in the former post.
You can indeed blame the manifesto because they say “absolutely untrue”, but at the same time they say “that 5% of regeneration is possible”. I have said before, that this manifesto was very shïtty.
But even if they say that 5% of donor regeneration is possible, they don’t talk about the quality of the upper fragment. So trying to infere from this, that Gho’s method works, is total shït.
I doubt that Woods, or the other doctors, can get 5% of the transplanted grafts to “multiply” successfully (maintaining quality).
»
» The claims of ALL doctors and HT clinics (Prohairclinic too) against Dr.
» Gho:
» -----------------------
» C. “Gegarandeerde hergroei in het donorgebied.”
»
» Dit is absoluut onwaar. Praktijk heeft uitgewezen dat maximaal 5% van de
» getransplantreerde haren volgens de haarstamceltransplanatie daadwerkelijk
» hergroei geeft in het donorgebied. Het voegt niets toe aan de
» haartransplantatie.
»
» Source: Nieuwsbank, waar nieuws meerwaarde krijgt | Nieuwsbank
» ---------------------
» Translation (Dutch/Einglish):
»
» C. “Guaranteed regrowth in the donor area.”
»
» This is absolutely untrue. Practice has shown, that
» max. 5% of the for transplantation extracted hair
» [grafts], due to remaining hair-stem-cells-grafts in the donor area, indeed
» grow back in the donor. It adds nothing to the hair transplant.
» ---------------------
»
» Absolutely untrue?
» Prohairclinic’s practice has shown this as well?
» Just 5% ?
»
» But let me look, where they found the mentioned 5%:
» ------------------------
» posted by Dr. Woods, Australia, 03.05.2010, 06:04
» 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% .
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-67172-page-1-category-2-order-last_answer.html
»
» ------------------------
»
» Ahhhh, Woods my friend, caught you: Don’t use such big extraction tools!!
» No way for regeneration!!
»
» And now back to the very very very very poor and big fool Spanish Dude:
»
» How often did I told you, that it isn’t necessary to show over and over
» again the whole world your stupidness? No need! We all no this already!
» Since a long time!
»
» Oh, and by the way:
» PLEASE, PLEASE don’t tell me something about “horizontally”, “vertically”
» or “longitudinally” transections, because even Leeroy seems to know how to
» “transect” IDIOTS like you:
» So trying to infere from
» this, that Gho’s method works, is total shït.
Who is trying to “infere” that the (wrong resp. different) prohair claims has ANYTHING to do with the growth part of extracted HST follicles ??
WHERE did THEY (the brain dead clinics and docs like you) or I mentioned that? WHERE ?
Their claim has explicitely been (brain dead idiot, can’t you read the translation above??) that donor regrow is “absolutely IMPOSSIBLE”. That is the point! Over and out. And has nothing to do with any other points!
For this specific claim, it plays no role what happens (and not even the idiots mentioned that) what happens or what they did with the transected upper part of the transected follicles. This simply plays no role for this specific claim! Over and out!
Whether they have eaten the transected upper parts, or simply throw them down the toilet, this is not the question here. They refered in this point to the donor regrowth part.
So the point is, and especially for brain dead IDIOTS like you once again, that when you TRANSECT follicles (vertically, horizontally, fockycally or whatever), the remaining transected part in the body, CAN survive! Over and out! End. Actually, for this specific point, it even plays no role how much of them can survive!
And the transected extracted part, i.e. the part you pull out of the body, CAN survive TOO, and CAN regenerate as well to an intact follicle - IF you have the knowledge how to handle them, before you implant them into the recipient site. The “recipient site”, this can be thereby an area on your as’ or your HOLLOW bald Spanish Dude head, do you understand this you brain dead idiot?
Oh, for the recipient part, you can ask for example Dr. Keser:
If a patient do not have enough single FU’s for the hairline, he is using 2 hair FU’s; but instead of desecting them under a microscope (he has none), he transects one of the 2 follicles of this FU, INSIDE THE BODY - before he pulls them out/extracts them.
So the FU consists now of 1 intact follicle and 1 transected follicle (upper part). Dr. Keser always is thinking, that the transected (upper) part in this FU, will definitely die. And so he is using these “single FU’s” in the hairlines as “1 hair follicle”. And that’s the reason, why you very often can see lots of double hairs in his patients hairlines (most of the transected upper parts in this “FU”, regenerate and grow too!) … 
Anyway, ask e.g. Dr. Keser!
Oh, by the way:
If you Spanish Dude have questions about what a “hairline” is, please ask! This is this thingy, that YOU will never ever have.
wow, poor man.
lets see:
- bverotti said that they transected donor hair on purpose, and the roots grew back. Just the roots, not the moved upper part. So Bverotti didn’t claim that HM was possible.
- The doctors who attacked Gho said that Gho’s donor regrowth guarantee was impossible.
Whats the problem, Iron_Man? Do you have nightmares because of this?
Gho is not guaranteeing just donor regrowth. Don’t be so idiot Iron_Man. Gho is in fact guaranteeing 2 things:
- that the donor will regrow, and
- the extracted part will also regrow (in the recipient site).
This is what the doctors critizised in the manifesto (although they were incapable of redacting it properly).
Bverotti just materialized donor regrowth. Gho claims both donor and recipient regrowth.
what is the problem with Bverotti’s post in the German forum?
I will tell you: there is no problem with that post. The problem is IN YOUR HEAD.
» » So trying to infere from
» » this, that Gho’s method works, is total shït.
»
» Who is trying to “infere” that the (wrong resp. different) prohair claims
» has ANYTHING to do with the growth part of extracted HST follicles ??
»
» WHERE did THEY (the brain dead clinics and docs like you) or I mentioned
» that? WHERE ?
»
» Their claim has explicitely been (brain dead idiot, can’t you read the
» translation above??) that donor regrow is “absolutely IMPOSSIBLE”. That is
» the point! Over and out. And has nothing to do with any other points!
»
» For this specific claim, it plays no role what happens (and not even the
» idiots mentioned that) what happens or what they did with the transected
» upper part of the transected follicles. This simply plays no role for this
» specific claim! Over and out!
»
» Whether they have eaten the transected upper parts, or simply throw them
» down the toilet, this is not the question here. They refered in this point
» to the donor regrowth part.
»
» So the point is, and especially for brain dead IDIOTS like you once again,
» that when you TRANSECT follicles (vertically, horizontally, fockycally or
» whatever), the remaining transected part in the body, CAN survive! Over and
» out! End. Actually, for this specific point, it even plays no role how much
» of them can survive!
»
» And the transected extracted part, i.e. the part you pull out of the body,
» CAN survive TOO, and CAN regenerate as well to an intact follicle -
» IF you have the knowledge how to handle them, before you implant
» them into the recipient site. The “recipient site”, this can be thereby an
» area on your as’ or your HOLLOW bald Spanish Dude head, do you understand
» this you brain dead idiot?
»
» Oh, for the recipient part, you can ask for example Dr. Keser:
» If a patient do not have enough single FU’s for the hairline, he is using
» 2 hair FU’s; but instead of desecting them under a microscope (he has
» none), he transects one of the 2 follicles of this FU, INSIDE THE
» BODY - before he pulls them out/extracts them.
» So the FU consists now of 1 intact follicle and 1 transected follicle
» (upper part). Dr. Keser always is thinking, that the transected (upper)
» part in this FU, will definitely die. And so he is using these “single
» FU’s” in the hairlines as “1 hair follicle”. And that’s the reason, why you
» very often can see lots of double hairs in his patients hairlines (most of
» the transected upper parts in this “FU”, regenerate and grow too!) …
So, let me see, Kesser can do HM even without intending it, eh? very well, IronMan, still waiting for the full heads of hair.
Hard proof, not blah blah.
Still with Gho? read the thread no one is rushing out to get this done! Say’s it all right there!
» Still with Gho? read the thread no one is rushing out to get this done!
» Say’s it all right there!
Hi Woods slave - ABSOLUTELY! Because nobody out there has something really useful to offer! Nobody else!
Oh yeah, and I’m absolutely SURE you did it (reading). 
And after reading, it must be very hard for you to be a Woods slave these days - am I’m right?
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure, that nobody, again, NOBODY who is able to find his as’ with both hands, could be interested in “The Woods Technique” anymore (if they ever were, after watching such a “very blurry and very quickly comb over (to hide the ‘dirty secrets’)” luring people video, such as this one, created by Dr. Woods:
Just 1000 grafts for such HUGE temples? Wow, it seems Woods is either doing hair multiplication or he could harvest 1000 7-hair FU’s from this guy - whereby just the half is grown (!?)
All in all, this video is cheekiness!
“No one is rushing out to get this done …”
Really? Untrue!
During the past month, and especially weeks, I noticed MANY guys out there from other (hair loss) boards and countries too, who are trying to arrange an appointment to get HST done, and most of these guys are NOT really any idiots, as for instance @James Bond or @Leonard just on HairSite. But all these guys are just a few active HairSite members like myself, so not to mention all the READERS, who trying to get as much information as they can (I know this), but simply don’t want to be active involved in such idiotic boards and debates.
Headword: “idiotic debates”
Such idiotic and FLOUNDERING (I guess, I assume, in my brain dead opinion, in theory) comments like yours or by completely brain dead guys like Spanish Dude (not to mention all the shills & graft-slaves here),
DOESN’T CHANGE ANYTHING!
Not just a little bit! Nothing! Narda!
Besides lots of many other reasons, once again the most important REASON:
HST – is this thingy really working as described in this patent?
No?
And finally, is this thingy really working as described in this study?
No?
Since ~6 MONTH (actually since years), lots of HT physicians out there are aware of this patent, study and technique. Physicians on HairSite as well, like Dr. Woods, Dr. Arvind, Dr. Cole, Dr. Armani etc. – right?
And now the simple question:
Do you guys really believe, that NONE (!) of these experienced persons is able to reproduce the HST method ? None? Seems, they’re not really skilled ?!
Do you guys ever believe, that you will EVER hear from one of these persons screaming loud everywhere … “Success!!! – Dr. Gho’s HST method is really working GREAT!!! Jippie yeah!!! – Dr. Gho is a genius!!!”
Conclusion
Until these people have never tried to perform Dr. Gho’s HST technique (uhh, soooo difficult!), as easy described in the study, but instead of this, scream around Dr. Gho is a liar and/or “charlatan”, THEY ARE THE LIARS!
They are the ones who lie to you! And Dr. Gho is aware of this - and the whole HT world too …
hahah. wooods slaves. prohairclinic slaves. cole, hasson and wong and the rest posters on the internet. you can translate it since you are such a slave to anything that is written on the internet. And you do not require proof of your own . [kliniek] Coen Gho's Hair Science Institute in Amsterdam - Haarweb Forum
Ohh I am now a Rassman slave hahah. Not. Just posting for the readers to make up there own mind. Gho Clinic Says Their FUE Allows the Donor Hair to Regrow?! – WRassman,M.D. BaldingBlog
» Ohh I am now a Rassman slave hahah. Not. Just posting for the readers to
» make up there own mind.
Funny - a joker is refering to a well-known joker:
But in THIS case, the joker is absolutely right - and the whole HT world knows this! “ha ha ha”
And if you need any PROOF’s (I mean “hard facts”), if the other joker is really right in THIS case, ask Iron Man, I’m able to deliver them … 
Trouble is you believe everything you read without getting on a plane and checking it out yourself. You know how crappy this industry is you had a ht you seem to be not happy with . So why would you just believe words? It is just based on hope and I understand why you post the way you do. Any doctor that posts anything on this site or others should be checked out in person. I also agree with everything poster Cal is saying so far in this topic.