NeedHairASAP

[gc83uk]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

Gho told me that he couldn`t share his technology with Dr. Cole, because Dr. Cole was "skeptical" about the HST when it first arrived. He therefore had to prioritize the "open-minded" doctors. I can`t recall that Dr. Cole ever vas sceptical about HST. In addition, Where is all the new-trained "open-mined" doctors? The once Dr. Gho actually prioritized?

What really made decide cancelling, was that they tried to"mislead" me. They told me that they could give me 75% of my originally density back. I then asked, how many grafts pr square centimeter that would require, and they said: "50 grafts pr square centimeter". This is a lie. A avarage caucation has a much higher density. So, no way that 50 grafts pr square centimeter will be equally to 75% of your/my original density.

50 grafts per sqcm is like 115 hairs per sqcm. That's pretty good right?

[hairysituation]

Originally Posted by gc83uk

50 grafts per sqcm is like 115 hairs per sqcm. That's pretty good right?

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.

Originally Posted by 534623

Mathematics is not your thing - right?

And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.*************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

[aim4hair]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.



And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.*************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

And do you think other techniques could give you back your thick density ? No other HT can give you that, so maybe HT in general is not for you.
But seriously, if they are trying to mislead you they can easly change the number and tell you they can do much better than 50 graft per cm2 and of course you will not be able to measure it and find out if what they say is true or not.

[hairysituation]

Originally Posted by aim4hair

And do you think other techniques could give you back your thick density ? No other HT can give you that, so maybe HT in general is not for you.
But seriously, if they are trying to mislead you they can easly change the number and tell you they can do much better than 50 graft per cm2 and of course you will not be able to measure it and find out if what they say is true or not.

I agree. HT`s is not viable option for me, no question. However, HASCI shouldn`t act like they can give me 75% of my original density, when they obivousely can`t. This says something about HASCI`s credibility alltogheter.

Conventional HT`s will not bring back an ideal density, but it will look denser than an HST procedure. I`m yet to see a dense HST result, and I think I never will.

[gc83uk]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.



And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.*************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

What I'm interested in is your observation on the grafts being thinner. This has been said a few times now, did hasci confirm this with you?

[hairysituation]

Originally Posted by gc83uk

What I'm interested in is your observation on the grafts being thinner. This has been said a few times now, did hasci confirm this with you?

No, but they didn`t deny it either. They rather ignored the question alltougheter (Gho as well). I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/gerardjoling...type=3&theater

I used to believe in Gho, but after several discussions with him and his collegues, I must say I don`t believe them for a second. The technique is less invasive, but that`s it. I don`t wont people to hope for this treatment, because they will end up dissapointed.

PS! Sorry all the typos, English isn`t my native language, and I don`t care to look up every single word.

[The Alchemist]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

No, but they didn`t deny it either. They rather ignored the question alltougheter (Gho as well). I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/gerardjoling...type=3&theater

I used to believe in Gho, but after several discussions with him and his collegues, I must say I don`t believe them for a second. The technique is less invasive, but that`s it. I don`t wont people to hope for this treatment, because they will end up dissapointed.

PS! Sorry all the typos, English isn`t my native language, and I don`t care to look up every single word.

So, he's supposedly had a total of 7-8K grafts combined between HST and FUT? a couple photos in there where he's not wearing concealer look extremely thin. That's not too impressive a result. Are you sure those photos are from "after" is procedures with Gho?

[hairysituation]

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

So, he's supposedly had a total of 7-8K grafts combined between HST and FUT? a couple photos in there where he's not wearing concealer look extremely thin. That's not too impressive a result. Are you sure those photos are from "after" is procedures with Gho?

Yes. Maybe it`s before his last procedure before he filled in his hairline and the crown. But he definetely had two HST procedures in the picture I provided. Nevertheless, you can see the updated pictures after his latest procedure on his facebook profiile. Judge for yourself.

Of course it`s not impressive, the entire procedure is pure bullshit. I guess it works for the people who are ok with with a sparse-looking recipent area and a virgin-looking donor area. However, the majority want something more impressive.

To summarize, convetional methods, like FUE and FUT, produce decent, but not very dense-looking results. But HST produce results which are FAR more minimal (aesthetically). What would you rather choose? you have to prioritize:

recipent VS donor- what is more important to you?

[534623]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

Of course it`s not impressive, the entire procedure is pure bullshit.

Scissorboy doesn't agree with you ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpos...2&postcount=18

[534623]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

"the amount of HST grafts he has recieved"??

How much grafts?

1st procedure (Nov 2009): Just 1500 HST grafts distributed all over the (big) whole balding/thinning scalp.

2nd procedure (2011): 1650 HST grafts - almost everything just for the CROWN area!

3rd procedure (July 2012 - ~2.5 month ago): 1670 HST for the CROWN area again as well as just for the hairLINE.

And with such rather small procedures (in comparison) into different areas you expect an extremely dense looking hairline - especially for a hairline just 2.5 month after having the procedure???

The intention and focus of the first 2 procedures has never been to give Joling an extremely thick looking hairline!