Dr Nigams - NSN Donor regeneration!

[534623]

You know, I remember when I was in high school the most important grade when applying for college or university was NOT the most relevant subject to your desired field of study but rather English. I never understood it until now and cases like this and individuals like yourselves (you and Ironman) which have a hard time understanding things.

That is not true - he is the proof:

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=113617&postcount=124

[hellouser]

This is why the add was banned:
"The ASA ruled that both ads breached the advertising standards code for exaggeration and being misleading and banned them from future publication."

Tell me how this is different from what Dr Nigam did please.

Well for one, its not an advertisement, at least I don't think. Two, the photo clearly stated predictions, so it didn't present itself as a documented case (read the copy). Depending on where the photos were presented, they could imply a documented case. Both images are riddled with spelling and grammer mistakes though (questionable professionalism) so the clearly duplicate photograph could be taken as a true case, in which case yes, it should have legal ramifications. But theres a lot of ambiguity in the first photograph. The second is plain as day and even has sub-copy that says 'this result it is predicted...'

Again, semantics.

You know, I remember when I was in high school the most important grade when applying for college or university was NOT the most relevant subject to your desired field of study but rather English. I never understood it until now and cases like this and individuals like yourselves (you and Ironman) which have a hard time understanding things.

[Arashi]

then again dr Nigam blamed it on outsourced 'designers';

Yeah he did, but that obviously was just another lie, since he kept defending these pictures to be real at first !!

[534623]

So please allow me to highlight THE essential words around this issue ...

I frown upon the doctoring of the photographs.

There we go! Thank you.

[didi]

then again dr Nigam blamed it on outsourced 'designers';
so its kinda admitting 'yes, i did wrong, its my designers who screwd up, not me'
even if he did the same in Holland I dont think he would end up in court, who would sue him anyway..he admited mistake

as hellouser said it happening in every industry, photos get manipulated..

[Arashi]

Are you incapable of reading? Read my comments and you'll see that I frown upon the doctoring of the photographs. Quit being an idiot.

Seriously, YOU are the one being a TOTAL idiot here with the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever seen. You and Didi seem to make a nice pair.

[Arashi]

And what exactly do you try to tell us?

"Faking of medical results is a cool thing" - or what??

It is NOT! And every "serious" authority on this planet will tell you the same.

Basically what Hellouser is saying is that I can start a clinic in cosmetic surgery, photoshop a bunch of nosejobs, boobjobs, facelifts, put em up on my website and then tell the "Advertising Standards Authority" when they knock on my door "what are you guys doing here, this is totally legal man, Hellouser told me so !"

[hellouser]

And what exactly do you try to tell us?

"Faking of medical results is a cool thing" - or what??

It is NOT! And every "serious" authority on this planet will tell you the same.

Are you incapable of reading? Read my comments and you'll see that I frown upon the doctoring of the photographs. Quit being an idiot.

[Arashi]

Every single photograph you've ever seen in a cosmetics ad has been modified either through TONS of makeup, controlled lighting or photoshop... and you can take photoshop to the bank for anything in the last 20 years.

So tell me, how many of those ads were 'illegal'? Like I said, its unethical but its legal. Dude, I've worked in the industry for over a decade, I don't see why you're trying to argue with me here.

Also, the example you showed me is moot. It got banned for moral/ethical reason NOT for legal which further proves my point.



Totally ridiculous? Really? This is coming from someone who doesn't work or understand the industry and judges the case simply by emotion but not what the law says? You can go right ahead and believe whatever you want, but photographs will always be touched up for marketing so as long as your not making any fraudulent claims. Which is why I already told you that claiming those photoshopped photos by Nigam as a documented case IS fraudulant and SHOULD be illegal (depends on state law and i dont know what India's laws are like in this dept.) but wouldnt be if it were presented as a 'possible result' and not as a documented case. You REALLY need to learn semantics.

This is why the add was banned:
"The ASA ruled that both ads breached the advertising standards code for exaggeration and being misleading and banned them from future publication."

Tell me how this is different from what Dr Nigam did please.

[534623]

Also, the example you showed me is moot. It got banned for moral/ethical reason NOT for legal which further proves my point.

And what exactly do you try to tell us?

"Faking of medical results is a cool thing" - or what??

It is NOT! And every "serious" authority on this planet will tell you the same.

[hellouser]

RRRIIGHT. So tell me, what was exactly wrong with the fineprint here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...rbrushing.html

Every single photograph you've ever seen in a cosmetics ad has been modified either through TONS of makeup, controlled lighting or photoshop... and you can take photoshop to the bank for anything in the last 20 years.

So tell me, how many of those ads were 'illegal'? Like I said, its unethical but its legal. Dude, I've worked in the industry for over a decade, I don't see why you're trying to argue with me here.

Also, the example you showed me is moot. It got banned for moral/ethical reason NOT for legal which further proves my point.

Come on, Hellouser, your point is totally ridiculous and you know it. What Dr Nigam did was clearly illegal.

Totally ridiculous? Really? This is coming from someone who doesn't work or understand the industry and judges the case simply by emotion but not what the law says? You can go right ahead and believe whatever you want, but photographs will always be touched up for marketing so as long as your not making any fraudulent claims. Which is why I already told you that claiming those photoshopped photos by Nigam as a documented case IS fraudulant and SHOULD be illegal (depends on state law and i dont know what India's laws are like in this dept.) but wouldnt be if it were presented as a 'possible result' and not as a documented case. You REALLY need to learn semantics.

[Arashi]

Come on, Hellouser, your point is totally ridiculous and you know it. What Dr Nigam did was clearly illegal.

But again, nothing unforgivable in my book. It just means we have to be extremely skeptical here and he has to provide us SOLID proof. The pure fact that he posted pre-op pictures of NSN's scalp but not of the donor area and now he supposedly just mailed them to NSN instead of posting them together with the rest of the photo's, immediately after surgery, is again VERY VERY fishy ...

[534623]

I think Iron Man has summed it up correctly on this occasion regarding Nigam using Gho's old FM technique in the NSN case.

Arashi has also made some good points on why we don't have the NSN before and after donor photos. We need to see these photos asap. The photo around the birthmark is simply not worth the screen it's viewed on.

Until we see these photos then we can't really accept donor regeneration in NSN case.

Come on gc - YOU KNOW IT! But if a layman gets "excited" about such usless pics as shown so far by Nigam/nevesaynever ...

... I wonder what they think if the SEE such unforgeable photos, as shown just a few of them in this thread:

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=11726

[Arashi]

FINE PRINT dude, if you state it as actual results then yes, its illegal. If you state it as 'POSSIBLE RESULTS' then no, you didn't lie. Its all in context. Obviously showing a photoshopped image and claiming it as a documented case is fraud, there I will agree its illegal, but the practice can still be used so as long as you know how to MacGyver your way around the copy writing and legal.

RRRIIGHT. So tell me, what was exactly wrong with the fineprint here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2019162/Julia-Roberts-Christy-Turlington-L-Oreal-adverts-banned-airbrushing.html

[hellouser]

If your point is that both McDonalds (or pretty much any advertising company for that matter) uses photoshop as well, yeah I agree, but nobody ever doubted that. McDonalds adjusts the lighting a bit and cut out some small imperfections in the bread. Nothing wrong with that. They're using the exact same ingredients as in the product you buy in the restaurant and theoretically you could get a hamburger just like that.

What Dr Nigam did, is he presented 'proof' of his method, which was no proof at all. He conducted fraud by simulating hair growth with photoshop, while in reality growth maybe didn't even occur at all. And yes, that IS illegal in most Western countries.

FINE PRINT dude, if you state it as actual results then yes, its illegal. If you state it as 'POSSIBLE RESULTS' then no, you didn't lie. Its all in context. Obviously showing a photoshopped image and claiming it as a documented case is fraud, there I will agree its illegal, but the practice can still be used so as long as you know how to MacGyver your way around the copy writing and legal.