The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[didi]

Iron Man
Whats your spin on all this?

54 pages of useless talk and we still dont know bascis, HASCIs knows how to complicate things

Lucky for James he almost got full procedure for free


Where are we at with this investigation?
Do we have exact numbers of hairs and extractions?
Are failed extractions back in scope, so they are real?

[Arashi]

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12663519/img/Anonymous/P4080050.jpg

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12663500/img/Anonymous/P4080049.jpg

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12663539/img/Anonymous/P4080051.jpg

[Arashi]

These are at least a LOT better than what we had so far. Not perfect by far, but MAYBE something we can go by, especially if we cross-analyse them. I'll ask if they have more.

[Arashi]

But then again, although we surely can at least pinpoint some grafts, if this is what we're going to need to go by, then I think a complete analysis is definitely out of the question.

[Arashi]

Looking at the photo's some more, I think it's not going to work. Yes, we can pinpoint some grafts and we can see if extractions were failed or if they're just needle pricks, but that's about it I'm afraid. What do you guys (no, thats not you Didi) think ?

[Arashi]

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.

[534623]

150 single and 50 double grafts were taken from the donor area. You can count them in the bottle. Pictures were taken, both microscopical and normal.

The single grafts were placed on the front corners:
90 grafts on the right and 60 grafts on the left corner.

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.

[534623]

... 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.

In addition...

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...

...that explains a lot too.

[didi]

enlighten us 54362, what happen here


how did this test gone so wrong?

[didi]

Arashi

..Kristel confirmed that the discrepancy between the 203 extracted graft and that number would be a combination of needle pricks for sedation and transected hair'

300-350 holes in Jamses head, 203 are extractions the rest are needle pricks/transected hairs


Did GC have these needle prick holes?Do they keep count of these 'transections'

[FearTheLoss]

how did I know that somehow this test would get f****d up

[didi]

They come accross as totaly clueless when it comes to proving HST

http://www.baldingblog.com/2009/08/11/gho-clinic-says-their-fue-allows-the-donor-hair-to-regrow/

I just chaired the session at the annual ISHRS meeting in Amsterdam and had Dr. Coen Gho as one of the speakers. I had lost my voice, so I could not comment as the chair of that session, but considering that you asked me about him, I will use this as a forum to speak my opinion on what I heard.

Dr. Gho reported that he did 1500 patients with his “cloning” procedure. If I had to give a score to the material he presented using a 1-10 scale for scientific credibility, I’d score it a 1, with 1 being the lowest possible. His science was pathetic, with slides that were blurred and blackened out so that there was really nothing to see. He claimed that his FUE technique cut the follicular units in half longitudinally, and that the part that remained regrew hair, but there was no proof of this in any of the material he showed. He did not show any patient results and certainly was never reviewed by any credible agency or physician.

[Arashi]

Did GC have these needle prick holes?Do they keep count of these 'transections'

That's a good point. And actually I'm just thinking, we can find out, can't we ? We have everything. Good pre-op photo's, good post-op photos' and since his recipient is as perfect as can be for counting, namely perfectly bold, we can even get a count, or at least a very good estimate of recipient growth. Or am I missing something ?

[gc83uk]

That's a good point. And actually I'm just thinking, we can find out, can't we ? We have everything. Good pre-op photo's, good post-op photos' and since his recipient is as perfect as can be for counting, namely perfectly bold, we can even get a count, or at least a very good estimate of recipient growth. Or am I missing something ?

I started doing a count recently with a new photo from hst1 and hst2, but I realised I made some mistakes and need to take another photo of the recipient.

What is for sure though, is the number of hairs is somewhere between 1.3 to maybe 1.5, which isn't great. However before I start talking about doing a new photo, I'd like to mention a couple of things.

Arashi, do you remember that comment I made last night about the local anaesthetic injections in the donor creating small piercing marks which could be mistaken as extraction sites? Well either Kristel reads these forums or it's a coincidence that they used this very reason as an 'excuse' to cover up the extra drills in the email to you today.

My other point. I'm almost sure that Iron Man said that Hasci don't extract single hairs. But I have plenty of single hairs growing in my recipient. I also have plenty of single hairs in my donor. I'm just hoping that they extracted some genuine single hairs and placed them in the recipient... Might be time to revisit some of those old photos and see if that actually happened or not.

[Arashi]

Arashi, do you remember that comment I made last night about the local anaesthetic injections in the donor creating small piercing marks which could be mistaken as extraction sites?

I told her that we figured these would be the reasons for the discrepancy. She confirmed.

My other point. I'm almost sure that Iron Man said that Hasci don't extract single hairs.

I'd doubt that. I have tons of single hairs in recipient too. But also in donor, so to me it just makes sense.

But most importantly: am I right that we have everything we need to make a good analysis on your case ? I mean we have good pre-op photo's right? So all that's needed now is (a lot of) time to research ?