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.
Dr Nigams - NSN Donor regeneration!
Collapse
X
-
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 ?Comment
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
... 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 onComment
-
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
-
RRRIIGHT. So tell me, what was exactly wrong with the fineprint here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...rbrushing.html
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.Comment
-
"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
-
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.
"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
-
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
Comment