The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[didi]

I can see Gho fanboys have been shaken over the past 24 hours...GC isnt sure whats going on, arashi seem to be confused, IM is the last man standing...Im worried abt his mental health,

JJJrs also expressed scepticism,


Dr Wesley will come up with scarless FUE, in matter of weeks..at least he is honest man and doesnt call it stem cell or HM and will be willing to share..

Nigam is prbbly doing the same as dr gho..he shd concentrate on real HM...doubling is illusion

[Arashi]

Arashi, I find you to be a reliable poster with a level head so please can you answer my question.

This thread seems to have gone mad since the test case yesterday. Please explain what exactly has happened, I mean even previous Gho patients such as yourself and GC seem somewhat shook up and surely it's too early to tell anything from the procedure.

It's too early to tell. But the thing is that there are lot of hairs in the petridish that obviously won't grow/can't be used in recipient. Most likely these were what I'd call 'failed extractions'. Hairs that were cut off at some point. Or 'transected hairs' if you wish. They'll grow back in donor for sure, but since they won't grow in recipient, they've most probably inflated previous results. If we combine previous knowledge with this new knowledge, then I'm predicting we'll see 40-45% regrowth instead of the 65% regrowth. Of course I'm talking about HAIR regrowth here, which is the TRUE regrowth. Graft regrowth will be higher, but nobody is really interested in grafts, we want to see how many hairs we sacrifice in donor to get new hairs in recipient.

These predictions can be off of course, so let's see how everything develops. We'll have a pretty good prediction of the final number in 3 weeks.

Why is Didi so sure that Gho is fake now?

Hehe. Ask Didi. To him 45% true HAIR regrowth means HASCI were scammers. HASCI advertised with graft regrowth, which is of course higher.

Why did HASCI change the test from 50 grafts to 200?

I think the main one to benefit was James himself, who's gotten a nice result here. But of course, to us it's a benefit as well, the higher the number, the more reliable the research (less statistical variance in outcome).

[c5000]

It's too early to tell. But the thing is that there are lot of hairs in the petridish that obviously won't grow/can't be used in recipient. Most likely these were what I'd call 'failed extractions'. Hairs that were cut off at some point. Or 'transected hairs' if you wish. They'll grow back in donor for sure, but since they won't grow in recipient, they've most probably inflated previous results. If we combine previous knowledge with this new knowledge, then I'm predicting we'll see 40-45% regrowth instead of the 65% regrowth. Of course I'm talking about HAIR regrowth here, which is the TRUE regrowth. Graft regrowth will be higher, but nobody is really interested in grafts, we want to see how many hairs we sacrifice in donor to get new hairs in recipient.

This is what I'm thinking.

It seems like when they do a failed extraction, they don't click the clicker, which is why I heard about twice as many drills as I did clicks, sometimes more, sometimes less.

On a positive note though, we discussed this issue in my thread and I think Arashi emailed Kristel and she said that the regeneration rate was over and above the failed extractions. i.e. all the failed extractions regenerated and these weren't counted in the regeneration figures. e.g. if there were 500 failed extractions and 1000 successful extractions then the 500 failed extractions regenerate or more likely just grow longer and resurface above the skin (as they weren't actually extracted). If 800 of the 1000 successful extractions regrow, then Hasci takes the regeneration rate as 80%.

Am I right in saying Kristel or one of the other doctors said that Arashi?

Lets try and stay positive, or atleast level on this until we know the facts.

I have still booked my next procedure so I'm still happy to go ahead with it at this stage.

Also, maybe Hasci can finally clear up this failed extractions thing with the aid of the photo of the petri dish. They seem to try their best to answer questions.

[Arashi]

Yep, according to HASCI the failed extractions (or transected hairs, whatever you want to call it) always grow back. This makes sense of course, they will grow back, no doubt about that. Nothing happened to the graft, it's still in the donor.

They also said that regrowth still will be 80%. But back then we didn't really differentiate between HAIR regrowth and GRAFT regrowth. We'd only talk about graft regrowth. It's only as of JJJJRs research that we know that hair regrowth is less than graft regrowth.

[Arashi]

Anyway, James, could you shoot and post some good pictures of your recipient, both sides ? This way we'll hopefully be able to see how many hairs they've implanted in recipient.

[c5000]

Yep, according to HASCI the failed extractions (or transected hairs, whatever you want to call it) always grow back. This makes sense of course, they will grow back, no doubt about that. Nothing happened to the graft, it's still in the donor.

They also said that regrowth still will be 80%. But back then we didn't really differentiate between HAIR regrowth and GRAFT regrowth. We'd only talk about graft regrowth. It's only as of JJJJRs research that we know that hair regrowth is less than graft regrowth.

Surely nothing has changed since JJJJRs research then? We always knew about these failed extractions and Hasci knows we know about these failed extractions.

Also JJJJRs research was based on GCs case which is a very unique case. Either way GCs results have been very impressive thus far and is the main reason why I went for a procedure in the first place.

[aim4hair]

Didi,
Can you stop with your childlish posts and focus on the test.
Let's wait for the test result first before trying to distract ppl with meaningless posts about nigam, woods, fue, etc...
This test is as nuetral as it gets, everybody can analyse the result, plus james is not related to HASCI by any means.

[gc83uk]

Surely nothing has changed since JJJJRs research then? We always knew about these failed extractions and Hasci knows we know about these failed extractions.

Also JJJJRs research was based on GCs case which is a very unique case. Either way GCs results have been very impressive thus far and is the main reason why I went for a procedure in the first place.

I don't think we should confuse failed extractions and extracted grafts which look partially telogen/transected.

[Arashi]

I don't think we should confuse failed extractions and extracted grafts which look partially telogen/transected.

But failed extraction is just another word for transected hair, isn't it ? Same thing, the complete follicle is still in the donor.

[c5000]

But failed extraction is just another word for transected hair, isn't it ? Same thing, the follicle is still in the donor.

That's what I thought as well.

If the follicle is still in the donor then its still "safe" so to speak. It just means that these "grafts" can't be used.

I think the only difference here is that we thought the failed extractions weren't tweezed out of the donor, but now it seems they are. Which explains a lot, as we wondered how they knew if an extraction had failed or not. I guess now we know, they tweeze the graft out and if the follicle isn't attached, then they class it as a failed extraction.

[gc83uk]

But failed extraction is just another word for transected hair, isn't it ? Same thing, the follicle is still in the donor.

Do you know that for sure?

Answer me this, if a failed extraction = transected hair, then what is extracted on a failed extraction? Are you saying it's a 2 hair FU with 1 hair transected or a 2 hair FU with both hairs transected? Or perhaps you believe nothing is actually extracted other than a bit of hair, kind of like a misdrill?

If you think the hairs/grafts in yesterdays petri dish are failed extractions, then are you saying that they have to drill more than 200 times to get these?

I was under the impression when people use the term failed extraction, it was referring to what c5000 often talks about with the extra drilling to get the number of grafts, e.g drilling 2000 times to extract 1000 grafts.

What do you believe is extracted on those failed drills?

[Arashi]

Do you know that for sure?

Answer me this, if a failed extraction = transected hair, then what is extracted on a failed extraction? Are you saying it's a 2 hair FU with 1 hair transected or a 2 hair FU with both hairs transected? Or perhaps you believe nothing is actually extracted other than a bit of hair, kind of like a misdrill?

If you think the hairs/grafts in yesterdays petri dish are failed extractions, then are you saying that they have to drill more than 200 times to get these?

I was under the impression when people use the term failed extraction, it was referring to what c5000 often talks about with the extra drilling to get the number of grafts, e.g drilling 2000 times to extract 1000 grafts.

What do you believe is extracted on those failed drills?

I'm not saying/implying anything. All I'm saying is that if a hair is in the petridish that can't be used, it's what I'd call a 'failed' extraction: it's a hair that can't be used. I don't know about how many times they'd drill for that, probably just 1 time, I don't know.

Anyway, important thing right now would be to get a good estimate of the amount of hairs in the petridish ! We already counted 112-ish hairs in the 2's. Now we'd need to count the hairs in the 1's section. Anyone up for that ? I'll have a go at it myself later today ..

[didi]

guys i thought we are done with these failed extractions, they are negligable, IM and hasci confirmed it...

you are distracting yourself ..focus on test

lests not talk abt grafts.but hairs.

How many are there in petri?375,400?
hasci says 80% regeneration in donor
what do they claim for recipient?90,95%...think ive seen it somewhere..someone can confirm these numbers

we already know everything, what we have and what we expect...

say, 400 hairs in petri...we are expecting 90% growth in recipient..which is 360? right...
and 80% out of 400 hairs shd regenerate in donor...320 hairs in donor

[Arashi]

guys i thought we are done with these failed extractions, they are negligable, IM and hasci confirmed it...

you are distracting yourself ..focus on test

lests not talk abt grafts.but hairs.

This I agree with, it doesn't matter how we call the graftless hairs. Let's forget about it.

How many are there in petri?375,400?

Go and count them ! If several people count, we can compare results.

say, 400 hairs in petri...we are expecting 90% growth in recipient..which is 360? right...

No. 150 grafts can be used a single, 50 as double, hence we're expecting 250 hairs in recipient.

and 80% out of 400 hairs shd regenerate in donor...320 hairs in donor

No. 80% of GRAFTS regenerate. You keep confusing stuff. According to JJJJRS's research, 65% of HAIRS regenerate. Hence we'd expect 260 hairs in donor, IF 400 grafts were in the petridish. In this case, James would have sacrificed 140 hairs in donor to get 250 in recipient = 44% true hair regrowth.

[gc83uk]

I'm sorry but if there is 400 hairs in the petri then we should be expecting 400 hairs, however I know we won't get this and I know you believe they will regrow in the donor to make up that 400, so I suppose no point going over old ground.

Didi, the point I'm making is 'Failed extractions' according to Arashi is exactly what we see in the petri dish now. This is why I brought it up in order to clarify.

c5000 is referring to extra drills, which I assumed we were calling these failed extractions, which is an entirely different thing IMO.

Anyway moving forward, I'll count these hairs tonight.

But I think a straight forward question to Hasci, on the lines of:

"On the petri dish photo, we can see 400-500 hairs, how many of these can we expect to grow in the recipient area baring in mind that we can only see 250 bulbs?"

According to Iron Man, they should say on the lines of, it doesn't matter if there is no bulbs and all hairs will grow in the recipient.

I would then ask, is this normal, where 400-500 hairs are extracted and only 250ish grow in the recipient.