Dr Nigam agrees to doubling slick NW6/NW7

[gc83uk]

The pre op photos is the most important thing.

Even if the post op photos were horrible, we would infinite chances to have the candidate have more photos done.

It's all about the pre op pics. This is why I suggest leaving about a week between the pre op photos and starting the procedure.

[Arashi]

The pre op photos is the most important thing.

Even if the post op photos were horrible, we would infinite chances to have the candidate have more photos done.

It's all about the pre op pics. This is why I suggest leaving about a week between the pre op photos and starting the procedure.

Glad we're on the same page here, mate

[gc83uk]

Glad we're on the same page here, mate

Ha, we seem to keep posting the same thing within a minute of each other. All good though.

After the procedure is done, we will ask Dr Nigam to take as many high quality photos of the donor area. This will give us a good indication of what has been extracted on the day. Again they will need to be macro. This set of photos isn't essential but it will help!

We will then ask Nigam to produce another set of photos about 2 weeks after the procedure of the donor. Again it will need to be a full set of photos from the donor.

This is when WE decide which areas we will be analysing. We pick 3 areas, obviously we won't declare which 3 areas yet (that would be suicide). Dr Nigam will have no idea, so he can't cheat.

I don't know if we'll see much regrowth after 2 weeks, but assuming there isn't the donor area should be in a bit of a mess at that point, sparse as hell.

I'm guessing after 6 months would be the perfect time to take another set of photos to do the end evaluation of the first 5000 extractions.

We go again for 2nd procedure with another 5000 approx.

If this didn't work, just imagine the state of a NW7's donor after having 10,000 - 12,000 grafts extracted. There will be nowhere to hide.

[One]

Even if the post op photos were horrible, we would infinite chances to have the candidate have more photos done.

It's all about the pre op pics. This is why I suggest leaving about a week between the pre op photos and starting the procedure.

That's right. This is the crux of the matter.

Until it gets the complete mapping of the donor and the approval from the pictures PRE-OP must not do the transplant.

Photos can be made in the preliminary visit, nigam then sends it to us and then, if everything is ok, we go.

[gc83uk]

That's right. This is the crux of the matter.

Until it gets the complete mapping of the donor and the approval from the pictures PRE-OP must not do the transplant.

Photos can be made in the preliminary visit, nigam then sends it to us and then, if everything is ok, we go.

precisely

[Arashi]

Ha, we seem to keep posting the same thing within a minute of each other. All good though.

After the procedure is done, we will ask Dr Nigam to take as many high quality photos of the donor area. This will give us a good indication of what has been extracted on the day. Again they will need to be macro. This set of photos isn't essential but it will help!

We will then ask Nigam to produce another set of photos about 2 weeks after the procedure of the donor. Again it will need to be a full set of photos from the donor.

This is when WE decide which areas we will be analysing. We pick 3 areas, obviously we won't declare which 3 areas yet (that would be suicide). Dr Nigam will have no idea, so he can't cheat.

I don't know if we'll see much regrowth after 2 weeks, but assuming there isn't the donor area should be in a bit of a mess at that point, sparse as hell.

I'm guessing after 6 months would be the perfect time to take another set of photos to do the end evaluation of the first 5000 extractions.

We go again for 2nd procedure with another 5000 approx.

If this didn't work, just imagine the state of a NW7's donor after having 10,000 - 12,000 grafts extracted. There will be nowhere to hide.

LIke you said, I don't know how much will regrow after 2 weeks. Also I'm not really sure why we'd have to get pictures in between ? We just need the pre-op photo and the end result. We can then look for areas to compare the density of the pre-op photo and the post-op photo. Just some arbitrary areas.

[gc83uk]

LIke you said, I don't know how much will regrow after 2 weeks. Also I'm not really sure why we'd have to get pictures in between ? We just need the pre-op photo and the end result. We can then look for areas to compare the density of the pre-op photo and the post-op photo. Just some arbitrary areas.

Perhaps, I guess I don't trust the photos will be perfect each time, so the more sets that are taken then the more conclusive it'll be, but yeah I tend to agree that it's probably not necessary for 2 week photos...However....

if we were talking about the invivo process, the the regrowth would start right away right? Just like it does with Gho. Correct me if I'm wrong here?

I know we should probably concentrate on Invitro, BUT, why the hell would invivo produce regrowth immediately, but Invitro doesn't?

[Arashi]

Perhaps, I guess I don't trust the photos will be perfect each time, so the more sets that are taken then the more conclusive it'll be, but yeah I tend to agree that it's probably not necessary for 2 week photos...However....

if we were talking about the invivo process, the the regrowth would start right away right? Just like it does with Gho. Correct me if I'm wrong here?

I know we should probably concentrate on Invitro, BUT, why the hell would invivo produce regrowth immediately, but Invitro doesn't?

I do agree with JJJJRs that we should keep the whole thing as simple as possible. Getting the subjects each time to the clinic when it's not necessary should be avoided. And maybe I'm missing something but to me it just seems a matter of comparing pre-op to the final post-op. And if the final post-op isn't good enough, we can ask to shoot more.

[gc83uk]

I do agree with JJJJRs that we should keep the whole thing as simple as possible. Getting the subjects each time to the clinic when it's not necessary should be avoided. And maybe I'm missing something but to me it just seems a matter of comparing pre-op to the final post-op. And if the final post-op isn't good enough, we can ask to shoot more.

Yes I do agree, but tell me the answer to my previous question would you (if you know)

[Arashi]

Yes I do agree, but tell me the answer to my previous question would you (if you know)

I guess nobody knows the answers to those questions .. But I agree we should focus on the procedure with the best results only.

[gc83uk]

I guess nobody knows the answers to those questions .. But I agree we should focus on the procedure with the best results only.

OK, what do you think about Nigam wanting to try 3 different tests on 5 people. That's just going to get confusing. I think we suggest him to just choose 1, what you reckon?

Invivo, invitro and another which I can't remember name of

[Arashi]

OK, what do you think about Nigam wanting to try 3 different tests on 5 people. That's just going to get confusing. I think we suggest him to just choose 1, what you reckon?

Invivo, invitro and another which I can't remember name of

Yeah I suggest just to perform his best yielding procedure on all of the subjects.

[FearTheLoss]

I think Mwamba visiting and overseeing this is the biggest things. If Mwamba starts to practice the doubling technique, and confirms it's legitimacy...it's real.

[JJJJrS]

No offense but you must have misunderstood me. I even said you wouldn't need to do any counting.

You would only need to take a sample area and analyse 50-100 grafts, Nigam wouldn't even know which area we were picking until long after the procedure is done.

These sample areas just help to make the test conclusive imo. But as I said in the previous thread before approaching Nigam with my suggestion, it would be plain to see after TWO procedures and after extracting 10-12k FU's from the donor area whether this has worked or not. Even if they only partially regrown in the donor, it will be easy to see.

But having photos where we can analyse areas (more than 1 imo, 3 areas would be best) helps to make this conclusive.

No need to count shit.

If you want to analyse one area, that's fine. I just don't see the point of it.

This isn't a 1.5k procedure from HASCI. Nigam claims he's going to extract 5-7k grafts from a NW6-7, possibly multiple times. It will be completely obvious if there's scarring and donor regeneration. As long as the head is shaved and the pictures are reasonable, everything will be clear.

If this was a patch test, than yes, preop pictures and all that would be important. But it's not and Dr. Mwamba will be going there to verify that anyway. This is a huge procedure, mixing invivo/invitro. I would just focus on the main goal which is a NW6/7->NW2 transformation which can't be faked easily.

If you want to analyse things though and Dr. Nigam agrees, then go ahead but I think you'd just be wasting your time.

[JJJJrS]

In a perfect world we shouldn't need to count. Agreed. Nigams should just get a NW7 and turn his scalp into a scalp full of hair with at least 30 grafts/cm2. If that would happen, we wouldn't even need any donor photo's at all ! Just the end result should tell us enough.

However this is Dr Nigams. I'm expecting it's not going to happen like this. I'm expecting an end result with coverage all over his head but it's just going to be rather thin. And then what ? Did the test fail or is this a success ? Sure we can ask Nigams to do another procedure but that's going to take at least another 9 months.

Ideally, Dr. Nigam would continue adding grafts until the donor is depleted or the NW2 transformation is complete. After that, everyone will be able to judge the results for themselves based on the coverage in the recipient, level of scarring and depletion in the donor, etc. I don't think the judgement will be too hard as long as he follows a couple of the key requirements.