A case of NW7 for in-vivo Doubling / HM / DP - Day 1 @ Dr. Nigam's

[Arashi]

There are 3-4 nerd users in this forum who have no social life and spend all day on a forum of hair.

The goal here would be to understand what is the best approach to adopt, do not spend all day here and suffocate a doctor who might be innovative.

If there are some ideas to do at the doctor let them, without ruining all threads. The forum is for everyone, not just read it in 3-4 people.

Things are 2:

O Dr. Nigam is a crook, then report it to the authorities if you do not want to drive on bad citizens.

O Dr. Nigam has something in his hands, and then let's put it in the best condition to show us what it has.

Take a handbook of how DETAILED must be photographic documentation, if you know.

Great ! So if you can find out for us, which doctor is real and who's not, you'd save us all a LOT of time, we can go on with our lives and won't have to worry about all this anymore. Let us know when you're done with your research, ok ?

[One]

There are 3-4 nerd users in this forum who have no social life and spend all day on a forum of hair.

The goal here would be to understand what is the best approach to adopt, do not spend all day here and suffocate a doctor who might be innovative.

If there are some ideas to do at the doctor let them, without ruining all threads. The forum is for everyone, not just read it in 3-4 people.

Things are 2:

-Dr. Nigam is a crook, then report it to the authorities if you do not want to drive on bad citizens.

-Dr. Nigam has something in his hands, and then let's put it in the best condition to show us what it has.

Take a handbook of how DETAILED must be photographic documentation, if you know.

[Arashi]

However, GC, I was just thinking: about your 3rd HST, we had everything we needed there, didnt we ? Good pre-op photo's and good post-op photo's, so transected hairs shouldn't even a problem ?!?!

And in your case, recipient growth could probably be counted too, or at least fairly accurately estimated ?

[Arashi]

I beleive in supreme being/divine superpower, no religion in particular.

Ok at least that's way less stupid than believing in the Bible or Quran

[Arashi]

They shddo it for free, hasci will accept it unless you pissed Kristel off

They don't have to do anything at all, it's their choice. But if they don't do it, then I'm starting to wonder too: where's the SOLID proof ? We've seen GC's regrowth, but as we know now a part of that might just be transected hairs.

[didi]

I beleive in supreme being/divine superpower, no religion in particular.

anyway, lets see what they say

They shddo it for free, hasci will accept it unless you pissed Kristel off

Gho will say 'these forum guys are useless jerks, how many test they want'

Hell start losing hair bc of us

[Arashi]

They delibertly messed up....

You believe in god because you're obviously not very good at logic. The bible is full of factual nonsense like the earth is flat, sun turns around the earth etc. It's all just made up by people with the knowledge they had back then. And besides, the best argument against religion is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0klSfx--n8

Anyway, logic tells us that if HASCI 'deliberately' messed up, they won't allow a second test. If they won't, then I'm for sure done with HASCI too. We'll see

[didi]

Im religious and i believe in G_d...but I dont beleive in Drs unless they prove technique beyond resonable doubt...right now there a lot of doubts

HASCI missed golden oportunity to prove their tech works..right? They deliberately messed up....

[Arashi]

Now i wonder what was the real regeneratuion in GCs case?
we assumed no extra holes/transections but truth is there are so many extra HOLES in HST

GC said he counted and that the ratio drills/extractions were pretty much 1:1 in his case, so I doubt he had much extra drills. However at this point that's just speculation and that's why we need another test.

[didi]

Now i wonder what was the real regeneratuion in GCs case?
we assumed no extra holes/transections but truth is there are so many extra HOLES in HST

[Arashi]

'99% of the times Didi is talking out of his arse, but he does have a point that it's weird that after all these years we're still even discussing Gho's technique.'

Yup. That's why I asked for this test and will ask for a new one. I need SOLID proof. Not only in Nigam's case (well he's a fraud for sure, thats pretty clear by now), but also in Gho's case. That I have in common with Ironman: I'm an atheist too: I don't like to just 'believe' in stuff, I need proof and facts.

[didi]

'99% of the times Didi is talking out of his arse, but he does have a point that it's weird that after all these years we're still even discussing Gho's technique.'

[Arashi]

GC,
This is what i have to say--
1)the number of extractions at the donor(you all counted more than 300-350),should be counted as intervened donor ( successful extractions plus failed extractions) and not 200 grafts .
Even if they are failed extractions ,nothing to worry they will grow back shortly,it happens with our invivo extractions,but since root the follicle is not disturbed it should be fine.Hence first thing is it should not be counted as 200 graft extraction.
2)With this it means we have to first confirm total donor interventions(failed plus successful extractions)for extraction with single/double/triple follicles.(with a before pic and the pic after extractions).
And come to a right count of total number of follicles not just grafts intervened.
3)Once we know that,we will have to count the total follicles regenerated at the interventions at the donor and total follicles regenerated at the recipient(temples and scar)
4)I have not understood why did they discard 50 extractions.
5)Frankly i was expecting them to show longitudnally bisected follicle (not follicular unit),but was is seen in the petridish is follicles with bulb like fue extractions with transections.
5)Telogen theory is irrelevant as same is applicable for fut/fue while counting regen.
6)Even if few are telogen follicles ,they will regenerate after few months as the club is still at the donor,as in telogen the bulb and the shaft have separated.
7)The claim that stemcells are extracted and implanted after soaking in preservation medium to multiply follicle stemcells is ultimately proved as an ILLUSION.
8)I am not sure but is it mentioned in the thread that ..HASCI is expecting 200 follicle regen at recipient and 50 less than 200 at donor plus transected extractions regen at the donor.Please confirm what regen of total follicles at recipient and donor they are expecting to grow.
9)Recipient regen should be like fue as they have implanted the follicles with bulb like fue.We should check for doubles at scar and singles at temples.
10)Donor should match with the before pic of extraction sites( successful , failed extractions and transected extractions) count at donor should take into consideration the singles/double/triples.
11)The petri dish clearly shows as mentioned by the post by you all approx. 350plus follicles,which matches the extraction sites at donor approx.
Aperson walks into aclinic ,we see his 350plus follicles out of the scalp, we need to see atleast 350 plus follicles back on scalp ..anything above this is growth secondary to invivo follicular bisection.
You should let me know how many graft regenerated and than can calculate the real result.

someTE=gc83uk;115986]Dr Nigam,

I'm interested to hear your opinion on the recent 200 graft test by Dr Gho. There are no results to speak of yet, but I would like to know your opinion on the grafts in the petri dish? Have you seen this image... 200 grafts - 150 singles and 50 doubles

Nobody will accuse you of bashing, I just want your honest opinion on it.

Hehe. There's so much nonsense in the above that I wouldn't know where to start. But since you asked for it, GC, I'l llet you do the talking

[Arashi]

all of them are really strange. hasci had yo do 50 grafts an made two photos with some tattoos. it was not so hard. i'm frustrated, why the hell they don'y want to prove us your technique so we can definitely buy it and make them rich and us happy? still don't understand

I think HASCI would really need to proof their technique and show us SOLID proof. 99% of the times Didi is talking out of his arse, but he does have a point that it's weird that after all these years we're still even discussing Gho's technique. That's why I've also strongly urged them to re-do the test, this time only 50 grafts and get a professional photographer who knows how to make solid macro photo's.

[drnigams]

GC,
This is what i have to say--
1)the number of extractions at the donor(you all counted more than 300-350),should be counted as intervened donor ( successful extractions plus failed extractions) and not 200 grafts .
Even if they are failed extractions ,nothing to worry they will grow back shortly,it happens with our invivo extractions,but since root the follicle is not disturbed it should be fine.Hence first thing is it should not be counted as 200 graft extraction.
2)With this it means we have to first confirm total donor interventions(failed plus successful extractions)for extraction with single/double/triple follicles.(with a before pic and the pic after extractions).
And come to a right count of total number of follicles not just grafts intervened.
3)Once we know that,we will have to count the total follicles regenerated at the interventions at the donor and total follicles regenerated at the recipient(temples and scar)
4)I have not understood why did they discard 50 extractions.
5)Frankly i was expecting them to show longitudnally bisected follicle (not follicular unit),but was is seen in the petridish is follicles with bulb like fue extractions with transections.
5)Telogen theory is irrelevant as same is applicable for fut/fue while counting regen.
6)Even if few are telogen follicles ,they will regenerate after few months as the club is still at the donor,as in telogen the bulb and the shaft have separated.
7)The claim that stemcells are extracted and implanted after soaking in preservation medium to multiply follicle stemcells is ultimately proved as an ILLUSION.
8)I am not sure but is it mentioned in the thread that ..HASCI is expecting 200 follicle regen at recipient and 50 less than 200 at donor plus transected extractions regen at the donor.Please confirm what regen of total follicles at recipient and donor they are expecting to grow.
9)Recipient regen should be like fue as they have implanted the follicles with bulb like fue.We should check for doubles at scar and singles at temples.
10)Donor should match with the before pic of extraction sites( successful , failed extractions and transected extractions) count at donor should take into consideration the singles/double/triples.
11)The petri dish clearly shows as mentioned by the post by you all approx. 350plus follicles,which matches the extraction sites at donor approx.
Aperson walks into aclinic ,we see his 350plus follicles out of the scalp, we need to see atleast 350 plus follicles back on scalp ..anything above this is growth secondary to invivo follicular bisection.
You should let me know how many graft regenerated and than can calculate the real result.

someTE=gc83uk;115986]Dr Nigam,

I'm interested to hear your opinion on the recent 200 graft test by Dr Gho. There are no results to speak of yet, but I would like to know your opinion on the grafts in the petri dish? Have you seen this image... 200 grafts - 150 singles and 50 doubles

Nobody will accuse you of bashing, I just want your honest opinion on it.[/QUOTE]