gc83uk's september '13 procedure.

[Arashi]

Yeah, it's not looking good is it?

Are you going back for another procedure? I'm supposed to be going back in December. Regeneration was never such a big desl for me, I just didn't want any scarring, but I wonder if they are lying about this, what else are they lying about?

I'm not going back anytime soon. I wanted to densify my upper region but I now think it's better to wait and see how my hairloss develops and then fill in the thinning parts at some points. You just have to be careful to use your donor because you only have so much ...

HASCI even adviced me a few months ago to not densify my hairline. Now I understand why.

[c5000]

Yeah, it's not looking good is it?

Are you going back for another procedure? I'm supposed to be going back in December. Regeneration was never such a big desl for me, I just didn't want any scarring, but I wonder if they are lying about this, what else are they lying about?

[Arashi]

You can see it like this. Let's say you get a 100 HST transplant. But they drilled 5000 times. Now assume none of the transplanted grafts regenerate. If you then do an analysis of 100 random extractions holes, you'd find a 'regeneration rate' close to about 100%. Cause you're just looking at unextracted grafts growing back. While in reality there was no regeneration at all. So you have to take the total number of extractions into account to come up with a real regeneration number.

[Arashi]

This doesn't make sense... So you're saying the lower the number of failed extractions, the higher the regrneration rate?

Surely if you're assuming this regeneration thing is false, if there are say no failed extractions, then we would see no hairs sprouting or "regenerating" in the donor?

Your post suggests that 65% is the magic number and it's solely dependant on failed extractions?

If you're getting a HST, then the failed extraction have nothing to do with regeneration rate of course. I'm only talking about the analysis of GC's previous case. 65% is the 'magic number' since that number was his regeneration for that specific case, like calculated by JJJJR's. However back then we didn't take into account any failed extractions. Now when we looked at his new case, 2300 extractions were needed to transplant 1300 grafts. So if you use that number and apply it to GC's previous case, then the calculated real regeneration rate is a lot lower. Around 30%. I was just saying, if in his current case no failed extractions at all happened, then it would be safe to assume that in his previous case the regen was really about 65% (well, most probably still lower cause we didnt even look at recipient). But it turned out he had tons of failed extractions, which most probably skewed that 65% number big time and the real number is a LOT lower. Probably lower than 30%. Very possible that regeneration didn't even occur at all.

[c5000]

Of course the lower the amount of failed extractions, the closer the number is going to be to that 65%. On your yesterday's procedure, 2300 extraction holes and only 1300 grafts. On today's you say you have 720 extraction holes for 500 grafts, that's a much better number. I'll go and verify that number for you, but not today, maybe this weekend ok ?

This doesn't make sense... So you're saying the lower the number of failed extractions, the higher the regrneration rate?

Surely if you're assuming this regeneration thing is false, if there are say no failed extractions, then we would see no hairs sprouting or "regenerating" in the donor?

Your post suggests that 65% is the magic number and it's solely dependant on failed extractions?

[JJJJrS]

Bookmarked ! LOL. And yeah why IM keeps quoting stuff that he knows is not true .. If I'd care, I'd probably wonder why he keeps trying to mislead people. Is it just because all this is 'personal' somehow for him and he wants to 'win' even if he has to cheat and spread lies ? Wouldn't that be absurd ? But the only other explanation is that there is a financial interest ? But then again, I couldn't care less about what motivates IM

I really don't know or understand.

I'm pretty sure he realizes it's all bullshit at this point so he's either seriously deluding himself because he invested so much into this, both emotionally and financially, and doesn't want to admit he was wrong. Or he's a shill.

[JJJJrS]

Why there is no scarring?
And why should they not claim 80% regeneration when everybody can clearly see around 80% of the extraction holes regenerating - or did you see zero regeneration in your analysis?? Please tell the story that you could see ZERO regeneration ... pfffffffffft ...

Oh, by the way ...
Can someone tell me, and provided that all the idiotic shit would be accurate, gc83uk would now already have around 8000 - 10000 extraction holes in his head - due to "failed extractions" and shit whatever. Does his donor and will it look like in future like 8000 - 10000 extractions??

So if his donor doesn't look like that and gc's coverarge in the recipient is pretty good - Gho bought the hairs for the recipient in the supermarket?
Oh, and why they make such an effort at all with making far more extractions for getting a far lower number of "suitable grafts"?
lol

It's a nice result but they accomplished it by splitting grafts, not by "multiplying hair".

Let's summarize what we know:
- HASCI only targets multi-hair follicular units for extraction. This is because the procedure is based on splitting hair grafts and you can't split a 1-hair unit. It has absolutely nothing to do with using the other hair as a guide or whatever silly excuse you want to come up with.
- The vast majority of hairs in a HST patient's recipient are 1-hair units. Of course when you extract multi-hair units in the donor and they all end up as one-hair units in the recipient, then you are splitting grafts. The same thing happened for the majority of the extractions in the donor as well from my own analysis.
- There are no 3-hair units in the recipient because 4+ hair units are rare and the needles are too small to handle them anyway.
- There is visible proof of massive amounts of transected/split hair grafts from the famous petri dish photos.
- We know there are a huge number of failed extractions from multiple patients. These "failed extractions" will grow back and will be misinterpreted as "donor regeneration." If you have a 1:1 useful to failed extraction ratio, you could have what appears to be 50% regeneration from those alone!
- The lack of scarring is because HASCI uses: a) very small needles plus b) splits grafts meaning that follicles are still left behind.
- HASCI doesn't want to share the technique with experienced doctors, at their own expense!, because they'll be exposed.
- Not a single piece of conclusive proof from HASCI. Not even a simple patch test let alone NW6/7->NW2/1 transformations.


You keep bringing up your analysis as if it means anything. I know it took a lot of time but it's completely useless. No before pictures, no recipient photos, no idea of the number of failed extractions makes the analysis a failure.

[Arashi]

Why there is no scarring?
And why should they not claim 80% regeneration when everybody can clearly see around 80% of the extraction holes regenerating - or did you see zero regeneration in your analysis?? Please tell the story that you could see ZERO regeneration ... pfffffffffft ...

Oh, by the way ...
Can someone tell me, and provided that all the idiotic shit would be accurate, gc83uk would now already have around 8000 - 10000 extraction holes in his head - due to "failed extractions" and shit whatever. Does his donor and will it look like in future like 8000 - 10000 extractions??

So if his donor doesn't look like that and gc's coverarge in the recipient is pretty good - Gho bought the hairs for the recipient in the supermarket?
Oh, and why they make such an effort at all with making far more extractions for getting a far lower number of "suitable grafts"?
lol

Hehe. So now because GC's donor looks good to you, the numbers MUST be wrong ? You've lost it man. Just look at a donor photo which borders on a nosafe zone where they never took grafts and you'll see the huge difference in density. HASCI takes half of the hairs per grafts so that explains why Gaz could go 4 times. It equals 2 times FUE.

But you just don't want to understand it. You just twist and distort your own reality until it fits the way you like it.

[534623]

You're only young once. Of course that doesn't mean you should be desperate, but in this case, there's no scarring and no harm. If I were HASCI I would focus on that aspect more - the lack of scarring - because there are a lot of people who would go for that. It's a shame they have to invent the 80% regeneration claim.

Why there is no scarring?
And why should they not claim 80% regeneration when everybody can clearly see around 80% of the extraction holes regenerating - or did you see zero regeneration in your analysis?? Please tell the story that you could see ZERO regeneration ... pfffffffffft ...

Oh, by the way ...
Can someone tell me, and provided that all the idiotic shit would be accurate, gc83uk would now already have around 8000 - 10000 extraction holes in his head - due to "failed extractions" and shit whatever. Does his donor and will it look like in future like 8000 - 10000 extractions??

So if his donor doesn't look like that and gc's coverarge in the recipient is pretty good - Gho bought the hairs for the recipient in the supermarket?
Oh, and why they make such an effort at all with making far more extractions for getting a far lower number of "suitable grafts"?
lol

[534623]

Hey cocacola, thanks mate. Yes I know I'll be happy with it!

Happy with - what? A ****ed up donor and no "hair multiplication" at all??

[Arashi]

IM knows what my views are on HST so I don't understand why he keeps twisting things. Let me post this and he can quote me on it from now on:

I do not believe that there is any hair multiplication involved with HST.

Bookmarked ! LOL. And yeah why IM keeps quoting stuff that he knows is not true .. If I'd care, I'd probably wonder why he keeps trying to mislead people. Is it just because all this is 'personal' somehow for him and he wants to 'win' even if he has to cheat and spread lies ? Wouldn't that be absurd ? But the only other explanation is that there is a financial interest ? But then again, I couldn't care less about what motivates IM

[JJJJrS]

Just look at your result !! You not only look incredible much better, you've got your life back, as you word it yourself. And I can totally understand it. So you did good. I'm happy I went too. But at the same time, I won't go anytime soon again, cause I need my donor for later on. If regrowth would be 85% I'd be making my appointment right now. With < 30% regrowth you have to be careful how you use your donor.

This I agree with. Disregarding the controversy with donor regeneration, gc's results are fantastic. No scarring and very good coverage, especially when we consider where he started from. Really glad for him.

Also agree with this view:

Well I'll see how I look donor wise in a few months before I decide for sure that I'll be back next year, but it is the plan.

I am all for living for today, I would even move hair from unsafe areas for the short term gain, is that mad?

With HM coming at some point, I can fix my donor and any other gaps in the future if needed.

You're only young once. Of course that doesn't mean you should be desperate, but in this case, there's no scarring and no harm. If I were HASCI I would focus on that aspect more - the lack of scarring - because there are a lot of people who would go for that. It's a shame they have to invent the 80% regeneration claim.

[JJJJrS]

Anyway, I guess this explains the question "How the hell can a part of a graft regenerate and start producing hair within a few days". These were just unextracted grafts. It also explains why none of the Dutch celebs went more than 3 times to HASCI. And it explains why HASCI in general suggests a max of 3 HST's. And why they can't show us a NW7 -> NW1 conversion. There's simply no(t much) regrowth.

And yes, you can do more HST's than you can do FUE for the simple fact that with HST they only transplant half of the hairs per graft. So you need to do 2 HST's to transplant as much hair as you can do with 1 FUE.

Again, we'd need to verify and monitor the 500 grafts for a final conclusion. But it really starts to look the above is correct.

I think this is a very fair, accurate assessment. When you add everything together, I believe that the net regeneration rate is zero. The procedure is based on splitting hair grafts.

I suspected this ever since the failed 50 graft tests which is why I've lost all my enthusiasm for this procedure.

But big credit to gc83uk and Arashi for the pictures and anaylsis. Fantastic work as usual.

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 !

IM knows what my views are on HST so I don't understand why he keeps twisting things. Let me post this and he can quote me on it from now on:

I do not believe that there is any hair multiplication involved with HST.

[gc83uk]

Hey GC, congrats on your 4th hst. Hope you will be happy with the result.

Didnt take the time to read the whole 10 pages of spam since u had it, but i was just wondering do u have pics of ur donor before each procedure? I think it will be the best way to asses if there is regen or not.

I mean if after 4 hst ur donor looks pretty much the same even if thinned a little, its no big deal.

Hey cocacola, thanks mate. Yes I know I'll be happy with it!

Yes in a couple of weeks we will compare the donor pics of the test areas from my early HSTs and we can also use the picture I have taken before my 3rd HST. So that should be interesting to see if there is much visible change.

[gc83uk]

Of course the lower the amount of failed extractions, the closer the number is going to be to that 65%. On your yesterday's procedure, 2300 extraction holes and only 1300 grafts. On today's you say you have 720 extraction holes for 500 grafts, that's a much better number. I'll go and verify that number for you, but not today, maybe this weekend ok ?

There is no rush mate, bit tired of it all tbh, but thanks for putting all that effort in with the counting.