Dr Nigam, my own experience

[Arashi]

Jesus Christ, arashi... you need a life man. we get it, you know he's a fraud! now can't you **** off?

Unlike you, I'm actually doing something. I'm trying to analyze the situation. You just sit there and mock. You've done nothing. If you want to get something done, do it yourself, don't depend on others. Start researching the photo's !

[gc83uk]

Supposedly this preop strip: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10enhjr&s=5
looks like this postop: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rdxogk&s=5

RRRRRRIGHT

Umm, it could be the same strip, just zoomed in on the after pic, but far from ideal.

You know come to think of it, when you look at those extraction points, it doesn't look like anything has been reimplanted.

Come to think of it, didn't Tom have all the grafts placed in the recipient area, as in both halfs?

[hiilikeyourbeard]

Jesus Christ, arashi... you need a life man. we get it, you know he's a fraud! now can't you **** off?

[Arashi]

Supposedly this preop strip: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10enhjr&s=5
looks like this postop: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rdxogk&s=5

RRRRRRIGHT

[Arashi]

I had that same issue when I was going through them a few weeks back, I gave up tbh.

We just need to find a photo showing the sample area with that freckle below it, that's if the photo even exists.

These photo's are horrible. Take a look at strip 4. According to the postop picture, strip 4 is just one part. But if you look at the preop photo of strip 4, you see 2 parts !! Strip 4 is way smaller postop than it is preop !?!! Actually it seems that the postop strip is half the size of the preop strip !?!?!

Really, I don't see how anyone could analyse this. It's one big mess.

[gc83uk]

Really, is A3 even the same strip as A1 ? According to Nigam's documentation it is (both 'strip 1'), but I doubt it. A1 seems thicker than A3.

Same thing for strip 2: I can link B1 to B3. However I can't link B2, it's a horrible photo again. And it seems also there's just a piece missing there.

Strip 3: can't link both parts.

I had that same issue when I was going through them a few weeks back, I gave up tbh.

We just need to find a photo showing the sample area with that freckle below it, that's if the photo even exists.

Without that photo then the sample area test is over already. Taking photographs next month etc, what would be the point?

[Arashi]

Really, is A3 even the same strip as A1 ? According to Nigam's documentation it is (both 'strip 1'), but I doubt it. A1 seems thicker than A3.

Same thing for strip 2: I can link B1 to B3. However I can't link B2, it's a horrible photo again. And it seems also there's just a piece missing there.

Strip 3: can't link both parts.

[Arashi]

I think it's pretty obvious though, that they make all the extractions and then do the disecting in Vitro and later implant in the donor and recipient, so basically they are all mixed up and none of the original grafts are implanted back to their original extraction points unfortunately.

Agreed that he's doing it in batches, not per graft. If we could pinpoint 2 sample area's for each say 100 grafts, on average they should then contain pretty much as many hairs as pre-op (will vary a bit of course but should be roughly the same, if there were 200 hairs preop we'd expect like 180-220 there to be postop).

But man I was just looking at the photo's again. It's really a mess. I wanted to see if it's possible to verify how many extraction points there are in the donor. In which case you'll have to link the split strips (like A1 to A2 to A3) and this is pretty impossible already since the photo's are horrible. I can link A1 to A2 but not to A3. It seems there's just a piece missing. And then recipient, it's impossible to do even a guestimate of the total amount of red dots since a lot of the recipient is missing in the photo's.

[gc83uk]

Hmmm... If your theory is correct, then we should see as many red spots in donor as in recipient, right ? If this were to be true, then we could most probably indeed at least get a rough idea if all this works or not. At least, IF we can even pinpoint the donor area in a few months.

Exactly!

As Marios pointed out there is a small freckle/birthmark just below the sample area.

Problem is though, how do we know which of the 1, 2 and 3 hair grafts are going back in the donor? Unless of course he does it one-by-one, e.g: Extract using FUE the entire graft disect it or whatever he does in Vitro, and put half of it straight back in the just extracted hole of the donor and the other half straight in the recipient.

Doing it like that would be painfully slow, but if it was like that then the regrowth of the donor should theoretically match up exactly with what was there before, assuming 100% regrowth.

I think it's pretty obvious though, that they make all the extractions and then do the disecting in Vitro and later implant in the donor and recipient, so basically they are all mixed up and none of the original grafts are implanted back to their original extraction points unfortunately.

[Arashi]

Yea I get all that, but surely he just implants one half in each extraction point of the donor and the other half in the recipient. So if we can see 50 bloody spots on the photo, then we know that half of that graft will regrow (fully apparently) in each of those 50 grafts.

What we won't know of course is whether it was a 1, 2 or 3 hair which has been reimplanted in each of those extraction points. We could take an average figure of course, but hardly ideal.

Hmmm... If your theory is correct, then we should see as many red spots in donor as in recipient, right ? If this were to be true, then we could most probably indeed at least get a rough idea if all this works or not. At least, IF we can even pinpoint the donor area in a few months.

[hellouser]

My prediction: we'll see a picture of Mwamba shaking hands with Nigams and then ... we'll never hear anything again about it.

Reach out to Mwamba after.

Is doubling supposed to use any injections of any kind or would it still require FDA trial shit?

[gc83uk]

First of all, I would NEVER use a sample area Nigams pointed out, way too suspicious. IF you want to pursue this road, then at least take a different sample area, from a different strip.

Secondly Nigams split the grafts In Vitro. So he ejected the whole graft, split it and implanted both halves back (at least that's how I understood it). So monitoring the donor without knowing what he implanted back there is useless.

Yea I get all that, but surely he just implants one half in each extraction point of the donor and the other half in the recipient. So if we can see 50 bloody spots on the photo, then we know that half of that graft will regrow (fully apparently) in each of those 50 grafts.

What we won't know of course is whether it was a 1, 2 or 3 hair which has been reimplanted in each of those extraction points. We could take an average figure of course, but hardly ideal.

It was only when I got the the 2nd paragraph of typing the above I got what you meant

[Arashi]

what dr mwamba says about donor doubling,

My prediction: we'll see a picture of Mwamba shaking hands with Nigams and then ... we'll never hear anything again about it.

[hellouser]

Well we will at least know by October what HST regeneration is, what dr mwamba says about donor doubling, what pilofocus is about, histogen update at the conference as well...

Replicel starting Phase II trials in a few months as well.

We need to make it very, VERY VERY clear that we're going to demand a 2015 release date of both Histogen AND Replicel. I'll go batshit if they dont meet that fvcking deadline. Aderans already failed miserably with their 2014 target and we're 4 months away from that as well... how god damn sad is that? They would have easily had *thousands* of patients lining up on day one and then some on following days and weeks once word spread of a PROPER solution that makes finasteride COMPLETELY obsolete as it should be.

[Arashi]

You're right, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In fact to the best of my knowledge this has never been done. EVER

Obviously we'll be doing this with my HST next month...

But surely this sample area is a worthy take on whether it works or not. I understand you're extremely skeptical, especially with Nigams track record. However if we have a sample area of 100 grafts which we can clearly see have been wounded multiple times and we can see which grafts (e.g 45 x 2 hair grafts, 30 x 1 hair grafts and 25 x 3 hair grafts) have been extracted and re-implanted then if these 100 grafts (195 hairs) show 100 grafts/195 hairs regrowth then it will be difficult to refute it.

The only possible explanation not to believe it could be that you think Nigam has faked the sample area with bloody spots to make it look like something has happened, obviously then it will appear as 100% regrowth. This is what you're on about right?

First of all, I would never use a sample area Nigams pointed out, way too suspicious. IF you want to pursue this road, then at least take a different sample area, from a different strip.

Secondly Nigams split the grafts In Vitro. So he ejected the whole graft, split it and implanted both halves back (at least that's how I understood it). So monitoring a donor sample area without knowing what he implanted back there is useless.