Is Dr. Gho using false photo evidence in a peer-reviewed journal?

[Spanish Dude]

Hello: I have started this discussion at Hairsite, but I would like to bring it here too to compile more points of view. I think its a serious issue.

Dr. Gho has published an article in the "Burns" Journal, regarding his HST method of "hair multiplication". The article was accepted on Sept-2010.

In this article, Dr. Gho shows before and after photos of a patient who underwent the HST technique.
This is a female patient who is a burn victim but has no alopecia, afaik.

These Before and After photos are supposed to prove that the donor area regenerates after extraction of 3858 HST grafts (4 sessions), and thus, Gho can multiply hair.

Suppossedly, both Before and After photos show the same donor area, an area sized 15x5 cm.
People at Hairsite, particularly Iron_Man (aka Hair Robin Hood) and Stevie.Dee (aka Leeroy.Jenkins aka RichardDawkins) were enthusiastic when they saw that 3858 HST grafts (4 sessions) had been extracted from this 15x5cm donor area and resulted in almost no depletion of such donor area. Their conclusion was that Gho can indeed multiply hair, and they started to spread the "news".

But I quickly noticed something strange in these "before" and "after" pics.
When you look closely, you see that in the After photo:
-the shaved hairs grow in different direction compared to the before photo.
-and the bandage fits differently against the head suggesting a different head profile. In the before photo you see a cilindrical profile, while in the after photo you see a conical profile.

My conclusion is that the "before" and "after" photo don't show the same spot at the back of the head.
IMO, the "before" photo shows the lower segment of the back of the head, while the "after" photo shows the upper portion of the back of the head.
The article doesn't mention if the 2 photos represent different parts of the back of the head.
The article simply says vaguely that the donor area is in the occipital side of the scalp. And the article is referring to 4 patients. And the patient on the photo had 4 procedures (3858 grafts in total). It doesn't mention which areas were harvested on each procedure. But it curiously takes extra care in specifying many other secondary details.

Article in the Burns journal:
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloa...nnJBUR3375.pdf

Please, see the attached photos and graphics for a better understanding.

[wolvie1985]

Dear "(C) Spanish Dude Research", please stop inciting laughable conspiracy theories and trumping up resentment and distrust of medical professionals who are trying to help us. Thank you.

[Spanish Dude]

Hi Wolvie1985. I have posted this on Hairsite.

Why there are no WOW patient results?? Lets see Gho's strange answer.

One frequent question asked in the hairloss community is this:
If Gho can really multiply hair, why there are no WOW results amongst his patients? Why no astonishing transformations?
Why all Gho's patients look like regular FUE patients?

Forum member "Wolvie1985" from Canada, talked to Gho's clinic on the phone circa Sept2010.
Wolvie asked this precise question. Lets see what was the answer.
Lets see Wolvie's post at the forum "BTT":

Wolvie1985 (08-Sept-2010, 04:05 AM)
http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=3375
>>>>
I should say that I have spoken personally with three different doctors at HSI, and have spent a total of well over an hour on the phone with them (the long distance charges sucked!).
...
I asked HSI why they don't have photos on their site of NW6s transformed to NW1. They said the technique has only been around for a couple of years, you can only have approx 1500 grafts per procedure, and you have to wait at least 9 months between each one. So there hasn't been time for any drastic transformations yet. They admit their marketing sucks, but have said they really don't feel pressure to prove their naysayers wrong because they're booked through mid-2011 as it is. Clearly they're doing something right.
<<<<

So, according to the doctors at Gho's clinic, the multiplying technique (HST) had been around for just a couple of years, right? The phone conversation was in Sept2010, so according to this, the HST technique would have been born around Sept 2008.

However, in spite of what the HSI doctors said, we can track dr. Gho, claiming "donor regeneration", with high percentages, back from 2005 and before:

1-In a July 2004 interview, Gho says, regarding FM (the old technique, horizontal bisection), that donor regeneration was 50-80&#37;.

2-In Nov 2005, James Bond interviewed Gho about the new HST technique,that was already in use. According to Gho, donor regeneration was above 80% back then.

3-In 2010 Gho said to the Reclame Code Commission, that he had treated 1200 patients (1934 procedures)from 2005 with the HST technique.

4-In 2010, In the Burns Journal, Gho says that the female patient on the before-after photo, had her first HST session in June 2005, 1097 grafts.

So, it seems that Wolvie1985 was not well informed in his phone call. Even though he talked for more than an hour, and talked to 3 different doctors at HSI.