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

In reference to Gho


#1

I was a quiet skeptic before but this makes things a bit more interesting, I probably missed this or forgot about this a while back:

Full Article: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf

Anyway, that article shows a lot of interesting points, is Dr. Gho going to put up any of the results showing the recipient, it seems he has good photo representation of the donor growing back to an average of around 95%, I would just like to see how the reciepient sites look. Are those pictures released somewhere?


#2

» I was a quiet skeptic before but this makes things a bit more interesting,
» I probably missed this or forgot about this a while back:
»
» http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388024
»
» Full Article:
» http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf

About 8 month ago, I tried to find out who (which persons/experts) actually ‘peer-reviewed’ this study – and I found the following:

Editorial Advisory Board:
http://informahealthcare.com/page/EditorialAdvisoryBoard?journalCode=jdt
Main Editors:
Peter Van de Kerkhof - University Hospital Nijmegen, Netherlands
Steven R Feldman - Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, USA

http://informahealthcare.com/userimages/ContentEditor/1255620151092/Authorship_Submissions_Plagiarism_Peer_Review.pdf
EXCERPT

Peer Review
All manuscripts will be subjected to confidential peer review by experts in the field and, on the basis of reviewers’ feedback, papers will be accepted unconditionally, accepted subject to revision or rejected.

So it seems that several (reputable) experts around the world accepted this study - simply ‘as is’. Or in simple words: Send this study e.g. to Dr. Anthony Atala (Wake Forest Institute) and try to assume what he is saying …


#3

» About 8 month ago, I tried to find out who (which persons/experts)
» actually ‘peer-reviewed’ this study – and I found the following:
» -------------------------------
» Editorial Advisory Board:
» http://informahealthcare.com/page/EditorialAdvisoryBoard?journalCode=jdt
» Main Editors:
» Peter Van de Kerkhof - University Hospital Nijmegen, Netherlands
» Steven R Feldman - Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston
» Salem, USA
»
» http://informahealthcare.com/userimages/ContentEditor/1255620151092/Authorship_Submissions_Plagiarism_Peer_Review.pdf
»
» EXCERPT
»
» Peer Review
» All manuscripts will be subjected to confidential peer
» review by experts in the field and, on the
» basis of reviewers’ feedback, papers will be accepted unconditionally,
» accepted subject to revision or rejected.
» ---------------------------------
»
» So it seems that several (reputable) experts around the world accepted
» this study - simply ‘as is’. Or in simple words: Send this study e.g. to
» Dr. Anthony Atala (Wake Forest Institute) and try to assume what he is
» saying …

To be honest Iron Man, I like the article, I think it’s written scientifically and shows a lot of potential but don’t you think he should be showing more pictures of successful transplants, there is so much incentive for him to do so. The pictures on his website aren’t that great and I would like to see a strong hairline and not necessarily a full restoration but a close to full one considering he’s been doing it for a while. What do you think?


#4

Dr. Gho is not worth our time IMHO.

The guy is content getting his rocks off just doing the theoretical experiments. He shows essentially no interest in putting any of it into action for his patients. This has been going on for more than decade. I think the fact that he won’t even photographically prove his ideas are commercially possible speaks volumes.

At best someone else might take his work and run with it. I will start paying attention when that actually happens.


#5

» Dr. Gho is not worth our time IMHO.

Are you on drugs or just having one of THOSE DAYS ?

“Nothing else to say.” lol


#6

I left the board because of the racism/jews/honocaust/death threats stuff. I came back when it ended.

As for Gho, I stand by what I said. I’m moderately interested in something new from Dr. Cooley that could be using research by Gho, but I’m not interested in much of anything that is just coming from Gho himself. Reading “Dr. Gho has made a new discovery” is not much better than reading “A new discovery regrows hair on mice”. His long pattern of behavior indicates that it means essentially zilch for our purposes.


#7

» I left the board because of the racism/jews/honocaust/death threats stuff.
» I came back when it ended.
»
» As for Gho, I stand by what I said. I’m moderately interested in
» something new from Dr. Cooley that could be using research by Gho, but I’m
» not interested in much of anything that is just coming from Gho himself.
» Reading “Dr. Gho has made a new discovery” is not much better than reading
» “A new discovery regrows hair on mice”. His long pattern of behavior
» indicates that it means essentially zilch for our purposes.

Good post, that sums Gho up for me as well.


#8

» » I left the board because of the racism/jews/honocaust/death threats
» stuff.
» » I came back when it ended.
» »
» » As for Gho, I stand by what I said. I’m moderately interested in
» » something new from Dr. Cooley that could be using research by Gho, but
» I’m
» » not interested in much of anything that is just coming from Gho himself.
»
» » Reading “Dr. Gho has made a new discovery” is not much better than
» reading
» » “A new discovery regrows hair on mice”. His long pattern of behavior
» » indicates that it means essentially zilch for our purposes.
»
» Good post, that sums Gho up for me as well.
me too!!


#9

» I left the board because of the racism/jews/honocaust/death threats stuff.
» I came back when it ended.

Oh, sorry cal. I didn’t know that you have been away from this board for the past 10 years. So there is no wonder that you sound like an irritated newbie who has absolutely no clue about what’s going on.

So, just to keep you up to date, Mr. longtime-away-cal; Dr. Jerry Cooley IS using research by Dr. Coen Gho:
http://www.iahrs.org/news/dr-jerry-cooley-acell-matristem-slide-presentation-part-3-4/

Dr. Cooley (min 05:35): “Dr. Gho published a study in a reputable journal, that plucked hair does indeed has hair follicle stem cells and other researchers have confirmed the finding.”

So, WHY quoted Dr. Cooley in his ISHRS presentation Dr. Gho’s hair-stem-cell-study?

  1. Because actually it has been Dr. Gho (et al) who confirmed with the by Dr. Cooley quoted study other researchers prior vague HYPOTHESIS, that there are INDEED different stem cell pools located in the (whole) hair follicle.

  2. For instance, for lots of other reputable researchers AFTER Dr. Gho’s “hair-stem-cells-by-plucking-hairs-study” …


    Source: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v92/n10/full/6602558a.html

… there has been NO NEED anymore to review Dr. Gho’s findings, that there are INDEED different (as well as proliferating) stem cell pools located in the hair follicle. Because Dr. Gho, as well as other research-institutions who teamed up with Dr. Gho for this very important study, has once and for all been able to CONFIRM a) previous researchers findings (e.g. Moll et al) as well as b) previous researchers hypothesis.

  1. Finally, Dr. Jerry Cooley tried (surely desperate) to find THE scientific explanation, why “Autocloning” with ACell (could/should) may work - resp. “occurs”. Because a (critically) researcher community always wants to know WHY something is working (or not). Cooley has finally chosen Dr. Gho’s study for that, because Gho’s study is -more or less- THE only study out there, which IS

a) specific to plucked hairs;
b) reviewed & confirmed by lots of other reputable researchers in the field;
c) well demonstrated and illustrated for the understanding - even for layman’s:
(2003) http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/hair-multiplication-278.htm

And here is the final study (quoted and discussed by Dr. J. Cooley):
(2004) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15149497
Full text: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf

In simple words: Currently, there is no other research paper out there (are there any? Sorry, can’t find any…), which fulfils all the criteria above. Or in even more simple words: Dr. Cooley has been –more or less- practically forced to quote (for reference) Dr. Gho’s research paper.

Oh, by the way – a little bit HISTORY:
(2003) http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/hair-multiplication-278.htm
As you can see, in 2003, Dr. Gho shared his findings with the ISHRS community in New York – right? Right.
I’m pretty sure, that about 90% of the attendees didn’t even understand what Dr. Gho is talking about (and why). Because during this time (actually until today), the focus of the majority has been “How can I close best possibly the f…. strip wound of my HT patients?” or “Could ‘FUE’ be considered as an improvement in the HT field?” - and stuff like that.
The other ~10% kept a closer look at Dr. Gho’s presentation. And finally, e.g. one of them has been “Mr. K.W. (et al)”. I’m pretty sure that Mr. K.W. thought “Oh, it seems that this strange guy from the Netherlands IS on to something (while he is -as stated by himself at the meeting- struggling with the so called ‘HM-cell-based-therapy-approach’) … and this ‘hair-plucking-thingy’, sounds pretty ‘logical’. And above all, it seems more realistic to achieve than a in vitro cell-therapy approach …”.
In a strenuous effort, Mr. K.W. immediately tried (in a very ‘broadbanded’ manner) to ‘replicate’ the usage of Dr. Gho’s “TO MULTIPLY OR NOT TO MULTIPLY, THAT IS THE QUESTION …”-findings, and finally, tried immediately to patent it. But unfortunately, the outcome of this ‘great’ effort has been this:


Source: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PATENTSCOPE/86/66/70/016670.pdf

That means, thanks to patent authorities, because they are always in advance pretty good in “WHO-did-WHEN-what” affairs – especially in a billion-dollar industry. But on the other hand, it seems that in some countries patent authorities sometimes lose control over the door-keys of their buildings; because this enables sometimes completely the same patent filing date for completely the same subject (‘bioengineering hair follicles’ - derived form plucked hairs). It happened by accident, as claimed by Mr. K.W.? As far as I know, e.g. lottery winnings happen by such very rare ‘accidents”, but that happened SURELY NOT in this affair (absolutely impossible!).

Anyway, did all this made Dr. Gho to “a very shy researcher”? Not at all! Dr. Gho presented almost every year his research progress at the ISHRS meetings – that’s simply fact. Because, WHERE is the difference between e.g. THIS presentation (2007) …
http://ushairrestoration.com/follicular-stemcell-transplantation.php

… and finally THE following ‘presentation’ (study)?
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf

Basically, there is NONE (besides the more detailed aspect)!

And now the super-duper question:
WHY has been Dr. Gho’s previous study (the one from 2004) so important for Dr. Gho HIMSELF?

  1. To ‘back up’ with hardcore-science his “hair stem-cell transplantation” (HST) approach;

  2. To know, WHERE exactly the hair stem cells are located in the (whole) hair follicle;

  3. Finally, to be able to find the ideal way HOW TO divide all those necessary hair follicle stem cells, so that on BOTH sides (recipient as well as donor side) these stem cells are still present in the tissue (after dividing them). That’s all. But to find out, whether or not this prior theory is indeed working in a clinical practise, a follow-up study (‘Proof of Concept Study’) of the 2004-study has been necessary. And here she is:
    http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf
    And finally, this is the PLAIN MESSAGE/OUTCOME:

This technique enables us to generate two hair follicles from one follicle with consistent results and preserve the donor area.” END.

But does this thingy called “Hair Stemcell Transplantation” (HST) really working?
Currently, at least more than 1500 satisfied HST-patients confirm this. And just for instance, he is one of them:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haarweb.nl%2Fforum%2Fshowpost.php%3Fp%3D267707%26postcount%3D22&act=url

Today (December 23), he got his 4th HST procedure (he did it step-by-step). And without ANY doubts, this patients HST grafts will “Grew and Grew since day one” again in his recipient side (as several times mentioned by himself), as well as in his donor area, where Dr. Gho harvested the hair stem cells.

Lots of independent VIDEOS:
http://www.hasci.com/default2.aspx?id_menu_item=74fd381a-77af-4af4-aa95-c9aa299fc84e&special_type=0

Before/After PHOTOS:
http://www.hasci.com/default2.aspx?id_menu_item=e6aabe5b-3d1f-421f-97ff-59cc249ef737&special_type=0

Do you want more?
Anyway, it was a pleasure to enlighten you a little, Mr. long-away-cal! :slight_smile:


#10

» As for Gho, I stand by what I said. I’m moderately interested in
» something new from Dr. Cooley that could be using research by Gho, but I’m
» not interested in much of anything that is just coming from Gho himself.

Oh, sorry cal - in my previous post I forgot to mention the most important point of the (true) story:

» Dr. Jerry Cooley IS using research by Dr. Coen Gho:
» http://www.iahrs.org/news/dr-jerry-cooley-acell-matristem-slide-presentation-part-3-4/
»


» ------------------
» Dr. Cooley (min 05:35): “Dr. Gho published a study in a
» reputable journal, that plucked hair does indeed has hair follicle stem
» cells and other researchers have confirmed the finding
.”
» ------------------

As you will see, that not enough, Dr. Gho has even been so kind to write a nicely working protocol for Dr. Cooley (“et al”):

The short & simple “DIY instruction”
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=NL2006000588&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

“DIY-Instruction” in detail
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=NL2006000588&DISPLAY=DESC

And just in case you have any troubles with hair & money calculation, here you’ll find some explanations:

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-75596.html

So cal, please tell me, what can Dr. Gho do more for others??

Please, let me know … lol


#11

» So cal, please tell me, what can Dr. Gho do more for others??
» Please, let me know … lol

He can buy a cheap digital camera, and take some g*ddamn photos.


#12

» He can buy a cheap digital camera, and take some g*ddamn photos.

I couldn’t have said it better.

This stuff has been going on with Gho in one form or another for like 10+ years now.

Has Gho made discoveries? Yes. Has he possibly multiplied some hairs? Yes. But so have ICX and Aderans and Histogen and plenty of others. These others were/are seriously interested in trying to put new hairs onto our heads. Over the course of the last 10 years I think Gho has demonstrated that he is not. He has refused (I will not use to term “failed” here, IMHO what he is doing is refusing) to document what he is doing well enough to encourage very many others to pursue the work. This stuff with Hitzig and Cooley building on Gho’s earlier work is the exception to the pattern, not the rule. Gho does not seem to care if this stuff ever gets developed.


#13

It’s really interesting: They (typical HT doctors/butchers/clinics) really love it to discuss a lot about HM THEORIES, like e.g. Dr. Bernstein …
http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-cloning/methods/

… or e.g. recently (12/12/2010) Dr. Di Stefano:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Dermatology-1011/2010/12/HAIR-IMPLANT.htm

But when it comes to REALLY WELL STUDIED techniques …

Step 1: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf

Step 2: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf

… then they try to hide it whereever they can – not even mentioning it!

And if somebody specifically is asking them about it (HST) …

http://ushairrestoration.com/blog/2010/08/multiplication-of-hair-by-dividing-hair-stem-cells-is-it-possible/

… then they say “I would rather wait to see more significant scientific proofs to claims of this kind before I consider them as viable options for the treatment of patterned hair loss”.

Ok. And when somebody is delivering them “significant scientific proofs”, THEN they say “they [studies] need to be repeated (with similar result) in other centers before they could be considered seriously”. Funny – isn’t it?

Ok. And now the REAL “fun fact”:

In 2002, Rassman & Bernstein published a completely PATHETIC “study” (criticized
by many doctors like e.g. Dr. Cole too) about a HT technique which they called “Follicular Unit Extraction” (FUE):
http://www.newhair.com/resources/mp-2002-fue.asp

Anyway, what happened after this event in 2002, besides an occured “DO-harm-factor” around the world?

Sorry, I mean, I can’t find any “repeated studies (with similar results) in other centers”, because until today, there aren’t any! NOTHING! And how many HT doctors perform “FUE” around the world TODAY, based on 1 SH’T study??

How about Body Hair Transplant (BHT)?
Where are the “scientific proven studies”? Besides 1 anecdotal “study” with 1 patient by Dr. Woods (2004) – where are the “hardcore” BHT-studies?? There aren’t any! NOTHING!

What a crazy world.


#14

So what does all of this mean?
Is Gho finally going to splurge on a $60 digital camera or what?

Considering he’s been at this for roughly 10 years that brings his total investment to under $6/year.

» It’s really interesting: They (typical HT doctors/butchers/clinics)
» really love it to discuss a lot about HM THEORIES, like e.g. Dr.
» Bernstein …
» http://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-cloning/methods/
»
» … or e.g. recently (12/12/2010) Dr. Di Stefano:
» http://en.allexperts.com/q/Dermatology-1011/2010/12/HAIR-IMPLANT.htm
»
» But when it comes to REALLY WELL STUDIED techniques …
»
» Step 1: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf
»
» Step 2:
» http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf
»
» … then they try to hide it whereever they can – not even mentioning
» it!
»
» And if somebody specifically is asking them about it (HST) …
»
» http://ushairrestoration.com/blog/2010/08/multiplication-of-hair-by-dividing-hair-stem-cells-is-it-possible/
»
» … then they say “I would rather wait to see more significant scientific
» proofs to claims of this kind before I consider them as viable options for
» the treatment of patterned hair loss”.
»
» Ok. And when somebody is delivering them “significant scientific proofs”,
» THEN they say “they [studies] need to be repeated (with similar result) in
» other centers before they could be considered seriously”. Funny – isn’t
» it?
»
» Ok. And now the REAL “fun fact”:
»
» In 2002, Rassman & Bernstein published a completely PATHETIC “study”
» (criticized
» by many doctors like e.g. Dr. Cole too) about a HT technique which they
» called “Follicular Unit Extraction” (FUE):
» http://www.newhair.com/resources/mp-2002-fue.asp
»
» Anyway, what happened after this event in 2002, besides an occured
» “DO-harm-factor” around the world?
»
» Sorry, I mean, I can’t find any “repeated studies (with similar results)
» in other centers”, because until today, there aren’t any! NOTHING!
» And how many HT doctors perform “FUE” around the world TODAY, based on 1
» SH’T study??
»
» How about Body Hair Transplant (BHT)?
» Where are the “scientific proven studies”? Besides 1 anecdotal “study”
» with 1 patient by Dr. Woods (2004) – where are the “hardcore” BHT-studies??
» There aren’t any! NOTHING!
»
» What a crazy world.


#15

» So what does all of this mean?

That there is no difference …

between Armani hairline vs. Gho hairline. :expressionless:


lol


#16

» » So what does all of this mean?
»
» That there is no difference …
»
» between Armani hairline vs. Gho hairline. :expressionless:
»


» lol

Are you high??


#17

» Are you high??

The previous post was dedicated to @rev - and not to a shill.


#18

» » Are you high??
»
» The previous post was dedicated to @rev - and not to a shill.

lol,yup you sure are high!!


#19

» lol,yup you sure are high!!

I can assure you, that nobody here in this thread -NOBODY- is interested for a strip procedure by Dr. Arvind. Can’t you find any other threads for your crap ads, Mr shill?

BTW - How often do you have to place your crap ads on forums and threads, until you have no debts anymore upon Dr. Arvind? Many? Oh …


#20

» » lol,yup you sure are high!!
»
» I can assure you, that nobody here in this thread -NOBODY- is interested
» for a strip procedure by Dr. Arvind. Can’t you find any other threads for
» your crap ads, Mr shill?
»
» BTW - How often do you have to place your crap ads on forums and threads,
» until you have no debts anymore upon Dr. Arvind? Many? Oh …

get a life and im not gonna even honour your post with a response…

btw if you done licking Gho s ass lets move on!!