Raising money for 50 graft HST test procedure

[aim4hair]

And imagine you were born like 10 years earlier, FUE was still horrible, HST didn't even exist (at least not in its current form) and all you really could do is get yourself a disfiguring huge scar on the back of your head and thin out your donor ...

having no scars is the main reason that made me go the HT route, even before considering donor regeneration. I almost went for FUE in 2011 because i had no idea about HST but getting white-dots scars is the only thing that stopped me specially since i look ok with buzz cut..
So yeah im glad i didnt have to worry about hairloss 10 years earlier

[StinkySmurf]

Nice work Arashi!

I haven't kept up on all the new threads lately. There are so many, and I had to step away for a few weeks, but it warms my heart to catch up on this one.

And I'm sure GC's documentation did tack on to Dr. Gho's waiting list because I never considered Dr. Gho an option before I saw his photos, and I'm sure this test will do the same and then some.

And if you want to extend that waiting list even further, I would definitely video part or all of the procedure, and I think thats not necessarily because we don't trust Dr. Gho. I just think video makes everything more real. A video will go a lot further than photo evidence in terms of making people comfortable with what their about to go through, and it's a lot easier to shoot a video when the procedure is shorter, but I'm glad if we get just the photos anyway.

Thanks!

[Arashi]

Nice work Arashi!

I haven't kept up on all the new threads lately. There are so many, and I had to step away for a few weeks, but it warms my heart to catch up on this one.

And I'm sure GC's documentation did tack on to Dr. Gho's waiting list because I never considered Dr. Gho an option before I saw his photos, and I'm sure this test will do the same and then some.

And if you want to extend that waiting list even further, I would definitely video part or all of the procedure, and I think thats not necessarily because we don't trust Dr. Gho. I just think video makes everything more real. A video will go a lot further than photo evidence in terms of making people comfortable with what their about to go through, and it's a lot easier to shoot a video when the procedure is shorter, but I'm glad if we get just the photos anyway.

Thanks!

Thanks !

Regarding proof, I was just reading dr Nigam's thread on HS, he's going to start a similar experiment, tomorrow. As you might know I'm extremely sceptic towards Dr Nigam, because all the lying, cheating and photoshopping he has been done. So I was looking at his testcase from a very sceptical point of view, and came to this conclusion:

Video's and highres photo's proof nothing. At any point, results could be manipulated like this: Extract hairs (not grafts) from the monitored donor area. Hairs will always grow back: 100% regrowth. Take small skin parts to simulate extraction sites. Next implant those *hairs* (not the grafts). Then shoot video's, pictures, whatsmore. Then, after a few weeks have the guy come back, remove the hairs (they've shedded anyway), extract new grafts (the WHOLE graft) and implant them in recipient. Et voila, 100% growth in recipient and 100% regrowth in donor. And it's all really easy to do.

Hence, the very most important thing here is that we'll need to be able to trust the person this is being performed on and this can NOT be done on a staff member for example (like Dr Nigam is going to do).

Then, the idea of letting someone oversee the procedure. Yes this does add a little extra proof, cause this guy can see that grafts are actually being extracted instead of just hairs. HOWEVER what does it proof to the sceptic ? If he doesn't trust the person it's being tested on, why should he trust the guy overlooking the procedure ?

As a conclusion, I think the only thing we can really do is have the test perform on an external, not HASCI related, patient, like we're doing. Video's and photo's are NO good and letting someone oversee the procedure is of very limited use. Think about it.

[Arashi]

I was even wrong. Letting someone oversee the procedure (or even videotaping the whole procedure) also adds NO extra proof AT ALL. Because to the person overlooking, it might all seem ok, he sees that the doctor extracts full grafts and plants them back. But if the patient is in on it, he could return the next day and have 50 grafts taken and planted back in donor.

So really, video, pictures and someone overlooking add NO extra proof at all. Hence I think the way we've set this up is the only correct way and nothing else can be done to improve the evidence. But do correct me if I'm wrong here

[Arashi]

So in conclusion, the patient is key here. He is the only one that can truely verify no 'funny stuff' is going on. If we ask him to take photo's himself as well, then that's all we can do in terms of proof.

[gc83uk]

Video's and highres photo's proof nothing. At any point, results could be manipulated like this: Extract hairs (not grafts) from the monitored donor area. Hairs will always grow back: 100% regrowth. Take small skin parts to simulate extraction sites. Next implant those *hairs* (not the grafts). Then shoot video's, pictures, whatsmore. Then, after a few weeks have the guy come back, remove the hairs (they've shedded anyway), extract new grafts (the WHOLE graft) and implant them in recipient. Et voila, 100% growth in recipient and 100% regrowth in donor. And it's all really easy to do.

Not sure I agree with that.

He could indeed extract hairs from the monitored area and take small skin parts, however to make sure grafts weren't extracted in the future to dupe us, all he would need to do would be to take a full set of photographs of the entire donor area and again a further set to conclude the analysis a few months later. As long as the 1st set and the 2nd set match up, voila.

Anyway that is going too far IMO.

An even better way would be to simply record the procedure, so we can see the grafts being taken out, bisected and implanted. I guess the procedure would be maybe 45 mins of recording time at a rough guess.

[censur]

I guess the most effective documentation would be to video-record the whole session. However, that would perhaps increase the risk of other surgeons copying the procedure without paying Gho any license fee, which I guess Gho wouldn't like very much?

[didi]

video record the whole session, it will take 45 minutes , no need to video grafts bathing in petri dish.
others cant copy it by watching video, it looks like just another fue procedure

they drill donor, extract, place grafts in petri dish(wait 1 h), drill holes in recipient, implant.

[534623]

video record the whole session, it will take 45 minutes , no need to video grafts bathing in petri dish.

You're right - makes absolutely no sense ...

...because there is absolutely no difference between such small skin grafts ...

Full Size: http://www.drnigams.net/images/Ratan/large/17.jpg


...as extracted such "grafts" today by Dr. Nigam with a 0.8 mm punch...

... and versus Dr. Gho's HST grafts:


Yup, absolutely no difference ...

[Phatalis]

You're right - makes absolutely no sense ...

...because there is absolutely no difference between such small skin grafts ...

Full Size: http://www.drnigams.net/images/Ratan/large/17.jpg


...as extracted such "grafts" today by Dr. Nigam with a 0.8 mm punch...

... and versus Dr. Gho's HST grafts:


Yup, absolutely no difference ...

Can you do me a huge favor???? Can you stop being so goddamn sarcastic and shit in all your posts... like... passive aggressive in every post?

The reason I ask is not that I take one side or another. I hope Gho's technique works and I'm currently talking with them about a procedure literally right now. (I have the vibe youre on Gho's side)...

The real reason I ask this of you is that I can't tell what the hell you're ever saying in your posts. I don't know when you're being serious or sarcastic or what? Sometimes you'll post things like "Gho's technique has flaws don't do it" (though not that direct) and I take it for being legit... yet I realized later you're being sarcastic.

It's ****ing confusing to people.. sarcasm is harder to get over text... when not in person... and sometimes your posts actually don't make much sense to begin with.

I'm not trying to be mean because I love all the facts you provide in your posts... it's awesome and reassuring.. but seriously... please just be direct and stop with the damn passive aggressive sarcasm bullshit lol.

[534623]

It's ****ing confusing to people.. sarcasm is harder to get over text... when not in person... and sometimes your posts actually don't make much sense to begin with.

Let's see again what the science is saying about "sarcasm"...

http://67.227.210.96/showpost.php?p=87642&postcount=50

I'm not trying to be mean because I love all the facts you provide in your posts... it's awesome and reassuring.. but seriously... please just be direct and stop with the damn passive aggressive sarcasm bullshit lol.

Sorry, but this is simply my nature - as you can see and hear such a "behaviour" also by other extremely intelligent persons who get bored about so many idiots who "think" that they are intelligent.

Just kidding - I think in your case, I'll do you the favor.

Anyway, who cares what somebody is saying, when "the facts" like photos etc should tell you more than a thousand words.

[Phatalis]

Let's see again what the science is saying about "sarcasm"...

http://67.227.210.96/showpost.php?p=87642&postcount=50

Sorry, but this is simply my nature - as you can see and hear such a "behaviour" also by other extremely intelligent persons who get bored about so many idiots who "think" that they are intelligent.

Just kidding - I think in your case, I'll do you the favor.

Anyway, who cares what somebody is saying, when "the facts" like photos etc should tell you more than a thousand words.

Sorry I wasn't trying to be mean. I guess I'm just frustrated. I just really want this to work out haha. I'm about to do it.

[534623]

Sorry I wasn't trying to be mean. I guess I'm just frustrated. I just really want this to work out haha. I'm about to do it.

I think you shouldn't do it, because ...

...there are extremely knowledgeable guys out there who know it better.

These guys/users (see the pic), today, they try -all of a sudden- to kiss Dr. Nigam's ass
at the same hair loss forum and just a few month later...

If you would like to know more about the reason why they changed their mind...
... please let me know.

[Arashi]

An even better way would be to simply record the procedure, so we can see the grafts being taken out, bisected and implanted. I guess the procedure would be maybe 45 mins of recording time at a rough guess.

So he does all that (what you just described), turns off the camera, ejects the transplanted hairs, get 15 grafts elsewhere and implant those. Fraud couldn't be easier.

That's why I'm saying it's totally useless to record a video. It's like adding nine layers of security to you front door and then leave the back door wide open. What good is that ?

Again, only (and only) the patient can verify no 'funny stuff' is going on. That's why it's totally useless to perform this on a staff member.

[Arashi]

video record the whole session, it will take 45 minutes

Really, you are not thinking this through. A video just adds a FALSE sense of security. The only REAL security you can have is an independent patient who verifies no funny stuff is going on (after the camera is turned off) and also shoots and posts his own photo's. And if you disagree, please do tell me, what exactly will a video proof according to you ?