Verteporfin HAIR REGENERATION HUMAN TRIAL Dr. Barghouthi *OFFICIAL THREAD

[Hair Tomorrow]

So, Dr Bloxham is getting the best results with 0.8ml of Verteporfin per CM2, but when are we expecting an update from Dr Bargouthi on what dose he is finding most effective? 

 

[takuma]

2 hours ago, Fox243 said:

People pls watch. Would love to discuss.

I am really encouraged by the highest concentration. I think verteporfin is working! but with FUT since it's a bigger wound maybe a higher concentration is needed to get it to work! But even the medium concentration looks good imo for scars...for hair regeneration the higher 0.8 concentration seems to be better

[Fox243]

4 minutes ago, takuma said:

I am really encouraged by the highest concentration. I think verteporfin is working! but with FUT since it's a bigger wound maybe a higher concentration is needed to get it to work! But even the medium concentration looks good imo for scars...for hair regeneration the higher 0.8 concentration seems to be better

I still stand by the fact that people should not be getting a HT without Verteporfin. So much evidence showing only positives and none showing negatives. You only get one chance at surgery. Why waste it? 

[takuma]

1 minute ago, Fox243 said:

I still stand by the fact that people should not be getting a HT without Verteporfin. So much evidence showing only positives and none showing negatives. You only get one chance at surgery. Why waste it? 

Dr Bloxham said he was encouraged and wants to try out other indications...i wonder what he wants to do ...he did hint at trying it on the recipient area in a previous video. But overall this is very exciting..and i agree... getting a HT without verteporfin at this point is just going to degrade ur donor for sure

[Fox243]

2 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

I still stand by the fact that people should not be getting a HT without Verteporfin. So much evidence showing only positives and none showing negatives. You only get one chance at surgery. Why waste it? 

At the same time, as time goes on, I realize that what @Melvin- Adminsaid is right. You HAVE to go to a trusted doctor to inject this. Look at the difference in results between 0.4 and 0.8. This drug requires a lot more precision than I initially expected and no shot do I ever trust a hairmill with that precision. 

[takuma]

I think this kind of result definitely warrants a recipient area trial with wounding! this is downright incredible!

[mr_peanutbutter]

picture service

@Killian what was your dosis again? i honestly think you have good reasons to think that there still will be developments in your case in the next months

Edited Friday at 06:31 AM by mr_peanutbutter

[mr_peanutbutter]

1 hour ago, Fox243 said:

I still stand by the fact that people should not be getting a HT without Verteporfin. So much evidence showing only positives and none showing negatives. You only get one chance at surgery. Why waste it? 

the best we can do is to spread awareness so more patients demand / ask  for verteporfin

[Square1]

5 hours ago, Fox243 said:

People pls watch. Would love to discuss.

I think it is crucial that another credible doctor now finds a significant positive effect of verteporfin in a hair transplant. Before, it was just one surgeon that found this effect in 1 occasion. Although it was a spectacular effect, it was much easier to write-off, blame it on chance/ luck or lay it aside alltogether

The fact that it was a FUT this time also means that the drug effects are probably pretty generalizable across techniques.

However, more research still is needed to determine the extent of regeneration and whether the process is repeatable or not and if these results really last for a long time.

 

 

[Gwazi]

Do we think that perhaps injecting verteporfin several times could increase its effectiveness? For example, a patient goes in once a month for a few months to get a verteporfin injection in the donor area? Or would that not work since by then where verteporfin was unable to regenerate, there is already scar tissue?

 

So then maybe you can rewound the area that verteporfin didnt seem to work and reinject some?

[uuuzi]

People here seem to have been overly optimistic. It's hard to tell regeneration from Dr Bloxham's images. If you have a regular FUT scar and brush a part of the hair on its underside upwards, you will get a visual effect.

[Dragonsphere]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:12 AM, Fox243 said:

People pls watch. Would love to discuss.

Firstly, I think we should all be grateful and thank Dr Bloxham for conducting this experiment and sharing the results publicly. For all we know there could be many other high profile surgeons who are doing experiments of their own in private. 

Dr Bloxham's result  suggests/confirms a few things. 

1. Tension plays a significant role with this drug, the areas with the highest amount preformed the worse. I imagine the primary reason @Killian's FUT result showed no progress is that he has had multiple FUT procedures. The tension created each time would obviously increase and therefore, decrease the drugs efficiency 

2. Further confirms that the drug is dose dependent and heavily suggests that 0.4 used in the FUE study is not the most effective. Imagine if Dr Barghouti used a 0.8 dose in his original study!

3. The drug does regenerate hair. Is there anyone seriously still in the, 'we don't know yet camp?' 🤣

I stand by what I have said, the drugs mechanism suggests that you can keep wounding into the donor area with the same regenerative potential. 

 

Edited Saturday at 01:00 PM by Dragonsphere

[uuuzi]

16 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

Firstly, I think we should all be grateful and thank Dr Bloxham for conducting this experiment and sharing the results public. For all we know there could be many other high profile surgeons who are doing experiments of their own in private. 

Dr Bloxham's result  suggests/confirms a few things. 

1. Tension plays a significant role with this drug, the areas with the highest amount preformed the worse. I imagine the primary reason @Killian's FUT result showed no progress is that he has had multiple FUT procedures. The tension created each time would obviously increase and therefore, decrease the drugs efficiency 

2. Further confirms that the drug is dose dependent and heavily suggests that 0.4 used in the FUE study is not the most effective. Imagine if Dr Barghouti used a 0.8 dose in his original study!

3. The drug does regenerate hair. Is there anyone seriously still in the, 'we don't know yet camp?' 🤣

I stand by what I have said, the drugs mechanism suggests that you can keep wounding into the donor area with the same regenerative potential. 

 

No, i dont think so.

Imagine brushing up a section of hair on the underside of a normal FUE scar, and you'd get an image similar to Dr Bloxham's. If you look closely at that picture, the roots of those hairs are mostly on the lower edge of the scar.

I can understand that a doctor like Dr Bloxham doesn't have a lot of time for refined notes, and I'm grateful to him, but objectively, I don't think this confirms that verteporfin works.

Moreover, even if those hairs were truly new, it is unknown whether they would survive long term and grow thick. The road is longer than we thought.

[Carson85]

First of all, I think all of us can agree that we are grateful that Dr. Bloxham conducted this trial and continues to monitor his patients to see their results. The problem that I see with FUT is that a giant strip of skin with thousands of grafts was once there, which has been removed, stitched up, and left a scar behind that is only a couple of mm wide. Even if vert is able to regenerate hairs in that linear scar, it is in no way enough to help create an “unlimited” donor. Even if vert is able to generate new hairs in the scar line that matches the density of the surrounding hair, it is still nowhere even remotely close to how many hairs were once there. The area of interest was once a strip that was a couple of cm wide, but it is now a linear scar that is only a couple of mm wide. There is much less tissue on the scalp compared to how much there was before, therefore many less hairs that can be regenerated. However, this is not the case with FUE. The scalp area remains pretty much the same with FUE, so that may potentially hold promise in regenerating enough hair to expand the donor area. Obviously we don’t know if this is actually true yet, but hopefully Dr. Bargouthi’s recent trials show good results, and more doctors can replicate this. I hope this makes sense, and look forward to future results.

Edited Friday at 04:23 PM by Carson85

[TV_on_LazerDisk]

I think what we can say with some confidence with fue it helps regenerate hair, and with fit it helps reduce scarring and may regenerate hair to some level. Both are truly a really big deal.

It also looks likes higher doses yield better results so that leaves room to experiment.

Edited Friday at 05:32 PM by TV_on_LazerDisk

[Square1]

More good news, dr. Munib Ahmad of the Fuegenix-clinic in Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands has expressed that he is considering doing a trial as well after my post about dr. Bloxhams update. I have offered to bring him into contact with the organisors of this community so they can introduce him to dr. Barghouthi and others who are active in this regard.

https://www.haarweb.nl/forum/showthread.php?p=485439#post485439

(In Dutch, so you might need some translation)

https://fuegenix.nl/het-team/

(This is him and his clinic)

 

[takuma]

3 hours ago, Carson85 said:

First of all, I think all of us can agree that we are grateful that Dr. Bloxham conducted this trial and continues to monitor his patients to see their results. The problem that I see with FUT is that a giant strip of skin with thousands of grafts was once there, which has been removed, stitched up, and left a scar behind that is only a couple of mm wide. Even if vert is able to regenerate hairs in that linear scar, it is in no way enough to help create an “unlimited” donor. Even if vert is able to generate new hairs in the scar line that matches the density of the surrounding hair, it is still nowhere even remotely close to how many hairs were once there. The area of interest was once a strip that was a couple of cm wide, but it is now a linear scar that is only a couple of mm wide. There is much less tissue on the scalp compared to how much there was before, therefore many less hairs that can be regenerated. However, this is not the case with FUE. The scalp area remains pretty much the same with FUE, so that may potentially hold promise in regenerating enough hair to expand the donor area. Obviously we don’t know if this is actually true yet, but hopefully Dr. Bargouthi’s recent trials show good results, and more doctors can replicate this. I hope this makes sense, and look forward to future results.

This is my thinking as well...but the fact that it seems to be working at all with FUT at all is pretty darn impressive considering tension and less scalp tissue being present afterwards for skin remodeling ...this is a powerful drug and it clearly isn't the equivalent of saline being injected into the scalp..imo

[Square1]

7 hours ago, Dragonsphere said:

Firstly, I think we should all be grateful and thank Dr Bloxham for conducting this experiment and sharing the results public. For all we know there could be many other high profile surgeons who are doing experiments of their own in private. 

Dr Bloxham's result  suggests/confirms a few things. 

1. Tension plays a significant role with this drug, the areas with the highest amount preformed the worse. I imagine the primary reason @Killian's FUT result showed no progress is that he has had multiple FUT procedures. The tension created each time would obviously increase and therefore, decrease the drugs efficiency 

2. Further confirms that the drug is dose dependent and heavily suggests that 0.4 used in the FUE study is not the most effective. Imagine if Dr Barghouti used a 0.8 dose in his original study!

3. The drug does regenerate hair. Is there anyone seriously still in the, 'we don't know yet camp?' 🤣

I stand by what I have said, the drugs mechanism suggests that you can keep wounding into the donor area with the same regenerative potential. 

 

Regarding 3. I have been a believer in this treatment since reading up on the research and seeing what dr. Barghouthi has done. However, science isn't about believing but about data and evidence. And until today, we had very little of that, at least from credible sources.

This update provides us with more ammo to say that it is at least likely it does work. 

 

[Steele114]

I just contacted Dr. Bloxham about verteporfin for my donor ive had 3 fue procedures on.  Ive had 4,000 grafts so some area look patchy and I like to have my hair very short so this would benefit me alot would def love to have a trial done if possible we shall see 🤞

[Carson85]

2 minutes ago, Steele114 said:

I just contacted Dr. Bloxham about verteporfin for my donor ive had 3 fue procedures on.  Ive had 4,000 grafts so some area look patchy and I like to have my hair very short so this would benefit me alot would def love to have a trial done if possible we shall see 🤞

Great, definitely keep us updated on what he says/does

[Steele114]

22 minutes ago, Carson85 said:

Great, definitely keep us updated on what he says/does

Yea for sure! 

[Fox243]

7 hours ago, Square1 said:

More good news, dr. Munib Ahmad of the Fuegenix-clinic in Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands has expressed that he is considering doing a trial as well after my post about dr. Bloxhams update. I have offered to bring him into contact with the organisors of this community so they can introduce him to dr. Barghouthi and others who are active in this regard.

https://www.haarweb.nl/forum/showthread.php?p=485439#post485439

(In Dutch, so you might need some translation)

https://fuegenix.nl/het-team/

(This is him and his clinic)

 

Can you connect him with me? I can handhold him into explaining the science and such. 

[Fox243]

14 hours ago, uuuzi said:

No, i dont think so.

Imagine brushing up a section of hair on the underside of a normal FUE scar, and you'd get an image similar to Dr Bloxham's. If you look closely at that picture, the roots of those hairs are mostly on the lower edge of the scar.

I can understand that a doctor like Dr Bloxham doesn't have a lot of time for refined notes, and I'm grateful to him, but objectively, I don't think this confirms that verteporfin works.

Moreover, even if those hairs were truly new, it is unknown whether they would survive long term and grow thick. The road is longer than we thought.

Regarding your former point, I feel like that’s just playing way too much devils advocate. I think it’s a legitimate claim when you have just one trial, but when you see a completely separate trial done by a separate doctor on a separate patient producing results, at some point the evidence is strong enough to prove the null hypothesis wrong (vert doesn’t do anything). 
 

Regarding the latter point, that is possible, though if anything, I’d expect the hair to get even thicker next cycle, but we’ll need to wait and see. 
 

Either way, I see no downside of using Verteporfin. 

[uuuzi]

12 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

Regarding your former point, I feel like that’s just playing way too much devils advocate. I think it’s a legitimate claim when you have just one trial, but when you see a completely separate trial done by a separate doctor on a separate patient producing results, at some point the evidence is strong enough to prove the null hypothesis wrong (vert doesn’t do anything). 
 

Regarding the latter point, that is possible, though if anything, I’d expect the hair to get even thicker next cycle, but we’ll need to wait and see. 
 

Either way, I see no downside of using Verteporfin. 

Thats not devil, just be objective my friend. Just calm down and think about it, what I said was rational. I don't mean any harm.

This is science. It's not how many experiments there are, it's how they're evaluated. If the evaluation method is rigorous, even if it is only a single case, it is meaningful. On the contrary, no amount of evidence is surprising.

I look forward to its success as much as anyone. But in scientific work, the most important thing is to remain skeptical, and when you can't find anything to doubt, that's the real success.

I just want to remind everyone to calm down, the evidence is not obvious, this kind of thing has been happening in the hair loss forum for the past three years. Every "cure" has ended up disappointing, and I hope this time is different.

[Carson85]

23 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

Regarding your former point, I feel like that’s just playing way too much devils advocate. I think it’s a legitimate claim when you have just one trial, but when you see a completely separate trial done by a separate doctor on a separate patient producing results, at some point the evidence is strong enough to prove the null hypothesis wrong (vert doesn’t do anything). 
 

Regarding the latter point, that is possible, though if anything, I’d expect the hair to get even thicker next cycle, but we’ll need to wait and see. 
 

Either way, I see no downside of using Verteporfin. 

Completely agree that it does seem to be doing something. Whether or not what it is doing can be significant enough to completely revolutionize hair transplants still needs to be researched further, and I think we all hope that Dr. Bargouthi’s trial gives a positive answer to this question. Only thing about downsides is that we don’t know if there are any long term side effects caused by vert