Dr Nigams - NSN Donor regeneration!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Arashi
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3888

    Originally posted by hellouser
    Yes its unethical, but its not illegal.
    No. I'm sure this is illegal in the Netherlands and in most Western countries for that matter. You're trying to sell customers a product, by demonstrating it worked, while actually it (most probably) did not work at all. That's not just unethical, it's plain fraud and illegal.

    Comment

    • hellouser
      Senior Member
      • May 2012
      • 4419

      Originally posted by Arashi
      I just watched your video. You really think that styling a hamburger somewhat is exactly the same as photoshopping hair of you 'patients' as a demonstration of your technique, to lure in customers to come to your clinic to have that procedure performed on them ? You don't think this is something TOTALLY different ?
      Is this a rhetorical question?

      Comment

      • Arashi
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2012
        • 3888

        Originally posted by hellouser
        Is this a rhetorical question?
        Well, you claimed they were the same, so no, not a rhetorical question. I really don't see what you're trying to say with that Mc Donalds video. Styling a hamburger somewhat is TOTALLY different than committing fraud with patient photo's.

        Comment

        • hellouser
          Senior Member
          • May 2012
          • 4419

          Originally posted by Arashi
          Well, you claimed they were the same, so no, not a rhetorical question. I really don't see what you're trying to say with that Mc Donalds video. Styling a hamburger somewhat is TOTALLY different than committing fraud with patient photo's.
          Your semantics suck. I said the practice (goal and method) is the same. I never agreed with it for health related issues and made it VERY CLEAR a number of times that I disagree it with it for THIS issue. Obviously for food its a non-issue though there will be people who dislike the practice as well (watch the movie 'Falling Down') but again, its not illegal so as long as you are very careful with wording... VERY careful with wording as anything can be taken out of context and made into a legal case.

          Comment

          • Arashi
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2012
            • 3888

            Originally posted by hellouser
            Your semantics suck. I said the practice (goal and method) is the same.
            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.

            Comment

            • 534623
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2011
              • 1854

              Originally posted by hellouser
              Yes its unethical, but its not illegal. I don't approve of this for health related concerns. Obviously for food no one will care about as its just food, but to give people false impressions or implied empty promises through their website...
              What the hell are you talking here?

              What Arashi is telling you is true - or aren't you aware about this story ...


              What's the "RCC" in Holland - it's, for example, the FDC in the USA.

              In India it's the ASCI for such cases.

              In simple words, what these "doctors" did with Dr. Gho via the RCC, Indian HT doctors could do exactly the same with Dr. Nigam via the ASCI.

              Comment

              • gc83uk
                Senior Member
                • Nov 2011
                • 1339

                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. However what I do believe is, even if NSN has only 50% regeneration, he will have absolutely no scarring.

                Dr Nigam has also said he does not like to use his invivo technique, he much rather uses the invitro, but because NSN was concerned about the scarring he went with the invivo. Nigam told him there will be no scarring with invivo, correct me if I'm wrong?

                However the 15 graft test he did on his staff member is a different story completely. I still don't know what to make of that yet.

                Comment

                • hellouser
                  Senior Member
                  • May 2012
                  • 4419

                  Originally posted by Arashi
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • Arashi
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2012
                    • 3888

                    Originally posted by hellouser
                    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:
                    Pictures of the actress were digitally altered to make her skin appear even more flawless - but the Advertising Standards Authority banned it after complaints it was misleading.

                    Comment

                    • 534623
                      Senior Member
                      • Oct 2011
                      • 1854

                      Originally posted by gc83uk
                      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:

                      So, this thread is all about the misleading claims in this field by doctors, hair loss forum users, patients etc etc about Dr. Gho's HST technique. After so many discussions since a very long time, interviews, videos, patient reports etc etc - and yeah, even after lots of very detailed analyses - all these claims are based on

                      Comment

                      • Arashi
                        Senior Member
                        • Aug 2012
                        • 3888

                        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 ...

                        Comment

                        • hellouser
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2012
                          • 4419

                          Originally posted by Arashi
                          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.

                          Originally posted by Arashi
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • 534623
                            Senior Member
                            • Oct 2011
                            • 1854

                            Originally posted by hellouser

                            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.

                            Comment

                            • Arashi
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2012
                              • 3888

                              Originally posted by hellouser
                              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.

                              Comment

                              • hellouser
                                Senior Member
                                • May 2012
                                • 4419

                                Originally posted by 534623
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...