Dragonsphere

I agree. Could the regeneration rate vary between responder? Would a larger session, i.e. 4000 grafts, result in less regeneration? Could Dr B's patient be a hyper responder? However, to be more positive, the following needs to be noted. 1. We don't know if 0.4 is the best dose to use. It was certainly better than 0.3, which in turn was better than lower doses. 2. We don't know if the 18 month results are the peak. 3. Could we keep doing rounds of scar revision for complete donor recovery. Let's say the regeneration rate is 50% and you have a 5000 graft surgery. 2500 grafts are initially regenerated. You then FUE in the remaining scarring which results in 1250 grafts being regenerated and so on and so forth. @Killian experiment will help shed light on the first of these questions. At the end of the day, it's all biology and if you can trick the human body to prevent fibrosis then I don't see why this could not be a surgical cure. It doesn't necessarily have to result in unlimited donor, but what if we could double or triple the donor amount available. The latter of these would essentially mean anyone who is not a diffused Norwood 7 could achieve an aesthetically full head of hair.

Could we infer from this that this is something you are considering if the initial test is successful? If you FUE into existing scaring there is no reason why this would not lead to hair regeneration as shown in Dr Bloxham's revised FUT patient or the man who regenerated follicles in the open wound on his beard. On a separate note, thank you sharing your results with us. There is a long road ahead with Verteporfin and your results will shed much light on the optimal dose for humans.

Something I don't exactly understand, why is he FUE'ing around the scar area? Is it into scarring from previously extracted hair taken via FUE to see if they regrow back?

He used 50mg?! I hope he doesn't grow a foetus on the side of his head.

Do you have a link? I wonder how long after the injection the second pic was?

I wouldn't say the only hope. Don't forget about Dr Bloxham's trial with three patients. Even if no further trials are conducted, another doctor would pick this up eventually. The sooner we have more data, the quicker this will be implemented as standard. Verteporfin also seems to becoming more of a thing with wound recovery checking Realself. Hopefully @DrTBarghouthi can share the photos as it would be another giant leap in the right direction.

Nothing to do with that. There just isn't enough evidence for it to be incorporated. We would probably need at the very minimum 5 cases of it working effectively before doctors start incorporating it. It would be unethical to advertise it when we only have one complete case report for FUE. This is why Dr Barghouthi is not openly advertising it as part of his clinic. As promising as the results are, it would be insane for a doctor to unnecessarily stake their reputation on it. One thing is for sure, once a few doctors start incorporating it into their practice, it will spread very quickly. We just need more results.

Browsing some of the results on this forum, I have noticed that transplants for people who have coarse hair tend to have the illusion of greater coverage. Of course this is obvious, but I am wondering of how much of an advantage is it? I have seen results with patients who have had half the number of grafts from the same surgeon yet achieve superior results than patients who have fine hair. Typically speaking, would patients who have this favourable hair characteristics usually only require half the density to achieve the same result? I myself have very coarse hair and before starting preventative therapy had significant loss in a Norwood 5 pattern. With gel my hair looked essentially empty and yet without it, I received comments on how thick it appeared.

All comparative studies show a greater increase in hair density for Dutasteride than Finasteride. You also need to considered that the donor area although more resistant to DHT is not immune. Many Noorwood 7s thin in the donor area and some do not. Dutasteride would likely prevent this. You can look at your family history to see what is likely going to be the end result for you. The side effect rate is essentially the same for both drugs. Castration reduces all androgens not just DHT. Finasteride will take you levels of DHT to near that of a castrate, Dutasteride far below. However, you will also have a mild but statistically significant increase in Testosterone whereas castration results in a dramatic drop. I think the concerns with oral minoxidil are understandable but if you are a responder, topical should work just as well. I agree with everyone else that your hairline is fine, it wouldn't even class it as mature. I would focus more on reducing the horse shoe pattern at the back. Consider the angle most people will view you from, the front (you have got that taken care of, the sides (your sides have not dropped for now) and the back. Not many people will be viewing you from the angle you have to taken the pics from. Hopefully with Verteporfin, you could wound into the donor scars and regenerate hair. Even if the regeneration rate is as low as 30%, with your remaining donor hair that should be enough to hit the magic 8k number of grafts.

Have you thought about having an SMP to add further to illusion to the density? Because you have hair in the area, it will help to give more of 3D look. You should also look at adding Dutasteride and oral minoxidil. This will help safeguard you against not only MPB but also senile alopecia as you age. The latter is something many people don't take into account. You could also look a chest hair and possibly leg/arm hair hair as filler. Out of curiosity, how many more grafts assuming you had an unlimited supply, would you guess would be required to restore you hair to a point where the hair loss would be ascetically undetectable?

Dr Bargouthi would be able to do this, as confirmed by his previous post advising it was done on someone not participating in the trial. He isn't advertising it, I imagine, as it would be unethical to do so. If you were going to do this, it would be the most sensible option to go with the doctor who has used the medication before and has a reliable source.

Nothing you have posted I disagree with. I am saying people shouldn't drop preventative medication with the expectation this will be a cure. Let's say the regeneration rate is 60%. If you genetically disposed to be diffused Noorwood 7, a 60% regeneration won't turn you into Elvis. The question, as far as I am concerned, has gone from 'Does Verterporfin work?' 'To what is the regeneration rate?' There is also the question of optimal dosing.

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.

People who go to cheap clinic by enlarge don't do their research; they don't take into account the possibility of botched jobs. The average HT patient has no concept of things such a donor density. I have a friend who went to a clinic in Turkey. He had 3000 grafts dense packed which considering he is/was a Noorwood 2.5 in his 20s, is not strategic. He keeps his hair on the sides at a grade 3 and was under the impression that all the transplanted hair grew back in the donor area. This particular example is indicative of the level of understanding the average HT patient has who has not done their due diligence.

I meant in terms of where people will go for their hair transplant. Verteporfin will not impact that but yes, people who have botched procedures will no be screwed up permanently.

People who go to hairmills will still go to hairmills. People who do their research will go to reputable surgeons. Nothing will change even if verteporfin works as well as we all hope. There is far more to a quality hair transplant than donor supply as you have correctly advised. I want a natural age appropriate hairline, with correctly placed graphs. A $1500 dollar package deal would not achieve this, regardless of donor supply. An example of this is plastic surgery, where there is no donor supply. There any many people who will go to dodgy clinics to save money for lets say rhinoplasty. Those who do their research won't and will go to a reputable surgeon with a history of solid results.

Best start investing in that S&P 500!

This. People need to factor in a few things with Dr Bloxham's trial. 1. FUT is far more invasive than FUE. Far more tissue is removed so the body will have to remember more of what needs to be regenerated. I think Bloxham tacitly said this at the the 1st month video when saying his trial was more focused on scar improvement. 2. Dr Bloxham used several different doses on each of his patients. People seem to be comparing the 0.4 dose at 18 months with all of Dr Bloxham's results. 3. We are at the six months mark and seeing hair growing in a REVISED FUT scar. This is absolutely incredible and it cannot be understated how ground breaking this is. What do I expect we will see at 18 months? My money would be a greatly reduced FUT scar with a notable amount of hairs growing through. I think the results will be less impressive due to the reasons I have articulated above but at the end of the day, I think most of our interested in the regeneration aspect of the drug. The reduced scarring is an added bonus. Also take into consideration we don't know if the 18 month mark is the peak result. Maybe Dr Bargouthi's patient will continue to improve, assuming there is not already 100% regeneration. I think we should still have cautious optimism, but every new update makes me think more and more this is going to be the surgical 'cure' for MPB. Does anyone disagree with any of this?

I think it depends on one's situation. If you are a Noorwood 1-2 and looking to maintain, would you have that much interest in Verteporfin? Doctors will be interested when they know it works as it would an incredible money maker. A 2000 FUE with a conservative hairline could turn into a 4000 temple filled Noorwood 1. We just need more results and empirical evidence.

I am not so sure. I imagine the hair density would vary in different parts of the donor zone. This is actually evident when looking at the test subject's pictures. (I am excluding the transplant areas) The most accurate way would be a before and after, which I assume will be done with the upcoming trial. But I agree that it would be interesting to see if there is any improvement from the 18 month result. We don't when full regrowth is achieved; there was a dramatic different between the 12 and 18 month results. Is 18 months truly the peak? This is all very frustrating and exciting at the same time.

Remember that Dr Bloxham used a range of doses.

I am by no means an expert on hair transplantation but isn't 10k now what is expected from FUE? Most surgeons seems to be now harvesting over 50% over the donor area + BHT, means 10K is achievable in the average case. Am I correct?

I think now we can categorically state that Verteporfin does regenerate hair follicles. This question can be safely (and successfully) put to bed. The biggest hurdle was if Verteporfin works. Undisputedly the answer is yes. The question is now what is the regeneration rate, especially with FUE. 1. Can it be improved upon to near 90-100%? (This is assuming that it is not already at this mark) 2. Again, can Verteporfin be used on transplanted hair? If the answer is yes for one of these two questions, then essentially anyone could achieve an aesthetically fully head of hair via surgery.

When finasteride was first being used to prevent hair loss many doctors were tentative to prescribe it due to concerns with potential feminizing effects. As science progresses, so do doctor's opinions.

Honestly? It sounds like hypervigilance. Just think about it logically, how can you market this drug to the general public well at the same time keeping it behind closed doors? If a random surgeon promised you 100% regrowth of transplanted hairs due to undisclosed means, wouldn't you be dubious. If this works and the the results of FUE trial are the norm, then it will become mainstream sooner or later. Dr Bloxham last video was 30 minutes long; it probably took at least an hour to prepare. Lets just be patient and wait. Be calm, patient and reasonable and lets cross our fingers that this is the next major step in hair loss since Propecia.