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?
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.