TV_on_LazerDisk

8 hours ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

Please ask Dr Bargouthi if he thinks it will be possible to over-harvest FUEs from the donor region, for instance, extracting 75% of the follicles, with the remaining 25% of follicles being enough to signal to the body that it should grow new follicles - or does Dr Bargouthi think 100% of the follicles can be extracted, and the body still know to grow follicles?

That would make follow up surgeries difficult also I think in a few more years there will be more advanced yap inhibitors, several are in the works so while I am interested to hear the answer to this question, personally I wouldn't want 100 percent harvested initially, I'd be very cautious to do that. Putting all your eggs, err hair in one basket.

On 5/9/2024 at 4:08 PM, Rasputin said:

Verteporfin doesn't regenerate hair at all then since it hasn't been proven yet, that's why we are conducting the trials.

The aim is to find the right dosage to regenerate as much as we can, not only 25%. If we can only do that, then so be it. If it's 5, 10, 20% then it's better than nothing.
 

But why 25%? We have to hope for more. Hoping is not claiming it will. Being positive is not being delusional. If it regenerates hair, then why wouldn't it regenerates all hair? That would be the next step, if we can prove first that it indeed regenerates hair.

And no, as you can see on many comments, many people WOULD chose Zarev / Ahmad if they were cheaper. But they don't because they don't want to pay for this price.

I see people holding off their surgeries because they want to see how far Verteporfin can go. Including me. I had a surgery booked with Dr Pittella which I cancelled JUST because of Verteporfin. I like Dr Pittella's work a lot. But as you can see "people who go to" won't necessary "go to" if Verteporfin is part of the equation. I speak for myself here, OK, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

The next step is also optimization maybe with hgh, certain peptides etc...it can generate more. Certain injuries hgh is prescribed to aid in recovery.

17 minutes ago, Gwazi said:

Okay so if it “didn’t regenerate 100%, not even close” in Barghouthi’s trial, how much did it regenerate? I have never seen another person ever say “oh yeah that looks like only 25% regeneration at most” when looking at this picture lol. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to die on such a weird hill, when it’s pretty obvious that looks like more than 25% regeneration. Probably not 100%, but it looks untouched, unless you want to claim Barghouthi is wrong and it’s not untouched, it’s actually 75% thinner than the surrounding hair.

 

You realize that you are the one that brought up a number in the first place right? Someone was talking about theoretical full donor area regeneration and then you say “well actually it will only regenerate 25% of your hair at most” which is an extremely weird and unfounded claim. 

 

Lastly, you aren’t following my logic that if it can regenerate 25% of your hair, then theoretically it can regenerate all of it? Okay then. Let me try to explain. If verteporfin can regenerate one hair follicle, why wouldn’t it be able to generate the hair follicle right next to it which is pretty much the same? Can you give me a reason in which one hair follicle can regenerate but one can’t that’s right next to it? To me the only reason I can think of is not a strong enough dosage or the procedure needs to be altered in someway. So let’s say we got the dosage and procedure perfect, then theoretically every hair should be able to regenerate. Like is there a big difference between hair follicles in your donor area where half can regenerate and half can’t? I sincerely do not understand why 75% just are unable to regenerate as you claim. It doesn’t make sense to me

 

Sorry if Im coming off as rude, Im not trying to be 

 

Let's just wait for the new studies/trials, to get a better idea. No use guessing especially when we have talented doctors doing studies.

14 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

I agree, the top docs will be even higher and more desirable. The hair mills will still be hair mills and have botched patients. I don’t think that will change. The good mid range surgeons may be able to harvest more grafts, which will be good for those on a budget. But I don’t think Verteporfin will put them on par with the very best.

Also other yap inhibitors are in the works, so someone who gets their a hair transplant with verteporfin might get a surgery later with another even more effective yap inhibitor five years down the line. Personally I don't want to wait five years as a younger guy with aggressive hair loss.

4 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Verteporfin doesn’t guarantee the success of a hair transplant. Hair regeneration has absolutely ZERO bearing on the actual outcome of the procedure. 

You could go to a hair mill for cheap, get 8,000 grafts and only have 2,000 grow, and the grafts that grow could be misangled and multiples. The donor regeneration would mean nothing. 

I think we’re getting way too carried away making claims that Verteporfin will be some sort of fail-proof drug. It is not and will not be fail-proof. If, and I mean IF it works it will be a great tool for the top surgeons to use, as they’re already achieving excellent results, so regenerating donor hair will make it even better.

But Verteporfin will not change the industry in terms of top tier surgeons. The top tier become even more desirable, and the people who go to hair mills now, will continue to go to hair mills, none of that will change. There will still be botched patients and plenty of repairs. The only thing that could possibly change is at least their donors won’t be completely exhausted. 

One of the biggest changes I imagine is also follow up surgeries and mega sessions will be easier and more flexible if you know some amount of the donor will grow back. You can harvest more and if anything that takes more skill for advanced cases to look natural. If anything top surgeons will be even more valuable. 

The surgeons on board to test verteporfin now are top guys and I think they understand the potential.

With all cosmetic surgery good surgery is often more subtle and looks natural that's the key. 

2 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

He is not going to do it, he’s already said this multiple times. If you choose surgery with him, he will perform his technique, but will not be a part of any clinical trial or experimental treatment. He’s said this now ad nauseam. 

I get that I mean when it's more accepted.

Personally I'll only go to a doctor who does vert but I want to wait around a year to the technique is more finished. So hopefully around then we'll see. 

17 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

It makes more sense to approach surgeons that are interested. He is not, so pestering him is not a good idea. 

I mean at the point where it's something patients request as part of their hair transplant.

19 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Yes, I think this topic of getting Zarev to use it is useless. He has ZERO interest. 

After we have some proven success it would make more sense. I'm waiting to get a hair transplant for the results of vert, and I think if it's successfully advanced cases and guys with weak donars will care allot

On 5/4/2024 at 11:06 PM, Rick Jackson said:

Any chance of getting Dr Zarev to try verteporfin.  His tool he uses for removing the donor follicles leaves the smallest wound I have ever seen.  If he added verteporfin to the donor area to get donor regrowth it would be a cure .

I think asking him after the the trials are done would be better

19 hours ago, Dragonsphere said:

This x100. 

When hair miniaturises it doesn't truly die until many years later(sometimes never). Rather the hairs go to sleep. This is why if you use a microscope on a bald head you will see many small white vellus hairs. Or when people who are undergoing gender transition take estrogen, terminal hairs grows that was lost many years ago. 

For regeneration you would need to remove these hairs entirely via punch method for new follicles to grow. Doing this all in one go would probably require a blood transfusion! 

And before someone says 'We could just FUE the bald area in multiple sittings',.. Then why not just take it from the donor area and move on with your life! 

Another thing to consider is scarring. We can only speculate as to how much scarring there would be from this procedure as we haven't conducted enough trials but if there is any and with multiple procedures/touch ups, (which will inevitable happen if people choose to mass wound into the bald areas) will create a layering effect with progressively more damaged to recipient zone over time.  

This is why with FUTs people tend to only do 2 maximum 3 strips as the scars worsens each time. Even Dr Bloxham one of the biggest proponents of FUT acknowledges this. 

It is harder to grow hair in scar tissue, so eventually you would end up with a situation where even if we could achieved 100% regeneration you will have damaged the recipient area over time to such an extent you wont even be able to implant any hair into it. 

Zarevs punch method might work for this 

On 4/1/2024 at 7:50 PM, TV_on_LazerDisk said:

Off topic but what do you think of the injecting of Dermal Papilla cells as preventure for future hair loss

I was asking because it would mean if it worked

1 that combined with verteporfin could be used for maintenance

2 if verteporfin grew new hair follicles on balding spots due to being dht sensitive they might have shortened lives so this would allow those to be maintained

I could imagine you do a ht, get deep microwounding or extraction of dormant hair follicles for increased density and derma papilla for maintenance 

Verteporfin plus dermal papilla would be the cure

6 hours ago, Dragonsphere said:

Hamilton's example is just the most popular one that people refer to. In every instance, the introduction of androgens will cause people to reach there genetic pattern within a matter of months. I am not going to list every example but you can Google it.  This is a fact and is indisputable. To give a final example, look at the below graph, the group who were on Propecia for the first year and switched to placebo lost hair at a far faster rate than those who were on placebo to begin with. 

This is why those of us on DHT inhibitors are in such a precarious situation. 

Verteporfin would cause the follicles outside the donor zone to regenerate to how they were, i.e., susceptible to male pattern baldness. 

I am not saying that it wouldn't work, what I am saying is by the very definition it would not be a cure! It would require one to take prevention medication for the rest of their life. 

Most men who have hair transplants don't take Propecia, most men on Propecia would obviously prefer not to be on it. I, myself, take Dutasteride and am concerned regarding the long term effects of the drug. 

If we can regenerate donor hair, all it would take is 1-3 dense pack procedures and one would never have to worry about hair loss again. No Propecia, Dutasteride, Minoxidil, lllt, etc. This is what we could consider a cure to be. 

In regards to MPB being a 'terrible, cruel disease,' that just suggests mental instability. 

 

Off topic but what do you think of the injecting of Dermal Papilla cells as preventure for future hair loss

5 hours ago, Worker1212 said:

Agreed, tbh I'd love to volunteer as a patient if I was a little older and had the finances to travel haha

I think if we were more supportive it would make a difference too. Like you said he did a biopsy and ordered the device. 

Let's focus on the positives and get back to trying to raise awareness, bring doctors on board and positively engage in support of this. 

I know it's something we can do. 

1 hour ago, Killian said:

FYI, from a word document I keep: 

22Jul2023

Verteporfin 50mg x2 in refrigeration, exp: Jul2024

 

Concerns prior to injection.   

1) Effect of blocking YAP in area of severe tension (post-strip period in repeat strip cases which will last for weeks/months) as seen throughout stage one and two of the healing process AND and early remodelling. Injecting visudyne will theoretically prevent/augment the formation of fibrotic tissue/reorganisation of ECM. Fibroblastic phase lasts till week 5 post-op under normal healing circumstances and results in formation of scaffold and skin repair by contraction. Will inhibiting this in an area of tension increase propensity for stretching further down the line I wonder? no scaffold or contraction will occur when area is being pulled apart by forces of tension. Tension will be greater in repeat FUT cases and increased further depending on factors such as strip removal against collagen directionality (opposing poles of the strip especially) and strip height owing to a longer period of tension. I suspect stretching and great caution should be applied.

 

2) Effect on homeostasis vs proliferative. YAP activation enacts a reversible pro-proliferative transcriptional proma in keratinocytes and dermal cells that results in accelerated re-epithelialization of the wound bed. Verteporfin is a YAP inhibitor. Epithelialization occurs in proliferative phase allowing cells to migrate and repair the wound. Effect of blocking this??

 

3) Remodelling begins once myofibroblasts begin contraction. Myofibroblasts increase expression of actin stress fibers and integrins, in order to produce the contraction needed to realign collagen. Reduce size of wound and secrete ECM proteins. Blockfing fibroblasts will prevent this, what will be the outcome in, again, an area of tension? 

 

4) Any chemical interaction between tumescence and Visudyne. Unlikely - no

 

5) Hair length essential to cover/reduce light exposure - time taken to inject and scope of area to be treated considering light. 

 

6) Effect of prolonged tension timeline to collagen basket weave structure formation period? 

 

No one fits all protocol may be possible, too many factors in FUT technique and case dependency to consider. Tension timeline will be variable. FUT leaves an atypical healing environment encompassed in tension. A more superficial scar removal later on in the remodelling phase may be safer when scalp laxity has returned and the approximated scalp has healed and is held together by the a deeper scar layer of collagen bundles closer to the galea – must wait till 8 months post op to be safe, ~80% tensile strength return by M6. Virgin FUT patients will have a quicker return to "normal" scalp laxity but repeat FUT patients will have increased tension over a much longer time period and this should be taken into consideration when blocking YAP in the early stages of wound repair.  Leaving bridges of scar tissue present in repeat cases to "hold together" and reduce propensity for tension associated risks - shorter and thinner width FUTs may be safer in repeat cases. Should another full strip be possible bridges of scar tissue are essential, I suspect the risk outweighs the benefit to have a full strip in a repeat case without these bridges.

 

 

16Feb2024.  

No full strip performed. FUE ~260 in donor.

 

The previous strip donor scar was treated with two techniques: punch-out technique and excision with epithelialisation. Verteporfin was then injected to the dermis. The verteporfin was injected to the upper and lower edges of the incision, then closed in two layers; subcutaneous with absorbable stitches 4-0 vicryl followed by upper layer with 5-0 prolene. Additionally, FUE was performed in the occipital donor area with 0.7mm punch and this was treated also with 50mg verteporfin. The treated area was carried out by injecting every 2cm, while at a 45 degree angle to the dermis.

 

Note: off OM for two weeks to prevent graft pop-out rate from minoxidil API. Commenced 2.5mg this evening and 2.5mg 3X (half life ~4hrs) daily for two weeks going forward to increase growth factor influx from vasodilation, thus expedite the healing timeline and increase graft exposure to hemoglobin/ EGF, TGF-alpha, PDGF, TGF-beta, IGF-I, IGF-II. Grafts will connect to blood supply by 72 and fibrin secreted by day 13/14 for full anchorage – out of the Wds, back to normal as usual by then. 

 

Day 1 (17Feb2024):  

 

No post-operative redness around incision line – atypical.

No inflammatory exudate from FUE extraction in normal tissue – highly atypical. Some form of augmentation in hemostasis has occurred I suspect.

 

Day 2:

 

Same observations, untouched look. No pain. Zero exudate on pillow even though slept on back for a full night.

 

Day 3:

untouched look. No pain

 

Day 4:

No formation of scabbing on the incision line. Interesting, usually along the incision line I can see the clotting/forming temporary scabbing. Change to epithelialisation? Slightly Itchy donor localised to the area treated.

 

Day5 – day 14;

Extremely itchy donor, untouched look, no redness. No effluvium of donor.

 

Day21 – entering remodelling phase. Nothing of note.

 

Day22-28:

 

No effluvium of donor, should have happened by now.

Signs of mixed matrix with erythema around incision – capillary dilation/inflammation induced by angiogenesis suggesting scar tissue will be laid down here. Other areas retain normal tissue colour and appear more akin to normal skin appendages – too early to conclude.  I think there will be scarring warranting a second round later this year. Signs of less effect visible in areas of tension and visa-versa. It looks like as suspected tension is a risk factor and the verteporfin not effective here (or as effective). More time to conclude required, will know for sure by M5. Need to punch out areas we didn’t get and I think the right side will be able to be buzzed after. The left side will be problematic due to tension – may need to switch to punch out technique I suspect. Notable improvement of whole area with no.2 haircut and no visible signs at this length. Day25 - the left side I suspect has minor effluvium or stretching in the last week or combination of both. Pain noted here. I lean more to scar matrix than effluvium. Re-evaluate at M2.

 

 

I've mentioned before the use of hgh to expedite healing this is possible with a prescription in most countries 

4 minutes ago, Square1 said:

His first experiment meant that, if completely legit, the (functional) cure for balding is just around the corner. Why he isn't following up is unclear to me. The reasons he gave were not very convincing to an outsider and came across to me as excuses. 

It could be the case the there are just things he can better avoid talking about in public, but really plans on continuing once these issues are resolved. Also, there are no logical reasons for dishonesty that are known to me. He is not making money on it whatsoever.

He could be busy, but I would doubt that. The experiment involves him doing his normal job with just an extra step. 

Sadly, the possibility of some misleading but unintentional mistakes can not be ignored. I don't think this is the case, as there are no logical reasons for it, but who knows. Anyways, it would be crucial going forward what the reason of this delay is. 

 

 

 

I think it's best we wait and move on, not make negative speculations. As there is no logical reason for dishonesty. We let stress get the best of us. 

2 hours ago, Nikoni said:

Dear @DrTBarghouthi you rightly don't want to share the date of trials.

But Can you please mention the month of the trials so we don't check this forum many times daily for possible updates ?

Yeah that would be perfect I was on a date with a girl and I literally checked this forum during my date haha. 

3 hours ago, Dragonsphere said:

I understand your point of view. The last potential cure I remember was something by Shiseido which was nearly a decade ago. I have zoned out since. 

What differentiates Verteporfin is that we have actually seen results in animals with skin closely resembling humans and in actual humans themselves. 

Not to mention it is already FDA approved, so we know it works in some capacity.

What was the last failure that even came close to this?
If hair loss is not having a profound effect on one's mental health, maybe wait 1.5 years? 

By then we will have the results from all three of Bloxham's patients, Dr Bargouthi's next trial and maybe some midway results from other doctors. 

What we should be discouraging is people thinking they should cease hair loss medication or get aggressive surgeries due to Verteporfin's potential. 

I wouldn't want to use the current hairloss medication for various reasons. 

If the results from vert come through I'd get a hair transplant but really only if regenerative donor sites are an option. I have a shaved head and it hasn't hurt me dating wise, but I miss my full head of hair (even if you looked good with a shaved head, in a suit or a tux you feel silly, I can't explain it). 

I'm too lazy to use a hair system, any of those sorts of things and a hair transplant without vert and not taking hairloss medication seems silly. 

Vert seems to have good regenerative abilities, from the results around the web. 

29 minutes ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

I'm reading nanoparticle studies saying Verteporfin doesn't work all that well for wound healing and needs a little help, so could it POSSIBLY be that Stanford photoshopped their results a little and Bargouthi did the same?

Does anyone know any science integrity consultants who can perform image forensics?

 

 

I think we are being a bit overly skeptical. There is no evidence the results were photoshopped. He has taken his time and effort to help us and making this sorts of accusations is being very unappreciative. 

14 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You’re missing one big thing, a lot of those guys are delusional, and want some type of chemical that will turn them from Norwood to 7 just applying daily, which I don’t think (mostly due to regulations like fda). Were at least somewhat less delusional and know that the cure might be something expensive like 5-10 hair transplants over and over. Sounds terrible and only the top 2-5% of earners can afford it, but to me it’s better than having no alternative.

I mean that would mean perpetual recovery time, that many HTs. 

You'd never get to enjoy your new hair haha

11 hours ago, MrFox said:

Will there be wounding in the balding area? Similar to recipient-size wounds? 

https://srginstruments.com/introduction/

Someone on the vert group mentioned this @DrTBarghouthi

We assumed Dr Bloxhams study being late was due to negative reasons and it wasn't. 

Dr. Bargouthi runs a clinic on top of doing this study and has been polite to us. We owe him the same. 

I feel like I'm waiting for Santa Claus 

1 hour ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

Verteporfin has the potential to eradicate linear scars, and yet no face lift surgeons are testing it - strange. 

Eyelid lifts often leave a noticeable linear scar, and yet no surgeon has attempted a Verteporfin eyelift yet?

And what about Verteporfin in breast reduction scars (which are extensive), or Verteporfin with breast augmentation scars?

All I am seeing is a few acne scar surgeons talking Verteporfin up (but not showing anything). 

Yep, also allot of facial implant scars can be in places with facial hair. 

8 minutes ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

I'm seeing lots of white hairless spots in these 5 months post-op photos of Dr Bargouthi's FUE verteporfin test (and that's at the most effective dose), which are not seen in the end photos another 10 months later, so to me it looks like FUTs are going to be scarless too - but who would want a Verteporfin FUT with all the scalp tightness and numbness  if Verteporfin FUE's are limitless?

Yeah that's my question too. Bloxhams study though is probably incredibly helpful for scar reduction/prevention in other procedures. 

1 hour ago, Melvin- Admin said:

To be honest, it doesn't look too impressive. I'm going to speculate, so this is just a theory. Verteporfin could be less effective when harvesting a large piece of tissue like a strip. That said, it seems consistent with what we saw in the pig study. It may make more sense to apply Verteporfin with FUE, as the tiny extractions allow Verteporfin to do a better job inhibiting the engrailed-1 pathway. Of course, I'm not a scientist, but that's the only thing I can speculate on.

It was impressive from a scar reduction stand point