The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[didi]

.. had a quick look at petri..and wonder

Is there a single SINGLE hair graft in there..?


perhaps our man james bald had 70% of hairs in TELOGEN...


dr nigam must be pissing his pants

[didi]

Theres only 10-15% hairs in telogen,

how come Gho happen to get so many of these hairs, basically ones you shd avoid since telogen grafts dont regenerate?
Do they telogen hairs grow in recipient once transplanted?

[Arashi]

Sorry - according to Dr. Nigam, Dr. Gho's grafts don't have something like a "bulb"; a hair follicle bulb, which encloses his beloved "dermal papilla"....

So you can't count what doesn't exist!!

Wow, you guys talked a load of shit during the past few hours...

Hehe. Just skip the post and read my post 298. All we need to do is:
1) Count the hairs in the petridish. This is the total amount of hair that was present in donor. Telogen, anagen or transected, doesn't matter. A hair is a hair.
2) Count hairs in recipient (final result after a year)
3) Count hairs in donor (final result after a year).

This will tell us how many hairs James has lost in donor and how many new hairs he's got in recipient and then it's just about that ratio. If it's 1:1, like in our worst nightmare, then we just bought an expensive FUE.

We'll get a good indication in 3 weeks, once donor regrowth is nearing the final number. If James tomorrow shoots some photo's of recipient, we can count hairs there, which should give us an indication of total expected hairs in recipient (which is expected to be close to 250). So in 3 weeks we'll have a good estimate and we'll be able to say if Gho is just another Dr Nigams or not

[534623]

I guess we could maybe count the number of intact 'bulbs' to find out....

Sorry - according to Dr. Nigam, Dr. Gho's grafts don't have something like a "bulb"; a hair follicle bulb, which encloses his beloved "dermal papilla"....

So you can't count what doesn't exist!!

Wow, you guys talked a load of shit during the past few hours...

[JJJJrS]

By the way, I think James should shoot some good photo's of recipient. That should at least give us a rough indication of the numbers of hairs to expect in recipient (which should be close to 250). In 3 weeks we'll have a good estimate of regrowth in donor, so in 3 weeks we can already have a good estimate whether this whole Gho procedure was just a bunch of Mambo Jambo, or that it really multiplies hair. Right ?

Agree again. Good pictures are absolutely key here. James is improving with his photos, hopefully, with enough advice, he can get reasonably close to gc's level so that we can do a useful analysis.

[Arashi]

This is where it gets a little bit difficult.

Of those 250+ hair, how many are truly usable? Do we take HASCI's word that it is 150? I guess we could maybe count the number of intact 'bulbs' to find out...

This will effect our calculations.

I don't see how this will effect our calcs ? We just need to find out how many hairs eventually will grow in recipient. We know how many there were in donor (via the petridish). And we'll know how many regrow, after some time. And then it's just a matter of calculating the ratio between sacrificied hair in donor vs (new) hair in recipient.

[JJJJrS]

Haven't counted it, but yeah for sure seems's there are at least 250 hairs in the 1's section. Will see if I have time tomorrow to have a go at it.

This is where it gets a little bit difficult.

Of those 250+ hair, how many are truly usable? Do we take HASCI's word that it is 150? I guess we could maybe count the number of intact 'bulbs' to find out...

This will effect our calculations.

Yeah this is exactly what I tried to say in my previous posts. We have everything we need. Now we just have to PRAY that we see good enough regrowth in donor, or we'll be doomed

Yeah. The donor renegeration we see in a week will answer a lot.

In the best case, the number of regenerated hairs will be similar to the number of extracted hairs. If not, we can subtract the approximate number of transected hairs from the number of regenerated hairs and see how many truly regenerated vs. how many were transected.

[Arashi]

By the way, I think James should shoot some good photo's of recipient. That should at least give us a rough indication of the numbers of hairs to expect in recipient (which should be close to 250). In 3 weeks we'll have a good estimate of regrowth in donor, so in 3 weeks we can already have a good estimate whether this whole Gho procedure was just a bunch of Mambo Jambo, or that it really multiplies hair. Right ?

[Arashi]

I think you'll be able to extrapolate the results from this procedure. From the petri dish, we know how many hairs were extracted. Later on, we'll count how many hairs regenerated in the donor (should be close to the number extracted) and how many yielded in the recipient, giving us a final 'after' count. From there we can easily calculate the multiplication rate.

Yeah this is exactly what I tried to say in my previous posts. We have everything we need. Now we just have to PRAY that we see good enough regrowth in donor, or we'll be doomed

[Arashi]

Has anyone counted the number hairs in the '1' subsection yet?

It's supposed to be 150 singles and 50 doubles, not including transections/telogen hairs. I think the number of hairs in the '1' section will end up being much higher than 150 though.

Haven't counted it, but yeah for sure seems's there are at least 250 hairs in the 1's section. Will see if I have time tomorrow to have a go at it.

[JJJJrS]

Has anyone counted the number hairs in the '1' subsection yet?

It's supposed to be 150 singles and 50 doubles, not including transections/telogen hairs. I think the number of hairs in the '1' section will end up being much higher than 150 though.

[Arashi]

Man, really, GC, I don't even want to think about that It would mean we would be lost. Only Fin and Minox left to SOMEWHAT reverse balding (if you're lucky) and I do NOT want to take those damn meds in the first place ... Man I'd be depressed big time ...

But let's stay positive and assume that won't happen ...

[JJJJrS]

Correct, as long as we include the regrown transections (Assuming they do regenerate) from the donor in the final hair count of whats in the petri dish.

I wonder how much of my regrowth was just transections and not genuine regrowth, this is what it comes down to for me.

This petri dish photo is a revelation.

I think you'll be able to extrapolate the results from this procedure. From the petri dish, we know how many hairs were extracted. Later on, we'll count how many hairs regenerated in the donor (should be close to the number extracted) and how many yielded in the recipient, giving us a final 'after' count. From there we can easily calculate the multiplication rate.

This is exactly why I wanted to include the recipient by the way.

[Arashi]

Correct. But I'm thinking we'll be lucky to see that result!

What if he only regenerates the transected hair, so regrows 200 in the donor and grows 200 in the recipient after originally extracting 400 from the donor.

Then we'll be screwed. This is what I fear might happen.

I won't mention it again until we see the results, obviously I want to be wrong.

If that would happen, then the Gho critics would be right and we effectively just bought a very expensive FUE Well, still scarless and I'd probably still go for it, but yeah, that would be a HUGE disappointment.

[gc83uk]

Correct. Maybe I'm missing something, it's getting late here and my brain starts to run slow But isn't it ALL about the ratio between sacrificing in donor vs getting new hairs in recipient ? How does it matter if a lot of hairs in donor were transected hair ? Yeah it would mean previous research was invalid, but forget about that. If James would see 200 hairs grow in recipient and he'd only have lost 40 in donor, then he has 80% true regrowth, right ?

Correct. But I'm thinking we'll be lucky to see that result!

What if he only regenerates the transected hair, so regrows 200 in the donor and grows 200 in the recipient after originally extracting 400 from the donor.

Then we'll be screwed. This is what I fear might happen.

I won't mention it again until we see the results, obviously I want to be wrong.