gc83uk's september '13 procedure.

[gc83uk]

Can somebody sum it upfor me, what just happened with GCs last procedure?

How many failed extractions on top of 1800 grafts? as long as its not huge number its fine, when calculating regeneration you start with -(minus number of failed extractions)


say 100 failed...-100,-99,-98....so on...after 0 its real regeneration.....


but of course you have to count recipient to see how many grows to get real number

Yeah this is right, but I would do it slightly different, count how many have regenerated in total, then deduct the failed afterwards.

Looking at recipient is the final piece in the jigsaw of the calcs

[Arashi]

2300 extraction points for 1300 grafts from your calcs isn't it?

And I've got a further 700 extractions from 500 grafts.

So something like 3000 extractions for 1800 grafts

Yeah already corrected it

[gc83uk]

2300 extraction points for 1500 grafts

2300 extraction points for 1300 grafts from your calcs isn't it?

And I've got a further 700 extractions from 500 grafts.

So something like 3000 extractions for 1800 grafts

[Arashi]

Can somebody sum it upfor me, what just happened with GCs last procedure?

How many failed extractions on top of 1800 grafts? as long as its not huge number its fine, when calculating regeneration you start with -(minus number of failed extractions)


say 100 failed...-100,-99,-98....so on...after 0 its real regeneration.....


but of course you have to count recipient to see how many grows to get real number

2300 extraction points for 1300 grafts

[didi]

Can somebody sum it upfor me, what just happened with GCs last procedure?

How many failed extractions on top of 1800 grafts? as long as its not huge number its fine, when calculating regeneration you start with -(minus number of failed extractions)


say 100 failed...-100,-99,-98....so on...after 0 its real regeneration.....


but of course you have to count recipient to see how many grows to get real number

[gc83uk]

I don't change my mind, I just wanted to show how easy you can see black and white in these very threads.

I said it myself, Arashi put doubts, means that yes, I was twisted by the contradictory threads, but was good from IM to show that you can see another demonstration showing 80%


the point is, why the f*ck don't you go under the nose of Gho with your 10% for sure bullshit regen?

If Arashi is right, goodbye Gho, you can prepare an army of patients claiming for refund.

Personally I think Hasci have done me a great service, so I'm slightly biased and I'll continue to go back next year unless some other miracle comes to fruition. As explained numerous times.

But I don't understand this 80% argument. If you cut the FU's with a Blade and pierce the skin under each FU, do this to 1000 FU's. Then take photo and it looks like 1000 extractions, of course they resemble failed extractions and it will give you 100% regrowth. This is the only point I'm making here.

Yes it maybe 80 - 85% as a whole, but I think most people are more concerned with what the % is of successful extractions.

[Arashi]

edit

[caddarik79]

Lol Caddarik, you change your mind every 5 minutes

I don't change my mind, I just wanted to show how easy you can see black and white in these very threads.

I said it myself, Arashi put doubts, means that yes, I was twisted by the contradictory threads, but was good from IM to show that you can see another demonstration showing 80%


the point is, why the f*ck don't you go under the nose of Gho with your 10% for sure bullshit regen?

If Arashi is right, goodbye Gho, you can prepare an army of patients claiming for refund.

[caddarik79]

Well I'm sure Arashi cannot bet his life on any of this yet, hence why he is probably going to wait a little longer before making any concrete conclusions.

Who is Pierre? Why don't you ask Pierre what he thinks about this.

OK GC, Pierre is the french correspondant since i'm a french speaking, you can obviously see my english is not yours ;-)

so, to summarize it, I WAS very confronting last May because fed up reading all these contradictory threads.

He told me that I was a fool to even dare to think they could run a business out of lying, that it's totally unethical and that they would just collapse under complains and trials which don't happen.

He said 95% of clients are happy and come back... 5 % grumpy you will always have for different reasons.

I insisted on the limits of HST presenting the case like, I really have the money, even already for three more, but I don't want to waste it... I asked some queston to Gho which he reported to Gho.

Gho said that theoritically, it's limitless, but they don't like to use "infinite" as a word for hairs, since it's unreal term... who needs an infinite hairs?

Then he confirmed that 13.000 grafts dude, 9 consecutive HST's, and that it was the PRESENT biggest but, he insisted and bolded and underlined the word PRESENT;;;

I've asked straight the question: can I go for 28.000 grafts?

he said again, it's probably doable, but would cost 150.000 euros, not reasonable and stupid decision.

he said that a NW5 came to have a NW1, they said it's possible, but when talking about the costs, the guy decided to be more "conservative"

I repeat, he said, I am crazy and they would be even crazier if they were delivering false promises in 4 clinics, with official papers and studies and huge clients list.

[gc83uk]

Iron Man / Didi,

(forget about the 65% thing for the sake of this point and assume 85%)

I think the point Arashi is making is, simply:

If you take analyse 100 extractions as a whole, failed, success or whatever. Then if 85 out of 100 of the extractions grow back, then yes you can claim 85% regrowth.

But people only care about the regrowth of successful extractions, not failed extractions.

Failed extractions should always yield 100% regrowth.

For arguments sake, we assume 25 of those 85 that regrown are failed.

Because of the failed extractions yield 100%, that means for an avg of 85% of Failed and success to happen, then what % of regrowth do we have from successful extractions?

[Arashi]

Oh, and why Gaz's donor is still looking 'pristine' .. Hehe, is it ? Look at his donor. Ok it wasn't good to begin with but it's extremely extremely thin (which made the analysis so easy). And you also keep forgetting that they transplant only half the hairs per HST. So when Gaz went 4 times, that's the equivalent of 2 FUE's.

[didi]

That means, it doesn’t matter how many “failed extraction points” or shit whatever you can see or count within a given area – THE RATIO will be always the same!! And that’s simply THE reason why gc83uk’s donor will look almost “pristine” even after having his 5th or 6th or more HST procedure – simply because you have to see the whole extraction point story from a “global” perspective. And finally, what I just tried to explain, is not even a new story – Dr. Gho explained all this in detail (about “failed extractions” or “unusable grafts” etc etc) very well already in his HST study – published in 2010.





Words of wisdom - global perspective aka bigger picture



I think IM is right, its 80%....failed extractions are irrelevant, they grow anyway

[gc83uk]

thank you, good reminder!!!!

Lol Caddarik, you change your mind every 5 minutes

[Arashi]

Pfffffffffft….

"Probably lower than 10%" ?

All the following is for all those people only, whose IQ is, at least, just a little bit higher than the average IQ of an ape …

These two well-known analysis pics of gc83uk’s 2nd procedure show the (pre-)result of around 50 extraction points …




So, that was clearly more than 80%. Another completely independent analysis of even more than 100 extraction points confirmed my result …



According to all these FACTS – the result is always around 80%. In simple words, around 80% of all the bloody extraction points regenerated again – WITH HAIR PRODUCING FOLLICLES!

And now the whole point of the story:

An analysis of 50 or even more than 100 extraction points – try to imagine 5000 or 10000 extraction points (!) within the blue square in the pics above – THE RATIO will be always the same!

That means, it doesn’t matter how many “failed extraction points” or shit whatever you can see or count within a given area – THE RATIO will be always the same!! And that’s simply THE reason why gc83uk’s donor will look almost “pristine” even after having his 5th or 6th or more HST procedure – simply because you have to see the whole extraction point story from a “global” perspective. And finally, what I just tried to explain, is not even a new story – Dr. Gho explained all this in detail (about “failed extractions” or “unusable grafts” etc etc) very well already in his HST study – published in 2010.

Oh, and just in case jerky still doesn't get it:
Explain me please, why gc83uk's donor area, and after haveing 3000 HST grafts already, still looked "pristine" while already having a good coverage of his slick bald area with HAIR?

It's getting a big boring when you keep repeating stuff that you know is wrong. Even JJJJR_S, who you quote, asked you to stop quoting that post cause he found out it was dead wrong. In fact, he asked you several times why you kept posting it and why you kept misleading people.

JJJJR_S found out that, what you failed to grasp, a lot of time graft didn't grow back as original, but they lost hairs. So a 2 hair graft wouldn't grow back as 2, but as 1. Taken that into account, his verdict was that regeneration was only 65%. However he didn't know by then that half of the grafts he was monitoring weren't even real extractions .. they were just unextracted/failed extractions !

[gc83uk]

I like your always very constructive way of answering.

But don't you think it's time to know for good about the 85%?

I mean, it would make everyone moe comfortable.
sirously, if your donor in let say september 2014 still looks almost untouched and you have an honest coverage on top, doesn't that mean that the 85% might be right?

they have a 13.000 grafts client with a very slightly thinning donor and I was confirmed by Pierre that the guy could go on... if he wanted.


I'm not saying that there were no "blurry" episodes.
But if we are so sure they are liars, why do we even continue with them?
And why isn't Arashi contesting and confronting them with his very strong arguments (because somehow he sounds convincing as much as they can be with their own documentation)

Well I'm sure Arashi cannot bet his life on any of this yet, hence why he is probably going to wait a little longer before making any concrete conclusions.

Who is Pierre? Why don't you ask Pierre what he thinks about this.