OFFICIAL Verteporfin Hair Loss Cure *Mega Thread

[uuuzi]

8 minutes ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

Even if there hasn't been any growth over the last three weeks but Dr Barghouthi can show they are rooted hairs, it will still be good news, and a Verteporfin HT will still be the best bet. 

Dr Braghouthi didnt say that.

[Dragonsphere]

1 hour ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

Even if there hasn't been any growth over the last three weeks but Dr Barghouthi can show they are rooted hairs, it will still be good news, and a Verteporfin HT will still be the best bet. 

There has been growth. We don't have a crystal ball to know what will happen to those hairs but we have yet to see a single instance of hair regeneration from Verteporfin that resulted in only partially regenerated hair. From the limited data we have, it seems they do regenerate or they don't, no inbetween. Hopefully this result will  not buck the trend. 

There will be differences in all patients in terms of timings and % regenerated. If the results show improvement upon next inspection, it would be interesting to wound the areas void of hair  via punch FUE with verteporfin injected. If that results in further hairs appearing later down the line, then we are essentially on the cusp of a cure.  

Edited August 26 by Dragonsphere

[Hair Tomorrow]

21 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

There has been growth. We don't have a crystal ball to know what will happen to those hairs but we have yet to see a single instance of hair regeneration from Verteporfin that resulted in only partially regenerated hair. From the limited data we have, it seems they do regenerate or they don't, no inbetween. Hopefully this result will  not buck the trend. 

There will be differences in all patients in terms of timings and % regenerated. If the results show improvement upon next inspection, it would be interesting to wound the areas void of hair  via punch FUE with verteporfin injected. If that results in further hairs appearing later down the line, then we are essentially on the cusp of a cure.  

What makes you so certain they are hairs?

[Dragonsphere]

3 hours ago, Hair Tomorrow said:

What makes you so certain they are hairs?

I'm not a 100% certain but confident based upon the following. 

1. Dr Barghouthi said these hairs are only present within and around the test area. 

2. The majority of these hairs are located at the extraction sites or on the periphery. 

[tatasabaya]

For what it's worth, I have a couple of hairs in my body that grow thicker than they should. When they grow back after I pluck them they don't have a tapered appearence, they look as if they had been trimmed.

We basically have no idea what to expect a new hair to look like simply because it's never been done before. We just need to wait a little longer to see how it progresses.

[Hair Tomorrow]

I'm hoping no news is good news...

[Hair Tomorrow]

And I am seeing in the 0.8ml and 1ml per CM2 zones, a couple of these short fine hairs that have not been outlined, so it could be a higher regrowth rate than estimated, although given these little hairs are not showing up precisely on the site of the FUE punch holes, perhaps this means excising old FUE scars might not get new follicles to grow precisely in the specific FUE holes. 

Edited August 28 by Hair Tomorrow

[TV_on_LazerDisk]

On 8/28/2024 at 2:57 PM, Hair Tomorrow said:

And I am seeing in the 0.8ml and 1ml per CM2 zones, a couple of these short fine hairs that have not been outlined, so it could be a higher regrowth rate than estimated, although given these little hairs are not showing up precisely on the site of the FUE punch holes, perhaps this means excising old FUE scars might not get new follicles to grow precisely in the specific FUE holes. 

Is it possible if a hair follicle regrew that it would surface out of a slightly different location

Yes, it is possible for a hair follicle to regrow and have the hair emerge from a slightly different location on the scalp or skin. Hair follicles can sometimes shift slightly due to factors like skin movement, scarring, or changes in the underlying tissue. Additionally, if a follicle was damaged and then repaired, the hair might grow back from a nearby follicle or from the same follicle but with a slightly altered orientation, leading to the appearance of a shift in the hair’s location.

Chatgpt 4o

[TV_on_LazerDisk]

Also since I was thinking the smp ink might have had an effect I asked chatgpt

Yes, tattoo ink could potentially interfere with a photoreactive drug and lead to negative effects. Photoreactive drugs, also known as photosensitizing agents, make the skin more sensitive to light, particularly ultraviolet (UV) light. When a person with a tattoo undergoes treatment with such drugs, the pigments in the tattoo ink might absorb and interact with light differently than non-pigmented skin.

 

This interaction could lead to several potential issues:

 

1. **Increased Sensitivity**: The tattooed area might become more sensitive to light, leading to localized reactions such as redness, swelling, or even burns.

 

2. **Hyperpigmentation or Hypopigmentation**: The combination of the photoreactive drug and exposure to light could cause changes in the tattooed area's pigmentation, either darkening (hyperpigmentation) or lightening (hypopigmentation) the skin.

 

3. **Inflammation or Allergic Reactions**: The interaction between the ink and the drug could potentially trigger an inflammatory or allergic reaction in the tattooed area.

 

4. **Ink Degradation**: Although less common, some tattoo inks might break down or change in response to light exposure when combined with photoreactive drugs, potentially affecting the appearance of the tattoo.

 

If someone with tattoos is considering using a photoreactive drug, it's essential to consult with a healthcare provider to assess any risks and take appropriate precautions, such as avoiding sun exposure or using protective measures for the tattooed area.

[Hair Tomorrow]

3 hours ago, TV_on_LazerDisk said:

Also since I was thinking the smp ink might have had an effect I asked chatgpt

Yes, tattoo ink could potentially interfere with a photoreactive drug and lead to negative effects. Photoreactive drugs, also known as photosensitizing agents, make the skin more sensitive to light, particularly ultraviolet (UV) light. When a person with a tattoo undergoes treatment with such drugs, the pigments in the tattoo ink might absorb and interact with light differently than non-pigmented skin.

 

This interaction could lead to several potential issues:

 

1. **Increased Sensitivity**: The tattooed area might become more sensitive to light, leading to localized reactions such as redness, swelling, or even burns.

 

2. **Hyperpigmentation or Hypopigmentation**: The combination of the photoreactive drug and exposure to light could cause changes in the tattooed area's pigmentation, either darkening (hyperpigmentation) or lightening (hypopigmentation) the skin.

 

3. **Inflammation or Allergic Reactions**: The interaction between the ink and the drug could potentially trigger an inflammatory or allergic reaction in the tattooed area.

 

4. **Ink Degradation**: Although less common, some tattoo inks might break down or change in response to light exposure when combined with photoreactive drugs, potentially affecting the appearance of the tattoo.

 

If someone with tattoos is considering using a photoreactive drug, it's essential to consult with a healthcare provider to assess any risks and take appropriate precautions, such as avoiding sun exposure or using protective measures for the tattooed area.

I asked Brave AI if scalp micropigmentation ink would interfere with Verteporfin's skin and hair regeneration, and it didn't think so... but with the increase photosensitivity of darker tattooed skin, if post op Dr Barghouthi's test case patient went in direct sunlight a few days earlier than he should have, then maybe that would damage the regeneration process - who knows? I read in this abstract of an animal study that the YAP 1 scarring process is active on Day 2 and on Day 7 post op - so it would be worth checking how carefully the patient stayed out of the light during that period. 

 

Edited September 1 by Hair Tomorrow
including abstract of claim

[Dragonsphere]

5 hours ago, TV_on_LazerDisk said:

Also since I was thinking the smp ink might have had an effect I asked chatgpt

I am not so sure. 

The SMP was very localised so I don't think it would have an effect on the surrounding area. 

I know @Fox243 mentioned he worked on a building site and speculated sunlight could have adversely impacted the result. From my understanding and I am happy to be wrong, you only need to avoid sunlight for 48 hours? I find it unlikely he would return to work within this time. 

It might just be he is a slow responder and will catch up. Hopefully the next update will show the hairs thickening up. Apart from being a heavy smoker, I can't fathom any other reason as to why the previous patient had better results at 5 months or Dr Bloxham's FUT patient. 

[CureSeeker]

On 8/19/2024 at 7:42 AM, Fox243 said:

@CureSeeker any updates btw?

Unfortunately there's still no major change. Sorry for the delayed response; it's been a busy summer, and taking photos can be a chore (buzzing hair, setting up camera, aligning images, etc).

[takuma]

2 hours ago, CureSeeker said:

Unfortunately there's still no major change. Sorry for the delayed response; it's been a busy summer, and taking photos can be a chore (buzzing hair, setting up camera, aligning images, etc).

understandable....it can be quite a lot.... thanks for updating 🙂

[Melvin- Admin]

 

[Dragonsphere]

12 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

 

Hi Melvin, 

Is Dr Behnam still interested? 

He seemed enthusiastic a few months back. 

[Melvin- Admin]

3 minutes ago, Dragonsphere said:

Hi Melvin, 

Is Dr Behnam still interested? 

He seemed enthusiastic a few months back. 

I just messaged him, I believe he is still interested.

[Square1]

On 9/4/2024 at 8:26 PM, Melvin- Admin said:

 

Awesome

Is there anything known about the dosages and other design choices that dr. Miln will take?

[rkd4084]

I just had verteporfin injected at 0.8 mg concentrate throughout the scar area where FUE excisions were placed. Not from the donor sites just the recipient site. Not a lot is in the $1800 vial so we maximized the areas of concern for me.

I had 1000 grafts (800 scalp and 200 beard) placed along the scar. Post 10 days, part of the scar is still healing quite a bit. How do I know if the grafts placed here are actually there? Part of me is scared a lot came off, especially with verteporfin in play. May just be my anxiety, but curious what others think of how the scar looks post 11 days surgery!

Overall, My experience with Dr. Bloxham has been positive, but the end results are truly all that matters to me.

Edited September 9 by rkd4084

[Hair Tomorrow]

1 hour ago, rkd4084 said:

I just had verteporfin injected at 0.8 mg concentrate throughout the scar area where FUE excisions were placed. Mom from the donor sites just the recipient site. Not a lot is in the $1800 vial so we maximized the areas of concern for me.

I had 1000 grafts (800 scalp and 200 beard) placed along the scar. Post 10 days, part of the scar is still healing quite a bit. How do I know if the grafts placed here are actually there? Part of me is scared a lot came off, especially with verteporfin in play. May just be my anxiety, but curious what others think of how the scar looks post 11 days surgery!

Overall, My experience with Dr. Bloxham has been positive, but the end results are truly all that matters to me.

I am wondering whether the intact original hair follicles either side of the scar are close enough to the Verteporfin to signal to the Verteporfin to regenerate hair. 

Do you have any before photos?

How thick was the scar in MMs?

[tripleg]

Hello, everyone!

I am planning to get a hair transplant in the next few years and so eagerly awaiting to see how it goes with Verteporfin. I’ve only been following loosely (I read the last 10 pages of this thread), but as best as I can tell, the state of things is as follows.

We have a handful of trials in humans with hair transplant doctors trying it out with their patients. Only one or a few studies have been completed (published?) and a few more are currently active. Some results are promising and others somewhat disappointing. 

Overall picture is actually encouraging because the more disappointing results are from studies still in progress. Also the studies use different protocols and so if at least some of these protocols are showing promising results, this is encouraging. This is how I understand the current situation. If anyone has any more details to fill in, please do. 

Now the future. 

We have a few studies in planning stages and there seems to be some level of interest among HT doctors, but it’s hard to judge. As I am not an expert, not even from the medical field, I am not sure what to expect in terms of future rate of progress.

Is there anyone with expertise or knowledge who can give some assessment as to how long it might to take to either invalidate Veterporfin or find some workable protocols that we would no longer refer to as experimental?

The protocols don’t have to be super-duper proven, but just a reasonable chance that it’s probably going to be a decent result. How long do you think roughly until we get there? And then how long until I can go to one of the forward-thinking HT doctors and get such a protocol?

I realize that “it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future” 

• Yogi Bera

But if anyone with some expertise in these areas can shed even a bit more light on this question, I would greatly appreciate it.

[takuma]

@DrTBarghouthi Hey Dr Bargouthi, did you get a chance to reconnect with the patient for the followup with the buzzed hair?

[Fox243]

On 9/8/2024 at 6:34 AM, tripleg said:

Hello, everyone!

I am planning to get a hair transplant in the next few years and so eagerly awaiting to see how it goes with Verteporfin. I’ve only been following loosely (I read the last 10 pages of this thread), but as best as I can tell, the state of things is as follows.

We have a handful of trials in humans with hair transplant doctors trying it out with their patients. Only one or a few studies have been completed (published?) and a few more are currently active. Some results are promising and others somewhat disappointing. 

Overall picture is actually encouraging because the more disappointing results are from studies still in progress. Also the studies use different protocols and so if at least some of these protocols are showing promising results, this is encouraging. This is how I understand the current situation. If anyone has any more details to fill in, please do. 

Now the future. 

We have a few studies in planning stages and there seems to be some level of interest among HT doctors, but it’s hard to judge. As I am not an expert, not even from the medical field, I am not sure what to expect in terms of future rate of progress.

Is there anyone with expertise or knowledge who can give some assessment as to how long it might to take to either invalidate Veterporfin or find some workable protocols that we would no longer refer to as experimental?

The protocols don’t have to be super-duper proven, but just a reasonable chance that it’s probably going to be a decent result. How long do you think roughly until we get there? And then how long until I can go to one of the forward-thinking HT doctors and get such a protocol?

I realize that “it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future” 

• Yogi Bera

But if anyone with some expertise in these areas can shed even a bit more light on this question, I would greatly appreciate it.

Feel free to ask Dr. Bloxham or Dr. Barghouthi to do a transplant for you. Clearly, they have been doing some more trials on other patients, so maybe they will accept you.

[tatasabaya]

2 minutes ago, Fox243 said:

Feel free to ask Dr. Bloxham or Dr. Barghouthi to do a transplant for you. Clearly, they have been doing some more trials on other patients, so maybe they will accept you.

You are saying they are doing private trials? What makes you think that? Just curious.

[Fox243]

5 minutes ago, tatasabaya said:

You are saying they are doing private trials? What makes you think that? Just curious.

For example, we just saw rkd4084 get a revision from Dr Bloxham with verteporfin. There may or may not be others who have gotten treatments with verteporfin who don't want to share their results. I also don't think the doctors would make verteporfin super public because of the Stanford patent/given that it's not FDA approved and they probably don't want to risk liability. I will be getting a verteporfin transplant in around a year or so fwiw if Zarev rejects me. 

Edited Thursday at 05:17 PM by Fox243

[Hair Tomorrow]

4 hours ago, Fox243 said:

For example, we just saw rkd4084 get a revision from Dr Bloxham with verteporfin. There may or may not be others who have gotten treatments with verteporfin who don't want to share their results. I also don't think the doctors would make verteporfin super public because of the Stanford patent/given that it's not FDA approved and they probably don't want to risk liability. I will be getting a verteporfin transplant in around a year or so fwiw if Zarev rejects me. 

On what basis might Zarev reject you?