Dr Nigam, my own experience

[lilpauly]

Lilpauly if you are considering a transplant...than all hope is lost because you have tried every concoction on the planet to save your hair. I will have given up hope.

Transplant is the ONLY way I can have hair again.. Sucks. On top of that, I'd have to go through the embarrassment at work and deal with transplant jokes as a 27 year old. Terrible.

I hate balding. Damn this curse.

It sucks I stop with a hardcore regimen and my hair suffers. Let me tell u the vehicles for Minox is garbage. I'm getting promox, proxiphen is a stable and capillogain has been good to me. When I was just using ru and liogaone my hairline took a beating

[mari0s]

What do we get? A bunch of people doubting him and complaining about safety.

funny thing is when replicel (the only thing we'll see before 2020) will come out, it will need to go a clinic with a lab to use their cell therapy, so i wonder if there will be the same high concern to go an indonesian, chinese, malaysian clinic than go to Nigams

[gc83uk]

Look at the nevus just under the circle on the first image (i've made a red arrow to see itbetter)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64092502/rDTTkCXxxoXr30uMCcOIkdnElCb0tBcIDFWR3fmVRQU.jpg

it could be use easily as a "natural" mark, altough i'm not be sure the position of the same nevus on the second image

Good spot. Are you aware if these 'original high res' versions of the photos have been published online?

I want to be able to verify how many hairs per graft are present in each FU in this red circle. Nigam has already detailed as above, however would be nice to confirm it.

We also need to make sure this area has actually had FU's extracted as the after photo is not the same area (as confirmed by Nigam himself and more recently Tom).

If we can't verify such, then the sample area as a test is dead, regardless of how many months Boldy and co tell us we should wait for

And yes that 2nd photo with the arrow and possible birthmark may well be the same area.

[Arashi]

If we can't verify such, then the sample area as a test is dead, regardless of how many months Boldy and co tell us we should wait for

Not sure how you can ever verify that ? It's impossible. The only reasonable analysis would be to do a hair count of the whole donor area before and after. And this is really impossible in this case, since Nigams shaved AFTER the pre-op pictures were taken, no tattoo's were made and we can't distinguish extractions from implants.

I respect that you're even still looking at it Gaz, it would be great if we could say something useful about all this in the end, but it's simply impossible. Nigams has to get a slick bald NW7 and give him 10k grafts. And of course shave the guy before the pre-op pics. That's THE way to prove his work. But trust my words, this is never going to happen.

[gc83uk]

Not sure how you can ever verify that ? It's impossible. The only reasonable analysis would be to do a hair count of the whole donor area before and after. And this is really impossible in this case, since Nigams shaved AFTER the pre-op pictures were taken, no tattoo's were made and we can't distinguish extractions from implants.

I respect that you're even still looking at it Gaz, it would be great if we could say something useful about all this in the end, but it's simply impossible. Nigams has to get a slick bald NW7 and give him 10k grafts. And of course shave the guy before the pre-op pics. That's THE way to prove his work. But trust my words, this is never going to happen.

You're right, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In fact to the best of my knowledge this has never been done. EVER

Obviously we'll be doing this with my HST next month...

But surely this sample area is a worthy take on whether it works or not. I understand you're extremely skeptical, especially with Nigams track record. However if we have a sample area of 100 grafts which we can clearly see have been wounded multiple times and we can see which grafts (e.g 45 x 2 hair grafts, 30 x 1 hair grafts and 25 x 3 hair grafts) have been extracted and re-implanted then if these 100 grafts (195 hairs) show 100 grafts/195 hairs regrowth then it will be difficult to refute it.

The only possible explanation not to believe it could be that you think Nigam has faked the sample area with bloody spots to make it look like something has happened, obviously then it will appear as 100% regrowth. This is what you're on about right?

Btw you said 'we can't distinguish extractions from implants.'

I thought the part-grafts were implanted back into the extraction points, no?

[FearTheLoss]

You're right, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In fact to the best of my knowledge this has never been done. EVER

Obviously we'll be doing this with my HST next month...

But surely this sample area is a worthy take on whether it works or not. I understand you're extremely skeptical, especially with Nigams track record. However if we have a sample area of 100 grafts which we can clearly see have been wounded multiple times and we can see which grafts (e.g 45 x 2 hair grafts, 30 x 1 hair grafts and 25 x 3 hair grafts) have been extracted and re-implanted then if these 100 grafts (195 hairs) show 100 grafts/195 hairs regrowth then it will be difficult to refute it.

The only possible explanation not to believe it could be that you think Nigam has faked the sample area with bloody spots to make it look like something has happened, obviously then it will appear as 100% regrowth. This is what you're on about right?

Well we will at least know by October what HST regeneration is, what dr mwamba says about donor doubling, what pilofocus is about, histogen update at the conference as well...

[sausage]

What Nigams needs to do is get a NW7 to his clinic and give him 15k grafts.

If he pays me £20,000 to do it, then I'll do it.

[Arashi]

You're right, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In fact to the best of my knowledge this has never been done. EVER

Obviously we'll be doing this with my HST next month...

But surely this sample area is a worthy take on whether it works or not. I understand you're extremely skeptical, especially with Nigams track record. However if we have a sample area of 100 grafts which we can clearly see have been wounded multiple times and we can see which grafts (e.g 45 x 2 hair grafts, 30 x 1 hair grafts and 25 x 3 hair grafts) have been extracted and re-implanted then if these 100 grafts (195 hairs) show 100 grafts/195 hairs regrowth then it will be difficult to refute it.

The only possible explanation not to believe it could be that you think Nigam has faked the sample area with bloody spots to make it look like something has happened, obviously then it will appear as 100% regrowth. This is what you're on about right?

First of all, I would never use a sample area Nigams pointed out, way too suspicious. IF you want to pursue this road, then at least take a different sample area, from a different strip.

Secondly Nigams split the grafts In Vitro. So he ejected the whole graft, split it and implanted both halves back (at least that's how I understood it). So monitoring a donor sample area without knowing what he implanted back there is useless.

[hellouser]

Well we will at least know by October what HST regeneration is, what dr mwamba says about donor doubling, what pilofocus is about, histogen update at the conference as well...

Replicel starting Phase II trials in a few months as well.

We need to make it very, VERY VERY clear that we're going to demand a 2015 release date of both Histogen AND Replicel. I'll go batshit if they dont meet that fvcking deadline. Aderans already failed miserably with their 2014 target and we're 4 months away from that as well... how god damn sad is that? They would have easily had *thousands* of patients lining up on day one and then some on following days and weeks once word spread of a PROPER solution that makes finasteride COMPLETELY obsolete as it should be.

[Arashi]

what dr mwamba says about donor doubling,

My prediction: we'll see a picture of Mwamba shaking hands with Nigams and then ... we'll never hear anything again about it.

[gc83uk]

First of all, I would NEVER use a sample area Nigams pointed out, way too suspicious. IF you want to pursue this road, then at least take a different sample area, from a different strip.

Secondly Nigams split the grafts In Vitro. So he ejected the whole graft, split it and implanted both halves back (at least that's how I understood it). So monitoring the donor without knowing what he implanted back there is useless.

Yea I get all that, but surely he just implants one half in each extraction point of the donor and the other half in the recipient. So if we can see 50 bloody spots on the photo, then we know that half of that graft will regrow (fully apparently) in each of those 50 grafts.

What we won't know of course is whether it was a 1, 2 or 3 hair which has been reimplanted in each of those extraction points. We could take an average figure of course, but hardly ideal.

It was only when I got the the 2nd paragraph of typing the above I got what you meant

[hellouser]

My prediction: we'll see a picture of Mwamba shaking hands with Nigams and then ... we'll never hear anything again about it.

Reach out to Mwamba after.

Is doubling supposed to use any injections of any kind or would it still require FDA trial shit?

[Arashi]

Yea I get all that, but surely he just implants one half in each extraction point of the donor and the other half in the recipient. So if we can see 50 bloody spots on the photo, then we know that half of that graft will regrow (fully apparently) in each of those 50 grafts.

What we won't know of course is whether it was a 1, 2 or 3 hair which has been reimplanted in each of those extraction points. We could take an average figure of course, but hardly ideal.

Hmmm... If your theory is correct, then we should see as many red spots in donor as in recipient, right ? If this were to be true, then we could most probably indeed at least get a rough idea if all this works or not. At least, IF we can even pinpoint the donor area in a few months.

[gc83uk]

Hmmm... If your theory is correct, then we should see as many red spots in donor as in recipient, right ? If this were to be true, then we could most probably indeed at least get a rough idea if all this works or not. At least, IF we can even pinpoint the donor area in a few months.

Exactly!

As Marios pointed out there is a small freckle/birthmark just below the sample area.

Problem is though, how do we know which of the 1, 2 and 3 hair grafts are going back in the donor? Unless of course he does it one-by-one, e.g: Extract using FUE the entire graft disect it or whatever he does in Vitro, and put half of it straight back in the just extracted hole of the donor and the other half straight in the recipient.

Doing it like that would be painfully slow, but if it was like that then the regrowth of the donor should theoretically match up exactly with what was there before, assuming 100% regrowth.

I think it's pretty obvious though, that they make all the extractions and then do the disecting in Vitro and later implant in the donor and recipient, so basically they are all mixed up and none of the original grafts are implanted back to their original extraction points unfortunately.

[Arashi]

I think it's pretty obvious though, that they make all the extractions and then do the disecting in Vitro and later implant in the donor and recipient, so basically they are all mixed up and none of the original grafts are implanted back to their original extraction points unfortunately.

Agreed that he's doing it in batches, not per graft. If we could pinpoint 2 sample area's for each say 100 grafts, on average they should then contain pretty much as many hairs as pre-op (will vary a bit of course but should be roughly the same, if there were 200 hairs preop we'd expect like 180-220 there to be postop).

But man I was just looking at the photo's again. It's really a mess. I wanted to see if it's possible to verify how many extraction points there are in the donor. In which case you'll have to link the split strips (like A1 to A2 to A3) and this is pretty impossible already since the photo's are horrible. I can link A1 to A2 but not to A3. It seems there's just a piece missing. And then recipient, it's impossible to do even a guestimate of the total amount of red dots since a lot of the recipient is missing in the photo's.