Hair raising breakthrough in genetic engineering

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
81

[quote]Jahoda readily admits that he did not use growth factors, but Dr. Nigam does. Jahoda also uses one technique at a time whereas Nigam combines different cellular techniques/cells. Nigam also uses Sonic Hedge Hog and Jahoda has not done that. You don’t know what combining all of this stuff will do. Nobody’s done it except Nigam as far as I know so for you to say that doing so won’t grow hair is really nothing but an assumption on your part. And then there’s the fact that Nigam uses repeat injections.

And then there’s the fact that Aderans studies show some regrowth so Aderans has also grown some hair using cellular treatment and Nigam does everything Aderans plus adds more things into the mix.

Remember that Nigam is using more techniques than Jahoda used. He is using multiple cell techniques at the same time and in repeat injections.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
And again, how can he even book a success when he’s got the theory wrong ? Hair does NOT grow by simply injecting stem cells. Nor did anybody but Jahoda succeed at culturing DP cells without losing their follicle inducing ability. Or do you really thing he managed to improve Jahoda’s culturing process to retain gene expression beyond 22% ? Haha. If you believe that you’re even way more delusional than I currently think you are.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]

The ONLY way to biogenerate hair is to do what Jahoda and Tsuji did: stick epethelial cells to DP cells and that’s it, hair will grow. But nobody succeeded yet at expanding DP cells while retaining more than 22% gene expression. And how do you think dr Nigam managed the angle of the new hairs, LOL. He never even talked about that ! Tsuji used a very smart way of guiding the hairs along some small lines, to get the angle correct and prevent ingrowth of the hair and cyst forming. Do you think Nigam did that too ? LOL.

The only results Nigam got were from switching patients and photoshopping.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]

I was talking about bio-engineering a follicle. Of course it’s possible to stimulate hairgrowth somewhat with growthfactors. Histogen documented some results. I can’t say for sure that Nigam can’t do the same. All I’m saying that this guy is full of BS. That treatment with injecting stemcells: worthless. Hairdoubling: failed. culturing DP cells: no WAY he even managed to equal what Jahoda did, let alone improve it.

So far he’s shown nothing but BS photo’s. While we found out that he’s been using a pro photographer for a while who shot stellar photo’s, he just never showed them to us.

To me it’s important people understand they should NOT go to this guy based on his lies and deceit. Look at what happened to Wesley. When young desperate balding guys see people like you hype Dr Nigam they might take the step. And if they come back with destroyed donor, then that’s on you too.

I don’t mind Nigam experimenting at all. I even welcome it. But when he sells therapies for big money which don’t even work (stem cell treatment, hair doubling etc, sometimes charging over $10.000) and lures potentials patients with lies and deceit, then he’s nothing but an ordinary charlatan for whom I have zero respect.

Anyway I’m getting bored discussing Nigam. Let’s focus on the real researchers with real results, following scientific methodologies and documenting their progress accordingly. So much great progress made by those guys recently and all this forum has been about the last year was Nigam, Nigam and Nigam and pretty much every single thread turns into a Nigam debate.

82

Then Cal that means he lost you at the very beginning and really that’s silly. As I’ve said, he has an explanation for those early photo-shopped pics. He says he turned the photo program over to an associate and that person screwed up. Yes, ultimately Dr. Nigam is responsible for what his associates do, but there’s different levels of responsibility. You could be responsible for what associates do without being aware of what they did.

Secondly, what if photo-shopping is standard practice where he functions so if he doesn’t do it, but his competition does, then he will be at a disadvantage.

Thirdly, look your too rigid. Every person on this planet has done something wrong to someone at some point or another so basically you’re saying that you don’t want anything to do with anybody because everyone has made a mistake and nobody should be allowed a re-set and everybody should just be hated and there should not be any progress because nobody should trust anybody else because everybody is bad since everybody has made at least one mistake.

Lastly, I guess this means that when you get your hair back you should not have anything to do with women if they try to get involved with you because women were less kind when you were missing hair so that means they’re garbage, they are beyond redemption, re-sets are a mistake, and so you never want anything to do with them ever again because they made the mistake of being less kind when you didn’t look good so your only option is to hate them forever.

You really don’t understand just how regardless your rigidity is. The world isn’t black and white. Everything doesn’t get down to good and bad. There are shades of grey and nobody is all good and nobody is all bad.

You got a lot to learn. I hope you’re in your late teens or early 20s because if you’re past 25 you really should be wiser than you are.

[quote]Cal, you are absolutely correct that there are different degrees of deception, and Gho, Armani and others have practiced deception to different degrees on that scale. However, rarely do we have someone engage in the sort of ridiculously blatant and artless deception that we’ve seen here.

[postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]

Dr. Nigam mostly lost me at photoshopped pics.

The guy demonstrates quite a bit of understanding about the subject and effort but that doesn’t mean he is growing any hair.

I’ve tried to keep an open mind because the standards of acceptable salesmanship may be far different where he’s from. But so far all we have is several cases which were given a lot of fanfare at the outset and then suspiciously weren’t followed up. Not much else. Combine that with the deceptive practices and the picture gets grim.[/quote]

83

  1. You haven’t proved anything, Certainly not that Dr. Nigam is full of sh!t. Your evidence is seriously weak.

  2. Those 2 pics you brought my attention to are of the same guy and there are logical explanations for why what you claim to be the same mole in the pics appears to have moved. For one thing they are not the same mole. One looks like it may be a mole but the other thing looks like it could be something different. Also, those pics are different colors, multiple different angles, and taken at different distances so sizes are different. all of these changes taken together changes the view. And then there’s the issue that the coloration is different. Like I said, go get a globe, put it on a desk, change the angles in multiple ways, stand different distances from the globe, and take different pics at the different angles, different distances, and different flash colors. The pics will look different but it will be the same globe.

  3. And of course it’s possible that by adding growth factors to hair cells you could produce a better effect than if you don’t use growth factors. We don’t know because the establishment researchers haven’t done it yet so saying that Nigam can’t possibly improve the results by doing so is nothing more than an assumption on your part. And Nigam may actually be the first person to activate Sonic Hedge Hog in his cell techniques. You have no idea what the effect of that would be because the establishment researchers haven’t done it yet. They also haven’t done repeat injections.

  4. Mwamba is looking over the hair doubling issue and he will render a judgment that matters on the issue of hair doubling, which I do not care about. You’re opinion on the issue of hair-doubling is worthless and only a fool would care about your opinion on this issue. You spout off any ole bs to badmouth Nigam without an independent professional opinion backing you up even as you badmouth Nigam because he hasn’t gotten professional independent opinions to back him up. You’re doing the same thing you claim he does and then you badmouth him for doing it.

5(a). So far you are the one who has shown nothing. You have shown pics of the same guy and screamed that they’re two brothers even though you have no proof that they’re brothers. Go get proof that they’re two different guys, and brothers at that. You’ve got nothing for proof. You’ve got two pics of different views of 1 guy’s face, which show two different objects because you’re seeing 2 different views of his face, and since the views look different you’re screaming they’re 2 different people as though it’s impossible that it’s just 2 different views of the same face.

5(b). What if Nigam put a pic of the same guy but one view was of the side of the guy’s face while the other view was the front of the guy’s face? Would you scream that they must be 2 different guys because the pics looked different? Would you not even consider the possibility that the pics could be of two different parts of the same guy? Why not? Is there something wrong with you?

6(a). I see what looks like past old photo-shopped pics and I’m willing to give Dr. Nigam the benefit of the doubt that it was done without his knowledge and that he will work to prevent that from happening again. I’m OK with doing a re-set and burying the past.

6(b). Regards to recent activities by Nigam I don’t see lies and deceit. I see modest results. And as I’ve said before, it’s obvious his recent pics are valid because he’s not displaying pics with great success. His success is better than Aderans but he’s doing more added things than Aderans did so it makes sense that his results could be better than Aderans.

6©. He continually adds more ideas to his treatments and perhaps his results will keep improving.

7(a). It’s too early to judge the outcome for Wesley and the fact is that Wesley really is a poor candidate. I wouldn’t have done him if I had been Dr. Nigam. It’s asking for trouble because that guy is really headed into an ugly pattern fast. His hair is weak. And he is not a good candidate.

7(b). Every doctor has some bad results. It is possible that Wesley will end up being a bad result for Dr. Nigam. But let’s not forget that Wesley was a terrible candidate.

7©. If people shouldn’t go to Nigam because he has some unsatisfying results then people shouldn’t go to any doctor because ALL doctors have bad results, especially in cases like Wesley where the candidate is such a poor candidate.

8(d). Even 100 years from now there will be patients who are such bad candidates that they can’t be done satisfactorily.

84

Hey, I’m not in agreement with you that these treatments never work. I think you’re wrong.

  1. Let’s wait for Mwamaba to render a conclusion about hair doubling. He’s the independent expert, not you. What are you going to say if Mwamaba disagrees with you? What if hair-doubling works on some people but not others, which is what I think the case will likely be. I don’t like hair transplants so I’m not interested in hair-doubling, but I do think that it probably works somewhat for some people. I’m interested in the cellular treatments but they need improvement.

  2. Ok listen if you don’t want to talk about Dr. Nigam and try to promote the idea of Dr. Nigam working with new cellular ideas as they come to light then just wait for Jahoda and Christiano and Gerd. If they make key discoveries in the next 12 months that could finally cure hair loss it would take another 10 years to get the new discoveries into the marketplace so you might want to curl up with a good (and very long) book while you wait because this is going to take about a decade.

  3. I think I would rather see Dr. Nigam incorporate the new discoveries immediately and get the cure right away rather than wait needlessly for an additional 10 years, but you can wait 10 years needlessly if you like.

85

Explanations for photoshopping?

Once he shows pics that deceptive how can you trust anything else he explains or proves? You can’t. Not unless it is independently verified.

Wise up, Jarjar. Nothing else has been independently verified so far. And we are continuing to see questionable practices from him. Disappearing patients, deceptive before/after picture conditions, etc.

If you think we are all being so closed-minded then put your money where your mouth is, and go get your own head worked on. I would believe a positive result on you much sooner than anything else coming from Dr. Nigam alone.

86

Hehe. I just selected this part because it pretty well demonstrates your insane state of mind. You compare different angles to different mole positions :smiley: And what about the changed hairstyle, one guy has flat hair the other curly. Oh well, I know you come up with some crazy answer again. Who cares. I made a nice summary of Nigam’s lies and deceit in the 5th post of this thread:

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-124794-page-0-category-1-order-last_answer-descasc-DESC.html

I know it won’t matter to you. If you see a bird flying you’ll say it’s a jumping horse that’s just making an extremely high and long jump. You’re WAY beyond the point of logic and reason. If I say 1+1=2 you’ll say it’s 3. If I say grass is green, you’ll say it’s red. So what’s the point of having a discussion with you then ? You’ve really REALLY lost it and are living in your own world. A world devoid of logic. Any discussion is pointless that way. So, good luck man. And oh yeah, like Cal noted: just go to India, what are you waiting for. You’re exactly like Ironman, I really think you guys must be brothers, only difference is that Ironman DID put his money where his mouth was.

87

[quote] 5(b). What if Nigam put a pic of the same guy but one view was of the side of the guy’s face while the other view was the front of the guy’s face? Would you scream that they must be 2 different guys because the pics looked different? Would you not even consider the possibility that the pics could be of two different parts of the same guy? Why not? Is there something wrong with you?

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
Hehe. I just selected this part because it pretty well demonstrates your insane state of mind. You compare different angles to different mole positions :smiley: And what about the changed hairstyle, one guy has flat hair the other curly. Oh well, I know you come up with some crazy answer again. Who cares. I made a nice summary of Nigam’s lies and deceit in the 5th post of this thread:

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-124794-page-0-category-1-order-last_answer-descasc-DESC.html

I know it won’t matter to you. If you see a bird flying you’ll say it’s a jumping horse that’s just making an extremely high and long jump. You’re WAY beyond the point of logic and reason. If I say 1+1=2 you’ll say it’s 3. If I say grass is green, you’ll say it’s red. So what’s the point of having a discussion with you then ? You’ve really REALLY lost it and are living in your own world. A world devoid of logic. Any discussion is pointless that way. So, good luck man. And oh yeah, like Cal noted: just go to India, what are you waiting for. You’re exactly like Ironman, I really think you guys must be brothers, only difference is that Ironman DID put his money where his mouth was.[/quote]

When my hair is short it’s straight but when it gets long it becomes wavy. David Cassidy short hair has a cowlick but long hair that cowlick lays flat.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Handsome-David-Cassidy-in-the-90s-with-his-Hair-Cut-Short-/00/s/MTAyNFg4MTk%3D/%24(KGrHqF,!pkE7BcvgGFNBO09f%2BVdWQ~~60_35.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.ebay.com/itm/Handsome-David-Cassidy-in-the-90s-with-his-Hair-Cut-Short-/400264213588&h=300&w=239&sz=22&tbnid=y5tfpswfypSTtM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=74&zoom=1&usg=__Bx4-t5ZHvmmLhhk-vdbVIbg5hUU=&docid=9Io6M5h4tHLjsM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=WzyaUqejBaWejAKe4IGIBg&ved=0CDcQ9QEwBQ

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.beautylaunchpad.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Largest_Square_590x590/wysiwyg_imageupload/6504/DavidCassidy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.beautylaunchpad.com/celebrity-mens-hairstyles-love-me-do?page%3D4&h=590&w=590&sz=158&tbnid=SIOqbHYEocw0JM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=93&zoom=1&usg=__Ce84cX3WnnjguruO3a49eIXfUiY=&docid=DSfDtkxJji0N9M&sa=X&ei=WzyaUqejBaWejAKe4IGIBg&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAw

My brother’s hair is the same way. Man, that David Cassidy sure looked like a girl.

Anyway, however hair is when it’s thinner and shorter it can be different when it thickens and gets longer.

It is not a different mole position that you are seeing. What you are seeing is different terrain so you are seeing different things on different parts of the face. If you change the tilt of the face in multiple ways (have the person looked up in one pic but not the other and have the face lean to one side in one pic but not the other) then you will create a different view. You will see different parts of the face and therefor you will see different objects on the face. What you are seeing on the face is not the same things at the same locations. You are seeing different blemishes at different spots on the same face that displays different areas of the face.

The difference in the view is only slightly different but in combo with different lighting and different distance from camera it’s sufficiently different to create some confusion for the weak-minded.

These pics are of the same two people displaying a slightly different view of the person’s face so you’re picking up different things in the pics.

88

[quote] What you are seeing on the face is not the same things at the same locations. You are seeing different blemishes at different spots on the same face that displays different areas of the face.
[/quote]
And that’s exactly my point. They both have moles. Only in different locations.

89

[quote] What you are seeing on the face is not the same things at the same locations. You are seeing different blemishes at different spots on the same face that displays different areas of the face.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
And that’s exactly my point. They both have moles. Only in different locations.[/quote]

No, you are wrong again. My point is not the same as your point because you’re saying there are two different faces involved whereas I’m saying that the two pics are of two different locations on the same face (because the different angles and depth in the two pics results in slightly different areas being captured in the pics) plus the different lighting/coloration involved enhances facial blemishes/marks differently.

The similarities on these two faces are too striking to be a case of two different people who are merely brothers. If they are two different people they would have to be identical twins. Now it’s on you to prove that these two are even brothers and better still: identical twins.

90

[quote] What you are seeing on the face is not the same things at the same locations. You are seeing different blemishes at different spots on the same face that displays different areas of the face.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
And that’s exactly my point. They both have moles. Only in different locations.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

No, you are wrong again. My point is not the same as your point because you’re saying there are two different faces involved whereas I’m saying that the two pics are of two different locations on the same face (because the different angles and depth in the two pics results in slightly different areas being captured in the pics) plus the different lighting/coloration involved enhances facial blemishes/marks differently.

The similarities on these two faces are too striking to be a case of two different people who are merely brothers. If they are two different people they would have to be identical twins. Now it’s on you to prove that these two are even brothers and better still: identical twins.[/quote]

You can’t explain why they both have moles, only, exactly like you pointed out, different ones, in different places. Of course something like that is possible. But only in JarJarbinx’s world of illogic and fantasy. Not in the real world. Same goes for the hairgrowth.

91

[quote] What you are seeing on the face is not the same things at the same locations. You are seeing different blemishes at different spots on the same face that displays different areas of the face.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
And that’s exactly my point. They both have moles. Only in different locations.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

No, you are wrong again. My point is not the same as your point because you’re saying there are two different faces involved whereas I’m saying that the two pics are of two different locations on the same face (because the different angles and depth in the two pics results in slightly different areas being captured in the pics) plus the different lighting/coloration involved enhances facial blemishes/marks differently.

The similarities on these two faces are too striking to be a case of two different people who are merely brothers. If they are two different people they would have to be identical twins. Now it’s on you to prove that these two are even brothers and better still: identical twins.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]

You can’t explain why they both have moles, only, exactly like you pointed out, different ones, in different places. Of course something like that is possible. But only in JarJarbinx’s world of illogic and fantasy. Not in the real world. Same goes for the hairgrowth.[/quote]

I don’t have to explain why they both have moles because it is one person with 2 moles in two different places or one person with a mole one place and some other type of blemish somewhere else. I think one of those things that you call a mole does not look like a mole but the other does.

92

So if it’s one person, how come on 1 photo there’s a mole much closer to his nose and in the other photo there’s a mole much lower, where it doesn’t show the mole higher (it shows perfect skin there) and vice versa. If you think that’s possible by adjusting the camera angle, you’re even way more delusional than … wait. No, you’ll say that that’s possible :smiley: Stuff like that happens every day in JarJarBinx’s logic devoid world. It’s pretty normal.

93

There are multiple different angles, which changes the visible area and equally important, affects how light interacts with the skin surface. And there is a different depth and there is different coloration. If you don’t believe that all of those differences can make a big difference in the final picture then you’re the whackjob not me. It’s common sense but if you don’t believe me ask any professional photographer. If things like multiple different angles, flash, lighting, depth did not make any difference the world wouldn’t need professional photogs because anyone could produce professional looking pics.

That aside, if you look at the recent pics by the Israeli researchers you will see that there is some kind of face-brace and the reason for that is that they want to be sure they get the face in as close to the exact same position as possible. There’s a reason why face-braces are best for this type of photography. Even slightly different facial angles can make a significant difference in the final picture.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
So if it’s one person, how come on 1 photo there’s a mole much closer to his nose and in the other photo there’s a mole much lower, where it doesn’t show the mole higher (it shows perfect skin there) and vice versa. If you think that’s possible by adjusting the camera angle, you’re even way more delusional than … wait. No, you’ll say that that’s possible :smiley: Stuff like that happens every day in JarJarBinx’s logic devoid world. It’s pretty normal.[/quote]

94

[quote]There are multiple different angles (which affects how light his the skin surface) and there is a different depth and there is different coloration. If you don’t believe that all of those differences can make a big difference in the final picture then you’re the whackjob not me. It’s common sense but if you don’t believe me ask any professional photographer. If things like multiple different angles, flash, lighting, depth did not make any difference the world wouldn’t need professional photogs because anyone could produce professional looking pics.

That aside, if you look at the recent pics by the Israeli researchers you will see that there is some kind of face-brace and the reason for that is that they want to be sure they get the face in as close to the exact same position as possible. There’s a reason why face-braces are best for this type of photography. Even slightly different facial angles can make a significant difference in the final picture.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
So if it’s one person, how come on 1 photo there’s a mole much closer to his nose and in the other photo there’s a mole much lower, where it doesn’t show the mole higher (it shows perfect skin there) and vice versa. If you think that’s possible by adjusting the camera angle, you’re even way more delusional than … wait. No, you’ll say that that’s possible :smiley: Stuff like that happens every day in JarJarBinx’s logic devoid world. It’s pretty normal.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]

Haha. You’re really delusional. Try to shoot some pictures of your face and show me one in which your left eye turns into skin and then one in which your right eye turns into skin, by selecting different angles, just as Nigam turned one mole into skin and then the other by selecting different angles :smiley:

95

You’re stupid. Angles change the picture. Lighting changes the picture. Coloration changes the picture. Distance from the object being photographed changes the picture.

Why do you think those Israeli scientists used face-braces nutter?

[quote]There are multiple different angles (which affects how light his the skin surface) and there is a different depth and there is different coloration. If you don’t believe that all of those differences can make a big difference in the final picture then you’re the whackjob not me. It’s common sense but if you don’t believe me ask any professional photographer. If things like multiple different angles, flash, lighting, depth did not make any difference the world wouldn’t need professional photogs because anyone could produce professional looking pics.

That aside, if you look at the recent pics by the Israeli researchers you will see that there is some kind of face-brace and the reason for that is that they want to be sure they get the face in as close to the exact same position as possible. There’s a reason why face-braces are best for this type of photography. Even slightly different facial angles can make a significant difference in the final picture.

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]
So if it’s one person, how come on 1 photo there’s a mole much closer to his nose and in the other photo there’s a mole much lower, where it doesn’t show the mole higher (it shows perfect skin there) and vice versa. If you think that’s possible by adjusting the camera angle, you’re even way more delusional than … wait. No, you’ll say that that’s possible :smiley: Stuff like that happens every day in JarJarBinx’s logic devoid world. It’s pretty normal.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by Lindo[/postedby]

Haha. You’re really delusional. Try to shoot some pictures of your face and show me one in which your left eye turns into skin and then one in which your right eye turns into skin, by selecting different angles, just as Nigam turned one mole into skin and then the other by selecting different angles :-D[/quote]

96

Again, change the angle of your camera and shoot 2 pictures. One in which your left eye turns into skin and then one in which your right eye turns into skin (just like one mole turned into skin in the left picture and the other mole turned into skin in that other picture). Then I will believe you. :smiley:

97

You’re a nutter and this is my last post to you.

Lighting can change the way a picture looks:

Of course depth can affect the picture or else there wouldn’t be so many people paying so much money to get a leg up on depth in their photographs.

http://photo.net/learn/optics/lensFAQ

Photography has entire classes on lighting and depth stupid.

And of course the angle the photographer is viewing the focal point affects the outcome of the picture as well as the angle the focal point is in relation to the earth.

http://essay.utwente.nl/59130/

Get back to me after you grow a brain.

Dr. Nigam’s black and white photos (which you are trying to use to show he is a fr@ud) are not not professional. He just took some photos. When he took these pics he didn’t account for depth, angle, lighting, and stuff like that. So of course the view you end up with is different in the two pics. And of course conspiracy-theory whackjobs will use that to create an idiotic firestorm based on nothing. Any reasonable person can see that there are major differences between the 2 photos regards to:

  1. Distance from object (depth)

  2. Coloration/flash/lightness/darkness

  3. Multiple different angles. In one pic he’s looking up or down and has his head turned slightly in one direction. That’s partly why his nose is not lined up the exact same. The other reason his nose is not lined up the exact same is that in one photo the object is bigger (closer to the photographer).

You’re not very perceptive if you can’t perceive these things because these things are mostly obvious despite being a tiny bit subtle.

98

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
You’re a nutter and this is my last post to you.

Lighting can change the way a picture looks:

Of course depth can affect the picture or else there wouldn’t be so many people paying so much money to get a leg up on depth in their photographs.

http://photo.net/learn/optics/lensFAQ

Photography has entire classes on lighting and depth stupid.

And of course the angle the photographer is viewing the focal point affects the outcome of the picture as well as the angle the focal point is in relation to the earth.

http://essay.utwente.nl/59130/

Get back to me after you grow a brain.

Dr. Nigam’s black and white photos (which you are trying to use to show he is a fr@ud) are not not professional. He just took some photos. When he took these pics he didn’t account for depth, angle, lighting, and stuff like that. So of course the view you end up with is different in the two pics. And of course conspiracy-theory whackjobs will use that to create an idiotic firestorm based on nothing. Any reasonable person can see that there are major differences between the 2 photos regards to:

  1. Distance from object (depth)

  2. Coloration/flash/lightness/darkness

  3. Multiple different angles. In one pic he’s looking up or down and has his head turned slightly in one direction. That’s partly why his nose is not lined up the exact same. The other reason his nose is not lined up the exact same is that in one photo the object is bigger (closer to the photographer).

You’re not very perceptive if you can’t perceive these things because these things are mostly obvious despite being a tiny bit subtle.[/quote]

Haha. Thanks for all that stuff on lighting and angle. I now understand how you can make a mole disappear (while a mole appears 2 cm lower) by changing angle and lighting, like this: http://drnigams.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/6/8/24682492/5477984.jpg?544

Yep that makes a lot of sense JarJarbinx. Just change the lighting and angle and voila, magic happens. At least in JarJarbinxes world devoid of logic and sense.:smiley:

99

So, anyway, now you’re convinced this is the same guy this obviously means to you that Nigam has found a magic cure. Cause if this result would be real, it would be the cure everbody has been waiting for. So, when are you going to visit him for a treatment to get that same kind of result ? I assume you’ve booked a ticket ? You must be really excited to get that same result soon, right ?

100

The way I see it…

I believed in him since the beginning, but reason (and lindo) are right about some VERY suspicious circumstances here.

Dont know what to make of it all except to wait for confirmation from Mwamba.

About the mole…
http://www.kessleru.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/image002.jpg

1628×532 287 KB

These are all a good example of lens distortion, in this specific case - the mole just seems to be in different position.

BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE A MOLE.
It doesnt look like it, its lighter and makes a dent in the skin - i think its a zit.
Ear is the same.

The way I see it, 3 options:

1. The mole in the before pic might not be a mole - it could be a zit of some kind.
In the after pic the original zit is healed - new one appeared.

2. The mole from the first pic might be photoshopped (removed) from the second pic, and the lower zit is left on the pic. (dont know why would that happen)

3. Those are not the same persons. (not much to comment here)

As I said - this is all witch hunt, we need other doctors/scientists to confirm or debunk Nigam - there is no other way. We could go on like this for 5 years.