What is Confusing About The Dr Gho Patient Diary on Hair Regeneration?

Dear Dr. Rassman,

you stated in a previous post that the pictures of the Dr. Gho patient is “confusing”. Could you be more elaborate on this topic? Why do you say so? In your previous post concerning Dr. Gho you stated that a follow up video would be nice. Aren’t these photographs followup documentation. It clearly shows regrowth. I used photoshop to lay the before and after images over each other. It is definately the same hair region displaying how the follicles are regrowing from the extraction sites. Why do you still consider this deceptive?


Block Quote

For those that missed it, the original post is here.

Has anyone ever stopped and considered that maybe the regeneration you are seeing is just regular hairs (missed FUEs) growing back? I mean, what about the photos of the recipient site? Did anyone count the number or percentage of transplanted hairs that actually GREW?

If 1000 hairs were harvested, 700 of the transplanted hairs grew in the new location and 300 hairs regrew in the harvested donor area, would you consider this regrowth or hair multiplication or hair stem cell transplantation? Of course not! But you can take pictures of the donor area and show regrowth, and take pictures of the transplanted area and also show growth. The observer could think, “Wow! This is regeneration!” — but the observer would be mistaken. To show regeneration, duplication, cloning, stem cell transplant regeneration, or an outcome that showed splitting of the hairs, you must account for ALL the hairs that were taken out and ALL the hairs that grew back (not just a sample section). Otherwise, it is just hairs that grew back after being plucked.

Basic high school science teaches us about conservation of energy or mass in the universe. Many have tried to invent the perpetual engine or create gold from lead with no success. If Dr. Gho really figured out a way to clone hair, then he will be famous. If you would like to believe in it, that is your prerogative… but simply looking at someone’s diary or posts on the Internet is not a way to validate or document science.

The method and presentation of Dr. Gho’s study has serious issues and it does and (will) confuse many readers. A credible review by a third party should be something that Dr. Gho should want to do, if he is legitimate.

P.S. I understand that you’re very excited for my answer to your question, but sending a dozen emails and blog comments demanding that I answer right away is unnecessary.

Tags: hair multiplication, gho, stem cell, claims

8 thoughts on “What is Confusing About The Dr Gho Patient Diary on Hair Regeneration?

  1. To answer your question, I counted all the recipient hairs. I counted 665 grafts, give or take approx 10 either way. The only way I could do this was by taking high quality macros photos and counting 1 by 1. All the photos are online and anyone can do this.

    As for the donor area, the photos are still online, the area that has been publicy analysed on various forums shown an 85% regrowth rate, anyone is free to do this test themselves and can easily select a different area to what has already been analysed and come to their own conclusions.

    There is no trickery here, it’s all there for people to see/analyse/conclude on their own accord.

    So if the recipient is bringing approx 95% growth and the recipient is bring approx 80-85% donor regrowth, then to answer your question, YES I would definitely call this hair multiplication.

    However I do agree with you that a 3rd party evaluation would only be a good thing for all concerned.

  2. I just want to clarify that I counted 665 out of 700. I was able to do this because I re-shaved the recipient area and because my scalp didn’t have a single hair in this area before the transplant (pre transplant photos show this), it was extremely easy to count ONLY the HST grafts.

  3. Sadly, some people, through a combination of self-delusion and wishful thinking, will continue to see what they want and believe what they want, despite any real supporting evidence.

  4. GC,

    The point is did he extract all the hairs from the donor, and then some of those grew back, while all those hairs grew in the recipient site? Thats the question.

    Otherwise, what hes doing is taking 2 hairs out of a 3 hair follicular unit in your donor, transferring those to the recipient area. That 1 hair grows back in your donor and you are calling it regeneration.

    Thats the question.

  5. From what i’ve investigated, this patient did not have many 3 haired follicles and did not have more than 2000 grafts available as he was told by other clinics.

    Yet this patient will have a 3rd procedure with 1800 grafts + 1400 grafts = 3200 grafts in total.

    The splitting follicle theory sounds plausible, but if the above is true then it must be wrong. Then this doctor must be using some other trickery.

    It will be interesting to see what’s next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *