Dr Nigam, my own experience

[JJJJrS]

My take on all this is that the 85% that HASCI talk about is not NET regeneration of hairs, but 85% regeneration of grafts, whether partial or full. What does this mean? Well if a 1 hair graft regrows out of what was once a 2 hair graft then they call this regeneration, albeit that is only 50% net regeneration of the hairs.

There's a big problem with looking at it from that standpoint. Someone could entirely split multi-hair follicular units, and claim donor regeneration. For example, if a 3-hair follicular unit is extracted and 2 hairs "regenerate" in the donor and 1 hair yields in the recipient, then according to HASCI's and Iron_Man's logic, you have total donor regeneration. Or if a graft is transected, regrows in the donor but is not viable for transplantation, than we have another case of "donor regeneration." Obviously, in both cases you have zero hair multiplication and the "regeneration rate" is a meaningless figure.

The only thing that matters is the multiplication rate and you can only determine such a figure if you analyze both the donor and recipient of a small procedure. Otherwise, what I described above is a very real, very plausible explanation for what HASCI is doing.

[JJJJrS]

I know that all this isn't conclusive 'evidence', but it's all we have. Hopefully that will change in a few months when gc is going to fully document his next HST.

What can gc do though that he didn't do in his 3rd procedure? The guy's documentation was so detailed and thorough that I honestly don't know what more you could ask for.

The major problem is, it's just way too tedious and impractical to analyze procedures of 1k+ grafts, in terms of photo-taking and hair-mapping, for both the donor and recipient. Even the relatively small analysis I did took a huge amount of time. You have to limit it to ~50-100 grafts.

[gc83uk]

What can gc do though that he didn't do in his 3rd procedure? The guy's documentation was so detailed and thorough that I honestly don't know what more you could ask for.

The major problem is, it's just way too tedious and impractical to analyze procedures of 1k+ grafts, in terms of photo-taking and hair-mapping, for both the donor and recipient. Even the relatively small analysis I did took a huge amount of time. You have to limit it to ~50-100 grafts.

Quick question for you JJ, did you have or do you remember of the hairs extracted in your sample, what was the average graft size extracted?

[JJJJrS]

Quick question for you JJ, did you have or do you remember of the hairs extracted in your sample, what was the average graft size extracted?

Nearly every follicular unit that HASCI targeted for extraction was a multi-hair FU.

[534623]

The only thing that matters is the multiplication rate and you can only determine such a figure if you analyze both the donor and recipient of a small procedure. Otherwise, what I described above is a very real, very plausible explanation for what HASCI is doing.

What? "Splitting multi-hair follicular units"?

How many hair shafts could you see left immediately, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days etc AFTER within the extraction holes?

...because that would be something what you definitely would SEE immediately after the extraction process; namely, short HAIRS within or very close at the borders of extraction wounds.

Oh, and how often did we discuss this issue already?

What a jerk ...

[JJJJrS]

What? "Splitting multi-hair follicular units"?

How many hair shafts could you see left immediately, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days etc AFTER within the extraction holes?

...because that would be something what you definitely would SEE immediately after the extraction process; namely, short HAIRS within or very close at the borders of extraction wounds.

Oh, and how often did we discuss this issue already?

What a jerk ...

It doesn't matter what you see immediately after extraction if all this is happening subdermally.

Petri Dish Photo

Above is evidence of graft splitting. Every single "1-hair graft" is derived from a transected 2 or even 3 hair graft. I don't care what the excuse HASCI has about using the 2nd hair as a guide. They have to prove exactly what the regeneration rate is, and so far they have not been able to do so.

[gc83uk]

What can gc do though that he didn't do in his 3rd procedure? The guy's documentation was so detailed and thorough that I honestly don't know what more you could ask for.

The major problem is, it's just way too tedious and impractical to analyze procedures of 1k+ grafts, in terms of photo-taking and hair-mapping, for both the donor and recipient. Even the relatively small analysis I did took a huge amount of time. You have to limit it to ~50-100 grafts.

Well surely you can agree that we can easily prove or disprove the failed extraction theory, counting 700 sites should be easy.

Slightly more complicated will be photographing the 700 grafts in the recipient and even more complicated being able to find these new 700 grafts in the following weeks/months. But with perfect photos with perfect focus the tools will be there for everyone to make their own analysis, however pain staking and tedious it might be.

[Arashi]

Well surely you can agree that we can easily prove or disprove the failed extraction theory, counting 700 sites should be easy.

Slightly more complicated will be photographing the 700 grafts in the recipient and even more complicated being able to find these new 700 grafts in the following weeks/months. But with perfect photos with perfect focus the tools will be there for everyone to make their own analysis, however pain staking and tedious it might be.

Yup. And I myself, for one, dont mind putting in (a lot of) time to get this thing finally sorted out.

[534623]

It doesn't matter what you see immediately after extraction if all this is happening subdermally.

Even everything happens "subdermally" ...

...what part part of all these explanations ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=110193&postcount=6

... don't you idiot still don't understand??

So "subdermally" or not - you would definitely see short HAIRS within or very near to the extractions wounds.

"subdermally" - what a jerk ...

Oh, and try to find out the difference between "graft splitting" and "transection" of follicles ... man, what a real jerk ...

[JJJJrS]

Even everything happens "subdermally" ...

...what part part of all these explanations ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=110193&postcount=6

... don't you idiot still don't understand??

So "subdermally" or not - you would definitely see short HAIRS within or very near to the extractions wounds.

"subdermally" - what a jerk ...

Oh, and try to find out the difference between "graft splitting" and "transection" of follicles ... man, what a real jerk ...

I just gave you proof of split hair grafts. Let me link it again for you:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/16/3377048/HASCI_petri_dish.jpeg

Where were the remaining hair shafts in james bald's donor then? I don't care about your cute little pictures and excuses, I'll trust my own eyes.

You know the donor regeneration isn't 80% but you continue to mislead people that it is. Why? You jumped all over Histogen for their dodgy photos but you're just as delusional about HASCI/Gho.

[Boldy]

I just gave you proof of split hair grafts. Let me link it again for you:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/16/3377048/HASCI_petri_dish.jpeg

Where were the remaining hair shafts in james bald's donor then? I don't care about your cute little pictures and excuses, I'll trust my own eyes.

You know the donor regeneration isn't 80% but you continue to mislead people that it is. Why? You jumped all over Histogen for their dodgy photos but you're just as delusional about HASCI/Gho.

so Ghos technique is 50-60% regeneration. ?


Howmuch % is nigams getting with in vitro doubling? (donor regeneration + recipient point)

[Arashi]

so Ghos technique is 50-60% regeneration. ?


Howmuch % is nigams getting with in vitro doubling? (donor regeneration + recipient point)

We don't know. Tom's case is the first trustworthy testcase. And we don't know anything about Gho neither, but it makes sense IMHO to estimate it at about 40-50% regrowth.

[didi]

WTH, we still debating dr gho..cant believe its still on

'Every single "1-hair graft" is derived from a transected 2 or even 3 hair graft. I don't care what the excuse HASCI has about using the 2nd hair as a guide.'




As a guide?? Is this official IMs explanation?
This dr gho is real genius, I mean fraudster

[Boldy]

We don't know. Tom's case is the first trustworthy testcase. And we don't know anything about Gho neither, but it makes sense IMHO to estimate it at about 40-50% regrowth.

still better than normal fue, saving 40-50% of donor each time.. if the price was fair, it would be nice.

[gc83uk]

Yup. And I myself, for one, dont mind putting in (a lot of) time to get this thing finally sorted out.

Good man!

With all the contradicting information that people post on here, it's no wonder we go around in circles.

From what I can gather Iron Man believes that the bulbless hair shafts will grow in the recipient. JJJJrS and most others don't believe this to be possible. This is what it comes down to right?