Tweet
This is a clinic in the Netherlands, but they also have offices in London and Vienna. It sounds a bit too good to be true:
-
-
The short answer is YES! -
The short answer is – NO!
Recently, a Dutch authority decided for HSI, and that the Hair Science Institute definitely has the permission and the right for all their claims on their website.
Source: http://www.hasci.com
(Translation Dutch/English)
--------------------------
HSI wins lawsuit at the Reclame Code Commissie!
On 15 July 2010, the Hair Science Institute (HSI) could at the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) successfully defend a lawsuit by some hair transplant clinics due to false statements made by HSI. This lawsuit was the newest episode of a continuing series of efforts of these clinics to discredit HSI.
Reason for the lawsuit against HSI were the made claims by HSI of "hair multiplication" as a result of HSI’s patented Hairstemcell Transplantation® (HST), and that for the hair multiplication claims no evidence exists. The applicants were:
• Transhair BV
• Aesthetic Team BV
• Laser Surgery
• Prohairclinic
• Hairplus Medical Care
After a fair hearing of all affected parties and experts, finally the commission came to the decision, that HSI has just made plausible statements on their website and judged therefore the lawsuit for unfounded.
In addition, the claim the popular Dutchman Gerard Joling has HSI “linked to his name” was dismissed by the commission as irrelevant. In the attached PDF file, you can read the official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie.
This decision was truly no surprise for HSI and its clients. However, for HSI it is gratifying to see, that now the Reclame Code Commissie too has confirmed, that Hairstemcell Transplantation@ (HST) and its resulting unique statement of "hair multiplication" is fully justified.
We hope you enjoy reading!
Official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC):
--------------------------
So what?
Since April 2010, actually the whole HT field is aware of HSI’s published scientifically peer-reviewed paper:
That means, normally EVERY “FUE expert” out there is really easy able to prove or to disprove this study. Where is the problem? Or aren’t there any “FUE-experts” out there?
It seems not, because they presented and informed every year about their progress for this technique since 2007 (2008 and 2009 too) at the ISHRS congress, as for instance 2007 in Las Vegas:
In my personal opinion, all such guys and doctors, who claim “the HSI technique is a scam”, are the real scammers - besides the fact, that it seems that those ones don’t even have the necessary scientifically knowhow in their own field. I can see this almost every day. And THIS is really sad!Comment
-
Well, don't you think it's too good to be true? A lot of hair surgeons who are on the IAHRS signed that petition against HSI, including Bijan Feriduni of Belgium, who is considered the best surgeon in the Benelux region.The short answer is – NO!
Recently, a Dutch authority decided for HSI, and that the Hair Science Institute definitely has the permission and the right for all their claims on their website.
Source: http://www.hasci.com
(Translation Dutch/English)
--------------------------
HSI wins lawsuit at the Reclame Code Commissie!
On 15 July 2010, the Hair Science Institute (HSI) could at the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) successfully defend a lawsuit by some hair transplant clinics due to false statements made by HSI. This lawsuit was the newest episode of a continuing series of efforts of these clinics to discredit HSI.
Reason for the lawsuit against HSI were the made claims by HSI of "hair multiplication" as a result of HSI’s patented Hairstemcell Transplantation® (HST), and that for the hair multiplication claims no evidence exists. The applicants were:
• Transhair BV
• Aesthetic Team BV
• Laser Surgery
• Prohairclinic
• Hairplus Medical Care
After a fair hearing of all affected parties and experts, finally the commission came to the decision, that HSI has just made plausible statements on their website and judged therefore the lawsuit for unfounded.
In addition, the claim the popular Dutchman Gerard Joling has HSI “linked to his name” was dismissed by the commission as irrelevant. In the attached PDF file, you can read the official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie.
This decision was truly no surprise for HSI and its clients. However, for HSI it is gratifying to see, that now the Reclame Code Commissie too has confirmed, that Hairstemcell Transplantation@ (HST) and its resulting unique statement of "hair multiplication" is fully justified.
We hope you enjoy reading!
Official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC):
--------------------------
So what?
Since April 2010, actually the whole HT field is aware of HSI’s published scientifically peer-reviewed paper:
That means, normally EVERY “FUE expert” out there is really easy able to prove or to disprove this study. Where is the problem? Or aren’t there any “FUE-experts” out there?
It seems not, because they presented and informed every year about their progress for this technique since 2007 (2008 and 2009 too) at the ISHRS congress, as for instance 2007 in Las Vegas:
In my personal opinion, all such guys and doctors, who claim “the HSI technique is a scam”, are the real scammers - besides the fact, that it seems that those ones don’t even have the necessary scientifically knowhow in their own field. I can see this almost every day. And THIS is really sad!
If this is out there, if they really can multiply the donor area, and use it time and time again, isn't this just as good as a cure for baldness?Comment
-
Untrue. Here is what actually happend:
Source (Origin): http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/inp/2010/01/28/R382.htm
Google Translation: http://translate.google.de/translate...82.htm&act=url
The part concerning Dr. Feriduni:
----------------------
Translation Dutch/English:
ABSTRACT
“Probably the most prominent doctor [Dr. Feriduni], who initially has the same criticism applied to us, wrote us on the day after the publication of the criticism, that he did a big mistake, and that he just made himself badly with this uncouth attack by the other hair clinics against the Hair Science Institute, and therefore he completely dissociates himself from this criticism. In addition, the initiators of the criticism are committed to him for wrong assertion.“
---------------------
Welcome to the HT field! A bunch full of uneducated and envious idiots (sorry).Comment
-
Kudos, HRH, for bringing the truth to light. I would be interested to hear what Spencer Kobren has to say about this. I would be the first to agree that Dr. Gho's claims in the early 2000s were not reliable, but he has refined his technique and appears to be running a very successful operation multiplying hair in Europe. One has to wonder if this info is being buried by the docs who worry they would be rendered obsolete once word got out that there was a reliable FUE technique that does not deplete the donor!!!
May I suggest that this thread be retitled Hair Science Institute is the real deal and is cloning hair!!! We need to get the word out!!!Comment
-
I can't get very excited until HSI shows me before-and-after photos that couldn't be matched/bested by quite a few other surgeons. The photos on its website don't show that right now.
If this was the hair multiplication we've been waiting for, then they should be able to transplant a limitless number of hairs over the long term and eventually present a full head of hair (at least a solid NW2 with no visible diffuse thinning behind the hairline), correct? If they show these kinds of results in the next couple years, I'll be ecstatic. And I'm not going to say it's impossible. But jumping on Dr. Gho's bandwagon again this time around... seems like setting oneself up for disappointment.Comment
-
I said this on another forum - easier just to copy/paste:
I should say that I have spoken personally with three different doctors at HSI, and have spent a total of well over an hour on the phone with them (the long distance charges sucked!). They were very patient with me, answered all my questions, criticisms and skepticism. They have also sent me clear close-up photos of before and afters showing donor regrowth after the procedure.
They started this new technique just a couple of years ago and the success they say is unquestionable. We just don't hear about it because we're across the Atlantic and doctors here will not give credit where its due because the procedure is patented -- let's face it, if the average prospective patient knew they could do an FUE procedure without loss of donor, they would take the option. (I asked Hairtech from SMG on these boards for comment on this procedure and he has been conspicuously silent -- despite being very active on these boards during the weeks prior.)
Yes, HSI admitted to me that the procedure was flawed in the early 2000s (causing much less donor regrowth), but Dr. Gho developed a much improved technique (splitting follicles longitudally instead of horizontally) that guarantees at least 80% donor regrowth -- and he parted ways with his old clinic shortly thereafter to start HSI.
I asked HSI why they don't have photos on their site of NW6s transformed to NW1. They said the technique has only been around for a couple of years, you can only have approx 1500 grafts per procedure, and you have to wait at least 9 months between each one. So there hasn't been time for any drastic transformations yet. They admit their marketing sucks, but have said they really don't feel pressure to prove their naysayers wrong because they're booked through mid-2011 as it is. Clearly they're doing something rightComment
-
Thank you for the info. I would love for reliable HM to be a reality today, but in an industry with so much snake oil it's important to remain skeptical until you can see for yourself. This is also why I don't consider the popularity of a new treatment to prove its effectiveness, because in truth most new treatments are disappointing or fail completely, despite how many desperate people flock to them in hopes of restoring their hair.
HSI's responses suggest they won't be able to show us results better than conventional HT for at least another 2-3 years. If they come through, it'll be great. But until then, we won't know, unless others can see something I missed.
One thing that stands out to me though. 1,500 grafts per 9 months? If the technology works, it seems as though restoring a full head of hair to a NW6 would take 5-10 years of surgeries with this technique.Comment
-
Yes, that also seems to puzzle me...when I look at the website of Hasson and Wong for instance, I saw an entirely bald man who was restored to an (almost) NW1 in 2 mega sessions...I wonder why this technique does not enable them to do something like this. The prices are also very very high.
This also bothers me:
Per cm² kunnen in één behandeling 30-35 grafts (in een volledig kaal gebied) geplaatst worden. Deze dichtheid kan in een volgende sessie maximaal verhoogd worden tot ongeveer 50 grafts per cm².
Translation: Per cm2 there can only be 30-35 grafts transplanted (in a completely bald area). In a later session (probably after 9 months I assume) they can increase the density to 50 grafts per cm2. Is that not a bit too little to achieve maximum effect?Comment
-
These are good questions -- I asked the same ones to HSI when I called them (by the way, I encourage anyone to do the same - the phone number is right there on the website and you can talk straight to a doctor with no obligation at all! I fully cold-called and the first time I got to talk to a doc right away - the second time they told me to call back in an hour after the doc finished a procedure)
As for the H&W point -- indeed, if I were an NW7, yeah, a good idea would to first strip out, get 8,000 grafts out of the deal, then fill in the rest with HSI until I get to the density I really want. The reality is, H&W photos aside, if you were to see these guys in person, their hair is still nowhere near the density it was pre-MPB.
Obviously it's more efficient to do strip first cause you get more bang in one procedure (though HSI would argue that you are permanently taking away donor that you could use over and over again). But I still think there would be enough donor left over that, while it couldn't be removed by strip because the scalp would be too tight, you could go over it again and again with HSI. Either way, for NW2-5, I think HSI is the way to go.
And, with strip you're still getting the linear scar with strip, as opposed to none with HSI (and even less scarring than FUE because they use smaller needles). At this stage of the game, I think strip is crazy because of the scar, no matter how 'pencil thin' they claim it is. If you want to buzz down to a #4 of less, in my opinion, in broad daylight, you can see the line if you don't have thick curly hair (and the shock loss is often terrible!). I'm sure reps from strip clinics would refute this with the odd tricho example that is indeed occasionally flawless, but those are exceptions not the rule in my opinion.
As for the 50 cm2 max issue -- yes, I brought this up with both doctors as this is a concern for me. I would want more than 50 at my hairline. They told me that this number has been recently raised to 60 but they admit this limitation because they make holes in the recipient that are slightly larger than the traditional lateral slit. The holes are the same size as those made in the donor, and they can't make them closer together at this time (although they say they are close to solving this problem with even smaller needles).
60 at the hairline is indeed acceptable for most people (but maybe not for me...!). But the good point they made is that while they are limited to 60, they can have the option consistently use 3-4 hair units (and repeat using those units while avoiding 1-2 hair unites altogether if you want) so you're really getting 180-240 hairs per centimetre. Obviously you don't want more than single units at the hairline or more than 2 hair units just behind it, but for the rest of the head, you could conceivably have a higher density than you did as a teenager. So hey, worst case, if I wasn't happy with 60 at the hairline, I could top it up with a traditional FUE (at the cost of a little bit of donor that wouldn't grow back). Still miraculous in my opinion.
As for what 25goingon65 said:
"HSI's responses suggest they won't be able to show us results better than conventional HT for at least another 2-3 years. If they come through, it'll be great. But until then, we won't know, unless others can see something I missed"
The results are in fact immediate. For those concerned with donor limitations (ie. 99% of us), the fact that your donor grows back right after the procedure is incentive enough. So yes, the results are better than a conventional HT. The website shows photos of patients after a single procedure, so that's why they're not mind-blowing.Comment
-
I think that's for the individual decide, armed with all the facts. I just wanna help get the facts out there. A lot of people scoff at Dr. Gho because his first crack at multiplication in 2001ish wasn't perfect. So suddenly his credibility as a doctor and scientist is shot. I'm sure when the Wright brothers' first aeroplane design didn't get off the ground, people wrote them off entirely from then on too..Comment
-
No. Why?
The following (interesting) interviews are already 5 years old:
August 17, 2005 – Interview HaarWeb/Dr. Gho
November 1, 2005 – Interview James Bond/Dr. Gho
In the meantime, some things have changed/improved: Currently, they are able to extract a maximum of ~2000 HST grafts – PER DAY! That means if your donor area (as well as your pocket) allow you to harvest ~4000 grafts, you can get them within 2 days.
The largest procedure I’m aware, is a guy called “Bas” (age 31). Some month ago he got 1600 HST grafts in just on day. You can find the video (including the graft counter scene) in the “IN THE MEDIA” -> “RTV” section (Beauty+TV - Episode 4 - 30 May 2010): http://www.hasci.com
But what’s really interesting (more accurate “suggesting”), they use slightly modified tools out of the DENTAL technology (curved root canal preparation):
The reason is simple:
The HST technique is based on removing just a part (hair shaft + some tissue) out of the hair ROOT canal in such a way, so that the “hair stem cells” are still attached to the removed hair shaft as well as leaving enough “hair stem cells” behind in the donor area. A tooth root canal treatment is a similar procedure, but for the HST technique, of course, they do not use just a motor driven “drill” to destroy bad tissue, instead of, they use a sharp (hollow) triple waved needle (with loose vibration) for the FU/tissue extraction. Due to the fact, that the extracted grafts are very small (in comparison to FUE grafts), this enables a precise injection of the grafts with special developed syringes (“hairstemcell injection”) too. In fact, with the HST technique you can get -of course if you always have enough donor reserves as well as money reserves- every DENSITY you want. They developed the graft injection method especially for eyebrow treatments (watch the Bridget Maasland video) and for thinning areas as well as for SAFE density procedures in general.Attached FilesComment
-
-
Thank you both for replying. That's great if they can prove 80% or more donor regrowth.
However when I said "results better than a conventional HT," I should have specified that I meant the recipient areas. If HSI shows, in the next few years at least, patients with fuller heads of hair than they could have gotten with regular transplants.. that will ease my fears a great deal.
I'm sure I seem like I'm being a pain with all this doubt, but every year MPB sufferers like myself see a dozen or more broken promises about new hair loss treatments, and this one in particular is coming from a brand name (Gho's) that comes with a lot of stigma. So I hope you'll understand the extreme caution that many in this community now live by.Comment
Comment