Verteporfin HAIR REGENERATION HUMAN TRIAL Dr. Barghouthi *OFFICIAL THREAD

[Rasputin]

I will probably repeat myself but Verteporfin, if proven to work as a donor regenerative drug, is kind of a threat for top tier surgeons.

Why wouldn't it be? Some surgeon are far ahead others in their technique, planning, use of grafts, donor harvesting, and can use 4000 grafts much better than some do with 8000 grafts.

More and more people know that, thanks to Youtube, internet, forums etc

But if Verteporfin is proven to regenerate hair, many people wouldn't give a f*** about surgeon reputation, which usually comes with high fees, and would go even more to, for exemple, Turkish clinics (which for some are good don't get me wrong) knowing that graft survival isn't so much of an issue as it was before.

Let's say Dr Zarev and his technique leaves virtually no scar at 9 euros per graft but (and that's just an imaginary exemple) HLC in Ankara use Verteporfin and regenerate your donor for 3 euros per graft.

Now, what would you chose?

 

Edited May 9 by Rasputin

[Rasputin]

Comment removed.

Edited May 9 by Rasputin

[Rasputin]

To go back to the actual trial, I read somewhere that there is a dermatology clinic in Greece that use Verteporfin already. If anyone has heard about it and know the name, I'll be interested to give it a try.

Edited May 9 by Rasputin
More details

[Melvin- Admin]

3 hours ago, Rasputin said:

I will probably repeat myself but Verteporfin, if proven to work as a donor regenerative drug, is kind of a threat for top tier surgeons.

Why wouldn't it be? Some surgeon are far ahead others in their technique, planning, use of grafts, donor harvesting, and can use 4000 grafts much better than some do with 8000 grafts.

More and more people know that, thanks to Youtube, internet, forums etc

But if Verteporfin is proven to regenerate hair, many people wouldn't give a f*** about surgeon reputation, which usually comes with high fees, and would go even more to, for exemple, Turkish clinics (which for some are good don't get me wrong) knowing that graft survival isn't so much of an issue as it was before.

Let's say Dr Zarev and his technique leaves virtually no scar at 9 euros per graft but (and that's just an imaginary exemple) HLC in Ankara use Verteporfin and regenerate your donor for 3 euros per graft.

Now, what would you chose?

 

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. 

[Rasputin]

2 minutes 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. 

Definitely not what I meant.

Some "hair mills" in Turkey or elsewhere, whether we like it or not, have also good results.

I took the exemple of HLC, which I don't consider a hair mill, because of the price which is quite low (although a bit more than other Turkish clinic maybe)

They might have bad results but also a lot of convicing ones, with natural hairlines, temple points etc

If they start using Verteporfin, many people with low budget will not think twice, obviously IF the drug shows close to 100% regeneration.

My comment was hypothesis, we are not here.

But IF it worked this way, with no side effects, then for sure people will chose the cheapest option.
There is even a new thread in the forum with a guy doing so, while Verteporfin is still in the early trials. Imagine if it becomes what it promised to be.

I NEVER said Verteporfin has a role in the actual outcome of the procedure, but has a role in the psychological aspect of "only one donor, waste it and you're done"

[Rasputin]

Also, as I've stated in the past, at least on my side, Verteporfin would be a breakthrough only if it regenerates hair.

Sure, it's great as well if it improves scarring, but it has been shown and proven with studies that FUE / BHT into FUT or FUE scars improves the appearance of it, and even makes the skin starts becoming more like a normal tissue, as before.

Edited May 9 by Rasputin

[Melvin- Admin]

1 minute ago, Rasputin said:

Definitely not what I meant.

Some "hair mills" in Turkey or elsewhere, whether we like it or not, have also good results.

I took the exemple of HLC, which I don't consider a hair mill, because of the price which is quite low (although a bit more than other Turkish clinic maybe)

They might have bad results but also a lot of convicing ones, with natural hairlines, temple points etc

If they start using Verteporfin, many people with low budget will not think twice, obviously IF the drug shows close to 100% regeneration.

My comment was hypothesis, we are not here.

But IF it worked this way, with no side effects, then for sure people will chose the cheapest option.
There is even a new thread in the forum with a guy doing so, while Verteporfin is still in the early trials. Imagine if it becomes what it promised to be.

I NEVER said Verteporfin has a role in the actual outcome of the procedure, but has a role in the psychological aspect of "only one donor, waste it and you're done"

The patients that choose HLC will choose them, and the patients that choose Zarev will choose him. That doesn’t change. Verteporfin will not somehow make their results on par with Zarev. Verteporfin will not change the outcome of the results.

Verteporfin does not regenerate all hair, at best it regenerates maybe 25%. This 25% will make the most difference at the top tier level with surgeons like Pittella and Zarev who already achieve high numbers with success. It won’t somehow get mid clinics on par with top clinics. 

[Rasputin]

1 minute ago, Melvin- Admin said:

The patients that choose HLC will choose them, and the patients that choose Zarev will choose him. That doesn’t change. Verteporfin will not somehow make their results on par with Zarev. Verteporfin will not change the outcome of the results.

Verteporfin does not regenerate all hair, at best it regenerates maybe 25%. This 25% will make the most difference at the top tier level with surgeons like Pittella and Zarev who already achieve high numbers with success. It won’t somehow get mid clinics on par with top clinics. 

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.

[Rasputin]

18 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

The patients that choose HLC will choose them, and the patients that choose Zarev will choose him. That doesn’t change. Verteporfin will not somehow make their results on par with Zarev. Verteporfin will not change the outcome of the results.

Verteporfin does not regenerate all hair, at best it regenerates maybe 25%. This 25% will make the most difference at the top tier level with surgeons like Pittella and Zarev who already achieve high numbers with success. It won’t somehow get mid clinics on par with top clinics. 

But I agree on the fact that it won't change anything about the work itself. The hairline, the temple point, the angulation etc

But then again, Dr Ahmad (Fuegenix) has some of the best / natural hairlines I have seen. What is the price per graft though? Many people won't pay that.

Look at Floyd Mayweather hairline. I think it's quite good. He went to Hair of Istanbul.

Same goes for Conor McGregor. Many criticized his result in the beginning and now it looks quite natural.

Edited May 9 by Rasputin

[Dragonsphere]

1 hour ago, Melvin- Admin said:

The patients that choose HLC will choose them, and the patients that choose Zarev will choose him. That doesn’t change. Verteporfin will not somehow make their results on par with Zarev. Verteporfin will not change the outcome of the results.

Verteporfin does not regenerate all hair, at best it regenerates maybe 25%. This 25% will make the most difference at the top tier level with surgeons like Pittella and Zarev who already achieve high numbers with success. It won’t somehow get mid clinics on par with top clinics. 

I agree with the first part of what you said. 

I stabilised my hair loss at a Noorwood 3 via medication and only needed a minor surgery but still choose a wildly respected clinic. Unlimited donor hair wouldn't have change this, it would have made me more aggressive in my plan with more grafts and a lower hairline. 

There are so many other variables to consider. 

Hair transplantation is an art and regardless of donor supply one can have awful results. Even if these can be lasered off, imagine the mental taxation this would have. A natural hairline that frames the face is not wholly dependent of donor supply but rather the skill of the surgeon. People have literally died from hair transplants, others have developed life altering diseases, other have had scarring that would prevent future surgeries possible and there are those who just simply have unnatural looking results.   

Look at other cosmetic surgeries such a rhinoplasty or breast augmentation where donor supply is not a factor. There are those who go to budget clinics and there are those who do their research and will go to reputable surgeons with a proven track record. 

But in regards to Verteporfin at best only regenerating 25%, isn't that somewhat pessimistic? Dr Barghouthi said himself that the 0.4T looked untouched. If it was only 25% regenerated, I think it would be visually evident. There are also other things to consider like wounding into FUE scars which if works, would result in a unlimited donor supply, even if the regeneration rate is 25%.

Edited May 9 by Dragonsphere

[Melvin- Admin]

1 hour ago, 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.

Based on what we’ve seen from Bloxham and Barghouthi, it looks around 25% even less from Bloxham. It’s nowhere near 100%. 

Holding off your surgery is plain foolish IMO. I get being optimistic, but I believe the hype has gone WAY too far if you’re holding off surgery. 

[Melvin- Admin]

21 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

I agree with the first part of what you said. 

I stabilised my hair loss at a Noorwood 3 via medication and only needed a minor surgery but still choose a wildly respected clinic. Unlimited donor hair wouldn't have change this, it would have made me more aggressive in my plan with more grafts and a lower hairline. 

There are so many other variables to consider. 

Hair transplantation is an art and regardless of donor supply one can have awful results. Even if these can be lasered off, imagine the mental taxation this would have. A natural hairline that frames the face is not wholly dependent of donor supply but rather the skill of the surgeon. People have literally died from hair transplants, others have developed life altering diseases, other have had scarring that would prevent future surgeries possible and there are those who just simply have unnatural looking results.   

Look at other cosmetic surgeries such a rhinoplasty or breast augmentation where donor supply is not a factor. There are those who go to budget clinics and there are those who do their research and will go to reputable surgeons with a proving track record. 

But in regards to Verteporfin at best only regenerating 25%, isn't that somewhat pessimistic? Dr Barghouthi said himself that the 0.4T looked untouched. If it was only 25% regenerated, I think it would be visually evident. There are also other things to consider like wounding into FUE scars which if works, would result in a unlimited donor supply, even if the regeneration rate is 25%.

Based on photos, which is a poor metric. It shows clear signs or harvesting in the after photo. It appears by photos to be around 25% if I had to guess. 

I’m not being pessimistic, I’m being realistic. Im afraid we’re getting way too carried away. People believing they can go to a hair mill and do their own experiment is dangerous, and downright foolish. 

Verteporfin is far from proven. It’s promising, but we need way better study designs with a better metric of monitoring the results. Something like an AI that will calculate the number of grafts before harvesting and after harvesting with quantitive data. Until then, it’s a promising novel treatment, but largely unproven. 

[Dragonsphere]

36 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Based on photos, which is a poor metric. It shows clear signs or harvesting in the after photo. It appears by photos to be around 25% if I had to guess. 

I’m not being pessimistic, I’m being realistic. Im afraid we’re getting way too carried away. People believing they can go to a hair mill and do their own experiment is dangerous, and downright foolish. 

Verteporfin is far from proven. It’s promising, but we need way better study designs with a better metric of monitoring the results. Something like an AI that will calculate the number of grafts before harvesting and after harvesting with quantitive data. Until then, it’s a promising novel treatment, but largely unproven. 

The photo is open to interpretation but to me, it looks the same as the surrounding area that was not operated on. I believe this is also the opinion of Dr Barghouthi when he published the final result. If people are under the impression that if you go for a mega 8,000 graft session and expect full donor recovery, that it wishful thinking. 

I am more interested in the drugs ability with revision. 

You have had 10K+ grafts extracted, if we wounded the resulting scars and injected Verteporfin and 20% grew back, i.e. 2000 grafts. You then do a further round which would result in another 1600 growing back. 

I think this is a highly plausible scenario and we also have some evidence that it does work on old scar tissue. 

Laborious, time consuming and expensive yes, but still an unlimited supply. 

I absolutely agree with you in regards to hairmills. 

Edited May 9 by Dragonsphere

[Square1]

3 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

The photo is open to interpretation but to me, it looks the same as the surrounding area that was not operated on. I believe this is also the opinion of Dr Barghouthi when he published the final result. If people are under the impression that if you go for a mega 8,000 graft session and expect full donor recovery, that it wishful thinking. 

I am more interested in the drugs ability with revision. 

You have had 10K+ grafts extracted, if we opened those wounds and injected Verteporfin and 20% grow back, i.e. 2000 grafts. You then do a further round which would result in another 1600 growing back. 

I think this is a highly plausible scenario and we also have some evidence that it does work on old scar tissue. 

Laborious, time consuming and expensive yes, but still an unlimited supply. 

I absolutely agree with you in regards to hairmills. 

So the idea here if you revise an old scar with vp, there is a 20% chance it grows back and that you can try indefinately and still have that 20% chance every time for the same scar? Like some kind of lottery?

It would make sense to me that, if verteporfin is actually able to regenerate hair, more variables are involved in whether it does or not. If 25% regens, that means that for those 25% those other factors were in place. It would be interesting to investigate whether we can influence those factors to have a moe grafts spawn again. 

 

[Dragonsphere]

2 hours ago, Square1 said:

So the idea here if you revise an old scar with vp, there is a 20% chance it grows back and that you can try indefinately and still have that 20% chance every time for the same scar? Like some kind of lottery?

It would make sense to me that, if verteporfin is actually able to regenerate hair, more variables are involved in whether it does or not. If 25% regens, that means that for those 25% those other factors were in place. It would be interesting to investigate whether we can influence those factors to have a moe grafts spawn again.

I want to stress that I am just theorizing and we don't have all the variables yet. 

Look at page 8 with the gentleman who had Verteporfin injected into a year old beard wound after it was excised. Hair clearly grew back. 

Look at the Dr Bloxham's latest results. The most promising of his patients is the one who had an FUT revised surgery. If hair can grow back with a revised FUT scar, is it that much of a stretch to assume the same with FUE?

The 20% figure was plucked at random. We don't know what the regeneration rate is but if we can do further rounds into areas that did not successfully regenerate during an initial FUE procedure treated with VT and the regeneration rate is consistent, that would result in unlimited donor hair. 

Edited May 9 by Dragonsphere

[Square1]

24 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

I want to stress that I am just theorizing and we don't have all the variables yet. 

Look at page 8 with the gentleman who had Verteporfin injected into a year old beard wound after it was excised. Hair clearly grew back. 

Look at the Dr Bloxhams latest results. The most promising of his patients is the one who had an FUT revised surgery. If hair can grow back with a revised FUT scar, is it that much of a stretch to assume the same with FUE?

The 20% figure was plucked at random. We don't know what the regeneration rate is but if we can do further rounds into areas that did not successfully regenerate during an initial FUE procedure treated with VT and the regeneration rate is consistent, that would result in unlimited donor hair. 

I understand the idea or revising old scars. 

The theory you suggested implied to me that if you have scars from an older procedure and revise them, you could come back later and re-revise the older scars that did not generate new hair after the first revision with the same amount of regenerative potential. 

If that would turn out to be the case, yes that would mean a functional cure. 

[Nikoni]

Dr. Barghouthis 0.4 dose result was very promising and looked without gaps as surrounding areas, I bet hair regeneration was much higher than 25%.

But there top surgeons , mediocre surgeons and ones who will botch you in any type of surgery where there is no such thing as limited donor. And people pay extra to go to top surgeons. Verteporfin won't change that in hair restoration, top will remain top, only the cost of mistake will be more forgiving. 

[TV_on_LazerDisk]

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. 

[Dragonsphere]

2 hours ago, Square1 said:

I understand the idea or revising old scars. 

The theory you suggested implied to me that if you have scars from an older procedure and revise them, you could come back later and re-revise the older scars that did not generate new hair after the first revision with the same amount of regenerative potential. 

If that would turn out to be the case, yes that would mean a functional cure. 

Yep, and the evidence that we happy which admittedly is not plentiful is that we can regenerate hair in old scar tissue not just fresh wounds. 

Why does some hair regenerate and some not? We don't know exactly, but if the regeneration rate is consistent then as you stated, this would be a functional cure. 

I don't think this is at all a far fetched theory. 

The only downside is that we are probably years away from finding this out. 

 

Edited May 9 by Dragonsphere

[Melvin- Admin]

26 minutes ago, TV_on_LazerDisk said:

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. 

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.

[TV_on_LazerDisk]

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.

[Square1]

1 hour ago, Dragonsphere said:

Yep, and the evidence that we happy which admittedly is not plentiful is that we can regenerate hair in old scar tissue not just fresh wounds. 

Why does some hair regenerate and some not? We don't know exactly, but if the regeneration rate is consistent then as you stated, this would be a functional cure. 

I don't think this is at all a far fetched theory. 

The only downside is that we are probably years away from finding this out. 

 

Luckily, there are some good trials taking place and some more announced. If at least some of them present strong evidence for regeneration taking place, I think the interest among surgeons would increase drastically and more experiments will be done in order to get this information. It will not take long before vp-application will be optimized if that is the case. 

Medical research is slow, so it won't be a matter of weeks, but these months will be crucial. 

[Gwazi]

5 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Based on what we’ve seen from Bloxham and Barghouthi, it looks around 25% even less from Bloxham. It’s nowhere near 100%. 

Holding off your surgery is plain foolish IMO. I get being optimistic, but I believe the hype has gone WAY too far if you’re holding off surgery. 

okay but this is just straight up ignoring Barghouthi’s first case study then which he showed an update at around a year and a half and you are just cherry picking the Bloxham trial which (correct me if I’m wrong) was an FUT transplant and the last update we got was around 5 months after the surgery lol. 5 months is nothing and Barghouthi’s patient wasn’t all that impressive at around 5 months either, certainly not as impressive as the 1.5 year update. It certainly doesn’t look like only “at best 25%” of grafts regenerated in the Barghouthi trial.

 

And regardless of that, it was the very first hair transplant verteporfin trial. The process could be fine tuned and improved to improve the result over time.

 

If verteporfin can regenerate 25% of grafts, then it theoretically can regenerate 100% of grafts. Since all your grafts in the donor area are essentially the same, why would it only work on a quarter of the grafts? That doesn’t make much sense. That would just mean we need to tweak the dosage to increase the hair regeneration rate. 

[Melvin- Admin]

47 minutes ago, Gwazi said:

 

If verteporfin can regenerate 25% of grafts, then it theoretically can regenerate 100% of grafts. Since all your grafts in the donor area are essentially the same, why would it only work on a quarter of the grafts? That doesn’t make much sense. That would just mean we need to tweak the dosage to increase the hair regeneration rate. 

Im not following this logic, if it can regenerate 25% it can regenerate 100%? That makes no sense. Based on the only two human trials we have, it did NOT regenerate 100% not even close. Furthermore, we don’t have any definitive quantitative data to show exactly how many grafts regenerated. Surgeons like Dr. Bisanga claim that some of those hairs could have been partially transected or telogen hairs. There’s no way to refute that using photos alone. 
 

How am I cherry picking when there’s only two trials to pick. I’m speaking objectively. We can’t let the hype train get ahead of us. Verteporfin is worth exploring, but it’s not a proven treatment and way more studies with better designs need to be done. These wild speculations and assumptions isn’t good overall. It could lead someone to making a bad decision choosing a hair mill to do their surgery in hopes Verteporfin will be the equalizer, it won’t!

[Dragonsphere]

16 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Im not following this logic, if it can regenerate 25% it can regenerate 100%? That makes no sense. Based on the only two human trials we have, it did NOT regenerate 100% not even close. Furthermore, we don’t have any definitive quantitative data to show exactly how many grafts regenerated. Surgeons like Dr. Bisanga claim that some of those hairs could have been partially transected or telogen hairs. There’s no way to refute that using photos alone. 
 

How am I cherry picking when there’s only two trials to pick. I’m speaking objectively. We can’t let the hype train get ahead of us. Verteporfin is worth exploring, but it’s not a proven treatment and way more studies with better designs need to be done. These wild speculations and assumptions isn’t good overall. It could lead someone to making a bad decision choosing a hair mill to do their surgery in hopes Verteporfin will be the equalizer, it won’t!

In response to your second paragraph 

We can go by what Dr Barghouthi has said who has had the best visual observation of the test site. 

1. The 0.4 site looks untouched

2. The biopsy in the 0.3T site showed double the amount of hairs than the control site. There were also no transacted hairs visible. The 0.4T site was better than the 0.3T site so I think we can conclude it was much more than 25%. 

Be more positive, like you were in the below. 🙂