The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[Arashi]

80% of grafts regenerate? So are you saying the graft doesn't have to return to it's original state to be considered regenerating? e.g Start with a 2 FU, a 2 FU regenerates in the donor and this is 100% regrowth, however if only a single hair regrows from a 2 hair FU are you saying this is 50% or 100% regrowth?

BTW I'm only asking this so I know we're all on the same page so to speak, not to try to catch you out or anything.

Hehe. This is just a terminology discussion and to me it's rather pointless but ok. What I'm saying: when we analysed your scalp, we saw 80% of grafts regenerate. However, quite a few 2 hair graft regenerated as 1 hair grafts. Hence JJJJRS found out that if we were looking at haircount, not 80% but 65% of hairs regenerated. So yeah, if you count a 2 hair graft regenerating as 1, you'd see 80%. But if you'd look at the HAIRS you'd see 65% regenerate.

[gc83uk]

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



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


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


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.

80% of grafts regenerate? So are you saying the graft doesn't have to return to it's original state to be considered regenerating? e.g Start with a 2 FU, a 2 FU regenerates in the donor and this is 100% regrowth, however if only a single hair regrows from a 2 hair FU are you saying this is 50% or 100% regrowth?

BTW I'm only asking this so I know we're all on the same page so to speak, not to try to catch you out or anything.

[Arashi]

I'm sorry but if there is 400 hairs in the petri then we should be expecting 400 hairs

Well, in a way you're right of course. It just depends on what you're expecting. Are you expecting to see 80% regrowth ? Or are you expecting to see 40-45% 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.

[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.

[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]

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 ..

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.