Verteporfin HAIR REGENERATION HUMAN TRIAL Dr. Barghouthi *OFFICIAL THREAD

[Fox243]

6 minutes ago, sansi said:

Doctor Barghouthi mentioned once that scars usually get smaller. So if you made 0.9mm wound the scar will be 0.7-0.8mm. Scars also are not as deep as wounds, so maybe not going deep will produce better healing. On the other hand if you don't go deep enough and some scar tissue remains, it may block hair regrowth.

Stanford doctors were confident that if you revise old scars, the mechanism of healing would be the same, so if verteporfin can completely heal skin when being injected on fresh wound, it can heal also previously scarred skin.  But there are variables that need to be tested, that's why we also need FUE scars revision trials.

Can you show me the citation where they were confident of the revision of old scars? I don’t remember reading that tbh. 

[sansi]

23 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

Can you show me the citation where they were confident of the revision of old scars? I don’t remember reading that tbh. 

https://radiohealthjournal.org/advances-eliminate-scarring/ - This person lives a long time. Some people have many scars. So this would not only be an injection of Verteporfin when the surgeon is closing the incision at the end of the operation, but now you can say, oh, what about all those other scars that have existed for a long time? So one could imagine lidocaine cream being put on the scar, or injection of lidocaine, come back in about 20 minutes and the surgeon excises the scar under local anesthesia in the office, and then injects Verteporfin and the closure, and then it's closed. So there's many, many, many millions of existing scars that could be revised.

https://doctrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Cleft-Lip-Revision-Drug-Longaker.pdf -Once we have secured FDA approval for Verteporfin in CL/P scar revision, we intend to pursue the use of Verteporfin in adult and pediatric scarring (research already supports this application.)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/health/surgery-scar.html- His imagination soared. He might be able to prevent scars with a few quick injections of verteporfin. And there was no reason to think he couldn’t go even farther. A patient who had a disabling and disfiguring scar could go to a surgeon who could dab the scar with lidocaine to numb the skin, cut open the scar, inject verteporfin around the edges, and close the wound. Would it reheal without the scar?

“That could change their lives,” Dr. Longaker said.

Edited November 12, 2023 by sansi

[sansi]

Hope Dr. Bloxham's updates will confirm this and there will be FUE revision trials. It should be much easier than full FUE, just divide donor area into few parts, try different wounding techniques and inject verteporfin. Even a small trial can be very useful .

Edited November 12, 2023 by sansi

[Square1]

4 hours ago, sansi said:

Hope Dr. Bloxham's updates will confirm this and there will be FUE revision trials. It should be much easier than full FUE, just divide donor area into few parts, try different wounding techniques and inject verteporfin. Even a small trial can be very useful .

Great posts and great investagative spirit! 

I also wonder if transplanted grafts, when moved again, would grow back using verteporfin. If either of these ideas work, people with previous transplants can also enjoy the enhanced / unlimited donor. 

 

[-TheHairUpThere-]

So this first trial essentially showed that maybe more vert=better results?

Because the 0.26 injection looks like it had zero impact on the healing process. The 0.4 definitely looks better. Although hard to tell just how much regrowth there was. But seems that 0.4 should be treated as the new standard. And maybe they could now start experimenting with doses of .5 and up. If more vert caused better healing then maybe it's possible it will also lead to more regrowth. Think it's just about finding the sweet spot at this point.

Even if this only results in zero scarring that's also a victory in itself. But let's be real. We're all hoping for that unlimited donor😂

 

[Fox243]

2 minutes ago, -TheHairUpThere- said:

So this first trial essentially showed that maybe more vert=better results?

Because the 0.26 injection looks like it had zero impact on the healing process. The 0.4 definitely looks better. Although hard to tell just how much regrowth there was. But seems that 0.4 should be treated as the new standard. And maybe they could now start experimenting with doses of .5 and up. If more vert caused better healing then maybe it's possible it will also lead to more regrowth. Think it's just about finding the sweet spot at this point.

Even if this only results in zero scarring that's also a victory in itself. But let's be real. We're all hoping for that unlimited donor😂

 

It's quite strange ngl. We're already above the ideal dosing for pigs and the vert study showed that higher dosages are not as good once ur at the ideal dose. I guess there's some difference in humans and pigs, but I wouldn't expect it to be large.

[Nikoni]

2 hours ago, Fox243 said:

It's quite strange ngl. We're already above the ideal dosing for pigs and the vert study showed that higher dosages are not as good once ur at the ideal dose. I guess there's some difference in humans and pigs, but I wouldn't expect it to be large.

In pigs it was higher concentrations that showed bad results if I am not mistaken. Maybe in high concentration it's very dense to be absorbed, but in high dosage (more verteporfin with same concentration) there wouldn't be this issue.

But it seems 0.4 ml dosage and 2 mg/ml concentration are close to sweet spot. Just few trials and errors  and we are there.

[Fox243]

4 minutes ago, Nikoni said:

In pigs it was higher concentrations that showed bad results if I am not mistaken. Maybe in high concentration it's very dense to be absorbed, but in high dosage (more verteporfin with same concentration) there wouldn't be this issue.

But it seems 0.4 ml dosage and 2 mg/ml concentration are close to sweet spot. Just few trials and errors  and we are there.

Concentration and dosage are basically equivalent. Density shouldn't really matter. All that matters is concentration times dosage which is equal to amount injected.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Fox243

[Nikoni]

1 minute ago, Fox243 said:

Concentration and dosage are equivalent. All that matters is concentration times dosage which is equal to amount injected.

I agree regarding amount, but in higher concentration it is dense (less water), so maybe it doesn't get absorbed as well, that's my point, but of course this is just opinion of non medical person.

[colinrob]

New Dr. Bloxham video just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRP7G_V_jE

The 3 months results still seem promising to me. I hope he's able to take some higher quality pictures of the patients himself later on.

Edited November 13, 2023 by colinrob

[-TheHairUpThere-]

17 minutes ago, colinrob said:

New Dr. Bloxham video just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRP7G_V_jE

The 3 months results still seem promising to me. I hope he's able to take some higher quality pictures of the patients himself later on.

Absolutely insane. There's really thick terminal hairs growing in the middle of the fut scar. Even at the lowest dose. And this is only 3 months. And not just regrowth but the skin itself looks way different. Not shiny and leathery. This is wild. Especially for 3 months. Hopefully it just keeps getting better from here. We may have finally got the cure fellas!

[mr_peanutbutter]

3 hours ago, colinrob said:

New Dr. Bloxham video just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRP7G_V_jE

The 3 months results still seem promising to me. I hope he's able to take some higher quality pictures of the patients himself later on.

holy smoke, its working

 

i wont get an ht in the next year now, i will wait how this develops. thrn i will only get surgery with those who offer this

 

getting revision will be more expensive

 

this being said: if this works i could imagine fut having a big comback? i could imagine applying verteporfin with fut might be easier then fue? or is there no difference?

[Square1]

3 hours ago, -TheHairUpThere- said:

Absolutely insane. There's really thick terminal hairs growing in the middle of the fut scar. Even at the lowest dose. And this is only 3 months. And not just regrowth but the skin itself looks way different. Not shiny and leathery. This is wild. Especially for 3 months. Hopefully it just keeps getting better from here. We may have finally got the cure fellas!

Overall, there seems to be an effect of verteporfin: better looking skin and some regrowth. Given that these changes hold, is it that significant though?

[mr_peanutbutter]

3 hours ago, colinrob said:

New Dr. Bloxham video just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRP7G_V_jE

The 3 months results still seem promising to me. I hope he's able to take some higher quality pictures of the patients himself later on.

how did dr.b result looked after 3 months? maybe wr can use the result to get a guess where this one will be in 9 months…

[Berba11]

42 minutes ago, Square1 said:

Overall, there seems to be an effect of verteporfin: better looking skin and some regrowth. Given that these changes hold, is it that significant though?

I'd have thought that visibly better skin/less scarring in and of itself would be a game changer for several reasons; the ability to wear the back and sides shorter without exposing dot scars or a prominent strip scar; repair patients who might have grafts extracted from areas that won't be covered by hair (hairline raising repairs for eg) etc.

Personally I'd say that's significant enough. But the addition of some extra hair growth - even if only a little bit - ultimately is a bit of a game changer. Even with only minor regrowth in the extracted areas, you're now getting a little bit of extra coverage in the donor so that it will at least look better. Whether or not the regrowth would be significant enough to start talking about "endless donor supplies" is another matter altogether.

[bigmistake]

21 hours ago, Berba11 said:

When you say:

What do you mean exactly? Surely re-punching old dot scars would be pretty easy to do as the scars are quite visible and would act as their own guide/target. And as there's no hair to remove, you could possibly even use a smaller punch than the one originally used to extract the hair, minimising risk to the native donor hair etc.

I'd have thought this would be fairly straight forward to do, and there'd be no shortage of people willing to be a test subject!

Many doctors put beard hair in donor scars, they do so by making slits in the donor area. Maybe an experienced doctor can make slits in the donor scar tissue and inject it with verteporfin.

[Square1]

1 hour ago, Berba11 said:

I'd have thought that visibly better skin/less scarring in and of itself would be a game changer for several reasons; the ability to wear the back and sides shorter without exposing dot scars or a prominent strip scar; repair patients who might have grafts extracted from areas that won't be covered by hair (hairline raising repairs for eg) etc.

Personally I'd say that's significant enough. But the addition of some extra hair growth - even if only a little bit - ultimately is a bit of a game changer. Even with only minor regrowth in the extracted areas, you're now getting a little bit of extra coverage in the donor so that it will at least look better. Whether or not the regrowth would be significant enough to start talking about "endless donor supplies" is another matter altogether.

I can see that as being an advantage. However, given the results dr. Barghouthi showed, I would anticipate slightly more regrowth. It's of course too early to draw conclusions just yet, so we might not put to much weight on this.

[Nikoni]

Looks promising so far.

Fact 1- It works on older scars revision also.
Fact 2- Even if it shedded , there was hair growing from the middle of wound. IMO that means skin selected healing not scarring. Hair doesn't grow from scar tissue.

Results must be getting better from now on. Dr. Barghouthis results also got better with time.
 

[takuma]

On 10/16/2022 at 10:18 AM, DrTBarghouthi said:

Hi guys. Here is the update after 119 days (17 weeks). I continue to see distinct hairs around or within punched areas in the test areas across all doses. I continue to see clearly scarred areas in the control group. It is hard for me to track every single hair that grew before, some are indistinguishable but I am tracking any that seem within a scar and look distinctly shorter or still newer relative to surrounding hairs. I do think the 0.4 and 0.32 doses are best. If we look st zoomed out pics of both we can appreciate a difference in healing and possibly the contribution of new hairs giving better coverage and appearance in the test areas. The 0.24 dose did not heal as well in my opinion- possibly due to either the dose or because of using tumescent within the actual areas. It may have suppressed the mechanism somehow. I will keep up with the follow ups and would hopefully do a biopsy at 6 months. I think I will now need to test new doses within 0.4 and above or increase the concentration. I also need to find a more uniform injecting technique to establish great uniformity in injections. I will also proceed with injections in the recipient area and a linear scar injection. These are all still in the pipeline. 
 

 

 

 

 

Wow! guys i went back and looked at the around four months mark in Dr Bargouthi's study and you can clearly see the white blotches, where there is little to no hair in the verteporfin treated regions, but now compare that to the latest photos, those white bloches are gone and their is hair everywhere..i dont see any white blotches in the verteporfin treated 0.4 area at all.. Also, this could indicate that Dr Bloxham's trials is following a similar progression, Dr Bargouthi did not see a ton of new hairs in the extracted areas at the 4 month mark i believe, so Dr Bloxham seeing even a couple hairs growing directly out of the wound is a good indication that it's working and we will see more new growth as time goes further and also the patient where Dr Bloxham said he's not seeing much difference between the control and the test at 3 month mark may have shed some of the new hairs and they may grow back soon.

 

Has anyone else made a similar observation.

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by takuma

[Fox243]

26 minutes ago, takuma said:

Wow! guys i went back and looked at the around four months mark in Dr Bargouthi's study and you can clearly see the white blotches, where there is little to no hair in the verteporfin treated regions, but now compare that to the latest photos, those white bloches are gone and their is hair everywhere..i dont see any white blotches in the verteporfin treated 0.4 area at all.. Also, this could indicate that Dr Bloxham's trials is following a similar progression, Dr Bargouthi did not see a ton of new hairs in the extracted areas at the 4 month mark i believe, so Dr Bloxham seeing even a couple hairs growing directly out of the wound is a good indication that it's working and we will see more new growth as time goes further and also the patient where Dr Bloxham said he's not seeing much difference between the control and the test at 3 month mark may have shed some of the new hairs and they may grow back soon.

 

Has anyone else made a similar observation.

 

is it though? i feel like dr barghouthi's 4 month looks pretty decent too?

[takuma]

12 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

is it though? i feel like dr barghouthi's 4 month looks pretty decent too?

Okay, that seems like a big difference between the four months post pics that i quoted, maybe it was a shed, or maybe it's the different magnifcation. I'm a little confused now

Edited November 13, 2023 by takuma

[Fox243]

5 minutes ago, takuma said:

Okay, that seems like a big difference between the four months post pics that i quoted, maybe it was a shed, or maybe it's the different magnifcation. I'm a little confused now

Honestly, I'm not sure though. I still am optimistic about the future. Of course, I wish I were seeing faster results, but even for HTs, the results only start becoming apparent at 6 months.

[Square1]

1 hour ago, Fox243 said:

Honestly, I'm not sure though. I still am optimistic about the future. Of course, I wish I were seeing faster results, but even for HTs, the results only start becoming apparent at 6 months.

I guess I feel the same way. But to be fair, dr. Barghouthi´s initial results, despite showing some regrowth and therefore demonstrating that the mechanism could be working, were not cure-level yet. His recent results, after 16 months, are a lot closer to that. These trials could still end up going the same way.

[MrFox]

Really promising results. In both the porcine studies and the previous FUE study, it took some time for remodeling. It's a slower process of healing. I don't think we are going to have concrete results until a year or more. Again I think we need to remember these are the first tests, we still need more refining of dosing and administration. Hopefully, both doctors can source more Verteporfin soon and we can have more concurrent studies. 

[sansi]

Definitely needs more time for regeneration. The guy who had a burn on his cheek showed his 2 year results and it is scarless. We are getting more and more evidence lately that verteporfin is effective. We just need more doctors and trials.