It's unsettling to see persons jump down the throats of doctors who simply choose not to lose their senses over one paper (n=5) published by a surgeon who many in the field believe has a history of embellishing claims. The fact is, there's not yet much evidence at all that in-vivo follicle-multiplication, through transection, works.
Why aren't more doctors "trying" it? Because you don't just try out stuff on patients without laying out a plan for research; and, research takes time, money, effort, and conviction, and it just is not for everyone. MOST clinicians do NOT engage in research — they (the good ones) simply model their practice after the most up-to-date, reliable information available. Yes, I hope Gho's idea works, and I want to see it investigated, but I sure as hell don't feel we've found the magic bullet and that surgeons should abandon what's been proved in favor of something behind which there right now lies very, very little documented support.
Why aren't more doctors "trying" it? Because you don't just try out stuff on patients without laying out a plan for research; and, research takes time, money, effort, and conviction, and it just is not for everyone. MOST clinicians do NOT engage in research — they (the good ones) simply model their practice after the most up-to-date, reliable information available. Yes, I hope Gho's idea works, and I want to see it investigated, but I sure as hell don't feel we've found the magic bullet and that surgeons should abandon what's been proved in favor of something behind which there right now lies very, very little documented support.
Comment