To whom it may concern,

HASCI's 85% donor regeneration claim has been the subject of debate on internet forums for a long time, mostly fueled by the fact that HASCI never presented an independent patient case for verification and analysis. As (potential) patients wanted to find out if their therapy works as advertised, forum members started to shoot before and after pictures themselves. Without a doubt, the most famous case on the internet is that from forum member 'GC83UK' who went for several HST procedures in a row and documented them, each time in more detail, as our understanding and information of what was important increased.

The research started with people trying to monitor random extraction points and trying to count in how many extraction points hair grew back. It was big news when people found out that this happened in 87% of the extraction points. This was supposed to be evidence HASCI's procedure worked as claimed.

However, intrigued by these results, forum poster 'jjjjrs' started looking at the case in more detail. He found that in quite a few extraction sites, not all hair grew back. It turned out that in quite a few instances, 2 hair grafts grew back as 1 hair grafts. Taken this hair loss into account, he calculated that the regeneration rate was not 87% but only 65%. However, he concluded that 'real' regeneration rate might have been way lower, maybe even 0. Because what wasn't taken into account was recipient growth (always assumed to be 100% thus far) and failed extractions.

Now these 'failed extractions', he reasoned, potentially might have skewed this number a lot. If follicles weren't even transplanted and hair was just transsected, of course the hair would just grow back. This of course has nothing to do with regeneration, since it's just transsected hair growing back. If this happened a lot, then the 65% hair growing back might just have been transsected hairs growing back, while the real regeneration rate might be way less than that.

To find out about this, we'd needed to find how many extraction points there were. Unfortunately this was impossible because we simply didn't have all the photo's. However it was reasoned that the failed extraction rate would be pretty much equal amongst sessions. So if we could find out how many times an extraction point wasn't a real extraction, in his new case, we could use that number to draw conclusions in his previous case.

On september 10, forum member gc83uk went for his latest HST procedure. On that day he got 1300 grafts. Most of the extractions were done by Rolf, who´s rated as HASCI´s best technician. After counting all extraction points, it turned out there were 2316 extraction points. So only 56% of the times an extraction was successful. HASCI always claimed that hair from failed extractions always grew back. This means that in 44% of the extraction points, all hair would grow back. But this would not be regeneration, this would simply be transsected hair growing back.

Let's see what this percentage means ...

Let's assume 2 hairs/graft (it doesn't matter for the calculations). Let's assume all grafts grow in recipient. Having had 1300 grafts during his procedure, this would mean the patient now got 2600 extra hairs in recipient.

We saw 2316 extraction sites. In his previous procedure, we concluded that in a random exrtraction site, 65% of the times hair grew back. So we're expecting a loss of 35% * 2 * 2316 = 1621 hairs in donor.

So, the patient gave up 1621 hairs in his donor to get 2600 hairs in recipient. In other words, from the 2600 hairs that got extracted, 978 regenerated. This is a regeneration rate of 37.6%

We assumed all hairs grew in recipient, so this really is a best case scenario. We will have to investigate how hair in recipient grows, but judging by the number of transsected hairs we saw in petridish photo's, it's save to assume quite a bit won't be able to grow in recipient. So it's quite possible regeneration turns out to be 0%. But let's not speculate here and let's assume the best case scenario. How come HASCI always promises us 85% regeneration while it now turns out it's only 37.6% at best, and possibly even way lower ?

P.s

Attached are the results of the extraction sites counting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m06tjcp1rztfd6u/gaz.zip

The _LAYOUT.jpg is an overview of how all pictures link together. It's the back of the scalp. Pictures starting with H are the highest part of the scalp, with M the middle and L is the lower part. The Z picture is the part above the ear, closest to the right eye (so the outer edge). The calculations spread sheet contains all the grafts per area.

I'm confident that it's pretty accurate. The only trouble I had was linking L3_190347 to M4_190341. It's not correct. But the part that's not correct is relatively small, it are only a few extractions so I didn't really bother to get to the bottom of it. I'm pretty sure all of the other pictures are linked perfectly together and it´s accurate within 5%.

HASCI's 85% donor regeneration claim has been the subject of debate on internet forums for a long time, mostly fueled by the fact that HASCI never presented an independent patient case for verification and analysis. As (potential) patients wanted to find out if their therapy works as advertised, forum members started to shoot before and after pictures themselves. Without a doubt, the most famous case on the internet is that from forum member 'GC83UK' who went for several HST procedures in a row and documented them, each time in more detail, as our understanding and information of what was important increased.

The research started with people trying to monitor random extraction points and trying to count in how many extraction points hair grew back. It was big news when people found out that this happened in 87% of the extraction points. This was supposed to be evidence HASCI's procedure worked as claimed.

However, intrigued by these results, forum poster 'jjjjrs' started looking at the case in more detail. He found that in quite a few extraction sites, not all hair grew back. It turned out that in quite a few instances, 2 hair grafts grew back as 1 hair grafts. Taken this hair loss into account, he calculated that the regeneration rate was not 87% but only 65%. However, he concluded that 'real' regeneration rate might have been way lower, maybe even 0. Because what wasn't taken into account was recipient growth (always assumed to be 100% thus far) and failed extractions.

Now these 'failed extractions', he reasoned, potentially might have skewed this number a lot. If follicles weren't even transplanted and hair was just transsected, of course the hair would just grow back. This of course has nothing to do with regeneration, since it's just transsected hair growing back. If this happened a lot, then the 65% hair growing back might just have been transsected hairs growing back, while the real regeneration rate might be way less than that.

To find out about this, we'd needed to find how many extraction points there were. Unfortunately this was impossible because we simply didn't have all the photo's. However it was reasoned that the failed extraction rate would be pretty much equal amongst sessions. So if we could find out how many times an extraction point wasn't a real extraction, in his new case, we could use that number to draw conclusions in his previous case.

On september 10, forum member gc83uk went for his latest HST procedure. On that day he got 1300 grafts. Most of the extractions were done by Rolf, who´s rated as HASCI´s best technician. After counting all extraction points, it turned out there were 2316 extraction points. So only 56% of the times an extraction was successful. HASCI always claimed that hair from failed extractions always grew back. This means that in 44% of the extraction points, all hair would grow back. But this would not be regeneration, this would simply be transsected hair growing back.

Let's see what this percentage means ...

Let's assume 2 hairs/graft (it doesn't matter for the calculations). Let's assume all grafts grow in recipient. Having had 1300 grafts during his procedure, this would mean the patient now got 2600 extra hairs in recipient.

We saw 2316 extraction sites. In his previous procedure, we concluded that in a random exrtraction site, 65% of the times hair grew back. So we're expecting a loss of 35% * 2 * 2316 = 1621 hairs in donor.

So, the patient gave up 1621 hairs in his donor to get 2600 hairs in recipient. In other words, from the 2600 hairs that got extracted, 978 regenerated. This is a regeneration rate of 37.6%

We assumed all hairs grew in recipient, so this really is a best case scenario. We will have to investigate how hair in recipient grows, but judging by the number of transsected hairs we saw in petridish photo's, it's save to assume quite a bit won't be able to grow in recipient. So it's quite possible regeneration turns out to be 0%. But let's not speculate here and let's assume the best case scenario. How come HASCI always promises us 85% regeneration while it now turns out it's only 37.6% at best, and possibly even way lower ?

P.s

Attached are the results of the extraction sites counting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m06tjcp1rztfd6u/gaz.zip

The _LAYOUT.jpg is an overview of how all pictures link together. It's the back of the scalp. Pictures starting with H are the highest part of the scalp, with M the middle and L is the lower part. The Z picture is the part above the ear, closest to the right eye (so the outer edge). The calculations spread sheet contains all the grafts per area.

I'm confident that it's pretty accurate. The only trouble I had was linking L3_190347 to M4_190341. It's not correct. But the part that's not correct is relatively small, it are only a few extractions so I didn't really bother to get to the bottom of it. I'm pretty sure all of the other pictures are linked perfectly together and it´s accurate within 5%.

## Comment