The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[gc83uk]

Whats so difficult about knowing if HST works or not with 80% regeneration when using IronMan's simple suggestion:

Just count the total number of hairs that regrew from regenerated follicles and the total number of hairs that grew in the recipient area. The numbers should reflect what percentage there is of regeneration and recipient growth.

Forget follicles.

I dont see what all the fuss is about in this thread??

We all know this mate.

But answer me this, if you count 500 hairs regrowing the donor and 250 in the recipient, I suppose you think that would be awesome right?

Not so. I can explain that to you if you need me to, however I'm sure you already know.

The only conclusive way is to have an EXCELLENT pre op photos which show the number of hairs in every fu which MIGHT get extracted. That is not easy for most people.

An extreme example would be Hasci could extract 3000 hairs 2900 could be transections of which 100% of those transections grows back. In the recipient they only implant 100 hairs.

What % of regrowth have you got? You have 100% if you count 3000 hairs in the donor. But you won't know where those 3000 hairs are without the proper pre op pics.

[JJJJrS]

And JJJJR's, what do you think about my idea ?

I'm assuming this is your idea:

Exactly. I'm willing to put up $50,000 IF my hair truely regenerates. I'd be happy with 65%. Even with 50% I'd still get at least another HST, but I'd not be so sure about getting a 3rd ASAP.

Anyway, what JJJR's did was analyze a subset of your donor grafts and compare how many hairs regenerated there. But obviously in theory a part of these grafts were just failed extractions/transections or whatever you want to call it. We'd need to find out how many hairs you've lost in your donor and we'd need to find out how many (approx) grew in your recipient.

Now, I don't need an EXACT number, just a ballpark number. Hence I'd be happy with a slightly less reliable number if that saves us tons of works. What I'm saying here, if we can just count the amount of possible extraction sites ('bloody/red" spots) we can extrapolate. For example let's say that according to jjjrs you've lost 20 hairs in those 100 spots he examined, we can just assume you've lost 0.2 hair per spot and multiply that with the amount of spots. Of course it would be better to count them ALL, but that's a hell of a job. Well maybe we could count another 100 to get an even more reliable number and use that.

So, then we'll know (approx) how many hairs you've lost. Next we'd need to count new hairs in recipient. And to me it's all about that ratio: how many hairs do you sacrifice in donor to get how many hairs in recipient.

Does this make sense ?

Overall, I think gc's procedure is far too large to get a real conclusive answer. If we want to get a complete picture we have to look at a complete procedure including all extractions and implantations. I think the 50 graft test is the only practical and conclusive way to do that really.

But it's possible that I'm not fully understanding your idea.

[hellouser]

Whats so difficult about knowing if HST works or not with 80% regeneration when using IronMan's simple suggestion:

Just count the total number of hairs that regrew from regenerated follicles and the total number of hairs that grew in the recipient area. The numbers should reflect what percentage there is of regeneration and recipient growth.

Forget follicles.

I dont see what all the fuss is about in this thread??

[Arashi]

And JJJJR's, what do you think about my idea ?

[Arashi]

It wont take long, already uploaded a batch of photos. I'll sift throug some utter shit ones in a sec too to speed up the process.

There is a few pre op photos. If you remember I shaved my head on the morning of my 3rd HST. They only operated on the left side of my head on day 1, which meant I could shoot perfect photos of the right side of the head. They took 800 grafts from each side.

Sounds great !

[gc83uk]

and with 'since my 3rd hst' you mean pre-op pics too, right ?

It wont take long, already uploaded a batch of photos. I'll sift throug some utter shit ones in a sec too to speed up the process.

There is a few pre op photos. If you remember I shaved my head on the morning of my 3rd HST. They only operated on the left side of my head on day 1, which meant I could shoot perfect photos of the right side of the head. They took 800 grafts from each side.

[Arashi]

and with 'since my 3rd hst' you mean pre-op pics too, right ?

[Arashi]

OK what I will do is upload all the pictures I have on this current computer (since my 3rd HST) to a dropbox account and give you access to it if you want? Some of the pictures will be no use, but it should give you, me and anyone else the perfect archive area to check things now or in the future.

How many gb's are we talking here ? Mabye you can just compress everything into a zip and upload it on a filesharer website ? I don't use dropbox much, is it fast enough to transfer all of the pics ?

[gc83uk]

OK what I will do is upload all the pictures I have on this current computer (since my 3rd HST) to a dropbox account and give you access to it if you want? Some of the pictures will be no use, but it should give you, me and anyone else the perfect archive area to check things now or in the future.

[Arashi]

Perhaps, but I think Arashi made it clear that this was going to be of interest to the forums online and that the intention of it all was to provide conclusive evidence. Why would HASCI share the results if this is just a test for themselves? Overall, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I didn't even respond to IM's remark. It's ridiculous to even suggest what he said. It's not a test for themselves. It's something they wanted to do for us AND document on their website, hence the professional microscopic pictures.

[JJJJrS]

Due to my observations of all so far provided facts, that they, for example...

- placed so many "single grafts" into your (rather big) temple corners (absolutely no reason for "single hair" implantations within these areas);
- practically ALL these "single hairs" in the petri-dish (section 1) look like this...

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12643640/img/12643640.jpg

... it appears to me, and IF I'm not totally wrong, that you have been indeed a "test-candidate" - no, NOT for some (useless) forum goers; instead of, just a TEST CANDIDATE for the HSCI. That's what I think.

Perhaps, but I think Arashi made it clear that this was going to be of interest to the forums online and that the intention of it all was to provide conclusive evidence. Why would HASCI share the results if this is just a test for themselves? Overall, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Arashi]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much we will be able to get out of this case for all the reasons you've already outlined.

Agreed. This 200 graft test failed and we need to move on.

[Arashi]

Of course, we should first wait for HASCI's response. Hopefully they'll do another 50 graft test and have a good photographer. But if not, then this might be a good backup plan, right ?

[JJJJrS]

I've emailed Kristel and asked if it was possible to do a new test. Just keep it at 50 grafts and get a professional photographer to do the macro photo's. Yes, they said they would make professional photo's this time around too, but this was a misunderstanding: they made professional microscopic photos', of which I've posted an example a few pages back, but no macro photo's. Unfortunately these microscopic photo's won't help us, since they cover only a small area.

I hope they're willing to do another test and this time around indeed with just 50 grafts and macro photo's shot by a professional photographer. If they don't feel like doing another test, it's their good right of course, but it would be a huge disappointment, I think to everybody here.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much we will be able to get out of this case for all the reasons you've already outlined. It's a little frustrating to me because we gave them the complete template for doing the test.

Hopefully they will agree to the test properly, because something like this is long overdue and it's really not that complicated at all to implement.

[Arashi]

Well I'm in the exact same boat. I have spent too much time here the last few weeks, but it's a crucial moment especially when I you consider the cost of HST, we're talking between 10-50k$, so don't beat yourself up about it, we just need to come to some definite solid conclusions and then of course move on.

Exactly. I'm willing to put up $50,000 IF my hair truely regenerates. I'd be happy with 65%. Even with 50% I'd still get at least another HST, but I'd not be so sure about getting a 3rd ASAP.

Anyway, what JJJR's did was analyze a subset of your donor grafts and compare how many hairs regenerated there. But obviously in theory a part of these grafts were just failed extractions/transections or whatever you want to call it. We'd need to find out how many hairs you've lost in your donor and we'd need to find out how many (approx) grew in your recipient.

Now, I don't need an EXACT number, just a ballpark number. Hence I'd be happy with a slightly less reliable number if that saves us tons of works. What I'm saying here, if we can just count the amount of possible extraction sites ('bloody/red" spots) we can extrapolate. For example let's say that according to jjjrs you've lost 20 hairs in those 100 spots he examined, we can just assume you've lost 0.2 hair per spot and multiply that with the amount of spots. Of course it would be better to count them ALL, but that's a hell of a job. Well maybe we could count another 100 to get an even more reliable number and use that.

So, then we'll know (approx) how many hairs you've lost. Next we'd need to count new hairs in recipient. And to me it's all about that ratio: how many hairs do you sacrifice in donor to get how many hairs in recipient.

Does this make sense ?