The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[Arashi]

I think most of those are failed extractions (i.e., transections) and they simply discarded those grafts.

Overall, I think HASCI made things far more complicated by extracting so many. The whole point of this procedure was to give us a proof of concept but honestly, after everything I've seen so far, I have absolutely no idea how they expected this was going to prove anything. It's especially frustrating when we gave them detailed instructions and they proceeded to ignore practically all of these points.

Especially combined with what indeed must be failed extractions and we don't even know if there were 1's or 2's, which ones were failed and which ones are not, it's going to be next to impossible.

Of course, IF they got us a good pre-op picture, then there would still be hope, albeit it's going to be a hell of a job. So although I totally agree to what you just said, I'm not going to give up just yet, there is still some hope.

[JJJJrS]

What do you think, GC ? Like said I encircled 310, but you encircled some which I didn't, so there are even more POSSIBLE extraction sites.

When I look at my own picture, I've probably encircled a few which aren't really extraction sites, but to me it seems there must be at LEAST 250. While HASCI only extracted 200 grafts. What do you guys (except Didi, lol) think ? Shall I ask Kristel about this ? Or do any of you guys have a logical explanation here ?

I think most of those are failed extractions (i.e., transections) and they simply discarded those grafts.

Overall, I think HASCI made things far more complicated by extracting so many. The whole point of this procedure was to give us a proof of concept but honestly, after everything I've seen so far, I have absolutely no idea how they expected this was going to prove anything. It's especially frustrating when we gave them detailed instructions and they proceeded to ignore practically all of these points.

[gc83uk]

What I think is your photo is more accurate, I've been going through your photo and adding extra circles to mine, only because mine might be easier to use for later analysis.

It's giving me a ****ing headache though. lol. I've only seen about 3 circles in yours which I didn't agree with and I'm up to about 280 circles now. So I reckon it's about 300ish if I had to guess.

I give up for now!

[Arashi]

What do you think, GC ? Like said I encircled 310, but you encircled some which I didn't, so there are even more POSSIBLE extraction sites.

When I look at my own picture, I've probably encircled a few which aren't really extraction sites, but to me it seems there must be at LEAST 250. While HASCI only extracted 200 grafts. What do you guys (except Didi, lol) think ? Shall I ask Kristel about this ? Or do any of you guys have a logical explanation here ?

[Arashi]

Also, looks very accurate. Not sure where the discrepancy lies between your number and gc's though.

When I look at the photo, it just highlights to me how large of an area we're looking at...

It seems the biggest difference is the area on the left, which is difficult to see on GC's photo.

[JJJJrS]

But just see mine (ignore the difference in colors)

http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12660177/img/Anonymous/exsites.jpg

310 circles there.

Also, looks very accurate. Not sure where the discrepancy lies between your number and gc's though.

When I look at the photo, it just highlights to me how large of an area we're looking at...

[Arashi]

310 holes in donor??

Are there suppossed to be 200?What different colors mean

No offense but I'm just going to ignore you.

[didi]

310 holes in donor??

Are there suppossed to be 200?What different colors mean

[Arashi]

Post up your photo, it won't do any harm . I'd like to check it over and layer it over mine.

I think we'll get the photos we need from Hasci.

But just see mine (ignore the difference in colors)

http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12660177/img/Anonymous/exsites.jpg

310 circles there.

[gc83uk]

Yup, great job GC. However without a good pre-op photo it's really going to be next to impossible. I also analysed several pictures myself and got to over 310 POSSIBLE extraction sites. And I was quickly comparing mine to yours, and saw that you encircled sites that I didn't, so there are even more POSSIBLE extraction sites. Without a good pre-op photo it's just going to be extremely difficult to find out which are really the extraction sites and which are not.

Post up your photo, it won't do any harm . I'd like to check it over and layer it over mine.

I think we'll get the photos we need from Hasci.

[gc83uk]

That's a really good job gc.

I think the hardest part will be identifying these same extraction points when the area begins to heal. Especially those to the far left which are sort of curved in these photos.

In the area where the flash is most prominent, it's also quite a bit harder identifying actual extraction points.

Overall, these photos would probably have been good enough if the extractions were all located in a smaller area and limited to 50.

Well I'm pretty sure the area where the flash is on this photo is correct because I used the previous photo which didn't have the flashback in the same area, however the area towards the left of the scar might not be perfect.

This isn't a lost cause yet, especially with your help!

[Arashi]

That's a really good job gc.

I think the hardest part will be identifying these same extraction points when the area begins to heal. Especially those to the far left which are sort of curved in these photos.

In the area where the flash is most prominent, it's also quite a bit harder identifying actual extraction points.

Overall, these photos would probably have been good enough if the extractions were all located in a smaller area and limited to 50.

Yup, great job GC. However without a good pre-op photo it's really going to be next to impossible. I also analysed several pictures myself and got to over 310 POSSIBLE extraction sites. And I was quickly comparing mine to yours, and saw that you encircled sites that I didn't, so there are even more POSSIBLE extraction sites. Without a good pre-op photo it's just going to be extremely difficult to find out which are really the extraction sites and which are not.

[JJJJrS]

This is seriously the best I can do, I used both photos layered over each other to find 241 extraction sites, they do not include the grafts placed into the scar.

The only area which I'm not 100% on is to the left of the scar, someone might want to either do this themselves or at least validate the 241 extractions look correct, or perhaps just wait for better photos, but it's better than nothing.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/...5/12659880.jpg

That's a really good job gc.

I think the hardest part will be identifying these same extraction points when the area begins to heal. Especially those to the far left which are sort of curved in these photos.

In the area where the flash is most prominent, it's also quite a bit harder identifying actual extraction points.

Overall, these photos would probably have been good enough if the extractions were all located in a smaller area and limited to 50.

[JJJJrS]

There might still be some value left in all of this. However I agree that it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible since:
1) We don't have a good pre-op picture. The one we have is WAY too blurry
2) Too many grafts to keep track of
3) Implants into the scar, which might not only endanger regeneration there but create a difficulty in itself, since now donor and recipient are mixed, thus even harder to mark everything
4) No good after pictures. I think the after pictures might be usuable, IF we're going to combine them all (some focus on different area's.

Of course this doesn't mean it necessarily ends here. IF hasci shot good pictures themselves, then this might all still be ok. Hopefully I'll know more about that tomorrow.

Pretty much agree with everything here.

I think it puts james in a tough position also. If 50 grafts were taken from a relatively small area, then it would have been a lot easier to take a single photo of it. Now it is much more complicated and may require multiple photos.

[gc83uk]

This is seriously the best I can do, I used both photos layered over each other to find 241 extraction sites, they do not include the grafts placed into the scar.

The only area which I'm not 100% on is to the left of the scar, someone might want to either do this themselves or at least validate the 241 extractions look correct, or perhaps just wait for better photos, but it's better than nothing.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/20/3198745/12659880.jpg