Debunking HASCI´s regeneration claim - an open letter.

[534623]

Gho's paper documented as much, I seem to remember 1 patient having 31% failed extractions with another having less than 10% ...

Does it mean Dr. Gho debunked himself years ago in a scientific paper - without the help of Arashi's "debunking threads"? lol

gc, unfortunately, I have very very bad news for you ...

According to Arashi's calculations, you now have around 10,000 holes in your donor area - aka, "0 regrowth" ...

But don't worry - we both sit in the same boat, because soon I will have all in all around 6,000 holes in my donor area too.

[gc83uk]

Does it mean Dr. Gho debunked himself years ago in a scientific paper - without the help of Arashi's "debunking threads"? lol

gc, unfortunately, I have very very bad news for you ...

According to Arashi's calculations, you now have around 10,000 holes in your donor area - aka, "0 regrowth" ...

But don't worry - we both sit in the same boat, because soon I will have all in all around 6,000 holes in my donor area too.

Lol well to be fair it doesn't matter as long as those failed extraction regrow and I have no doubt that they do, otherwise I'd be in a serious mess by now

[JJJJrS]

My problem with HASCI is that they're lying about their "regeneration rate." It's not even close to 85% like they claim and everybody knows that at this point, including Gho. They may be offering a form of visibly scarless FUE, but nobody should be allowed to lie or make false advertisements and continue to get away with it.

[534623]

My problem with HASCI is ...

... that guys like you don't even have the bucks for a 50 HST grafts test procedure - so that they finally would be able to back up such claims like yours with their OWN head, OWN camera, OWN photos etc etc.

[gc83uk]

My problem with HASCI is that they're lying about their "regeneration rate." It's not even close to 85% like they claim and everybody knows that at this point, including Gho. They may be offering a form of visibly scarless FUE, but nobody should be allowed to lie or make false advertisements and continue to get away with it.

As I said earlier in the thread if they claimed a scarless hair transplant with approximately 50% donor regrowth then it would be much more realistic IMO.

But how do we know for sure that they are lying? Just because of my procedure? I'll tell you one thing, they never promised me 85%. A figure was never mentioned, nor was there any contract which some speak of.

If they're lying, which btw is a serious accusation, then who is the regulator to decide if they are indeed lying? And is the regulator also liable for not taking action themselves?

And what happened to Spencer visiting Dr Gho?

[JJJJrS]

As I said earlier in the thread if they claimed a scarless hair transplant with approximately 50% donor regrowth then it would be much more realistic IMO.

I agree. The first thing HASCI should have done is preformed a proper, scientific analysis which quantized the hair multiplication/donor regrowth rate. If they weren't capable of doing that on their own, then they should have at least got an independent third party to do the analysis. You can't just throw numbers around without any proof.

The fact that they have never done such an analysis, or at least never shared it with the community, speaks volumes in my mind. A scarless procedure, with any level of donor regrowth, is a huge deal, so why has HASCI avoided this for so long?

But how do we know for sure that they are lying? Just because of my procedure? I'll tell you one thing, they never promised me 85%. A figure was never mentioned, nor was there any contract which some speak of.

Iron_Man's "donor regrowth" rate was significantly less than yours. So I'm not just relying on your case. Plus the results from the failed 50 graft tests were extremely eye opening - i.e., the huge number of transected grafts and failed extractions, which are going to have a massive effect on the "true" regeneration rate. And that was from test procedures, where they had all the time in the world and knew were going to be showcased online - not your average procedure.

If they're lying, which btw is a serious accusation, then who is the regulator to decide if they are indeed lying? And is the regulator also liable for not taking action themselves?

It is serious but it's a difficult thing to prove, isn't it? Particularly when HASCI refuses to provide proper documentation. I mean we have people on here, who are hyper-interested in hairloss issues, still debating it. What do you think the average person would think of all this?

I would love to see a properly documented 25-50 graft test in the end. HASCI could prove everyone wrong. But I guarantee you they'll never preform that test properly.

With that said, when I criticize HASCI, it's about principles. Patients have a right to know exactly how much donor regrowth they're going to get before spending thousands of dollars/euros of their hard earned money. In terms of results, I think your transformation was fantastic and you would not be able to achieve that type of result from any other clinic. But again, it comes down to accurate vs. false advertising.

[clarence]

You know, I'm thinking ... I'm planning to visit my family in the Netherlands somewhere in december or february. I could still use some grafts in recipient. Maybe I'll get a really small procedure, like 300-400 grafts, that's still very managable to count (albeit a lot of work). I'll shoot tons of photo's and finally get us the evidence that we all want. Cause this discussion is going to go on for ages I'm going to think about it, but it sounds like a great idea to me. And I could use some more grafts for sure

I'm surprised anyone hasn't done this yet. A minor touch-up like that would shut some of mouths here, in one camp or another. I'm considering doing a 400-500 grafts of dark wavy hair, just in the temples, and lack of thinning areas elsewhere (where ever there is any hair at all) along with an untouched donor would satisfy every condition for proper documentation (okay, just one "but"; I'm on finasteride and maintaining)... but unfortunately there are too many "ifs" for me to start before summer 2015. Alot of you will want something to look at much much earlier, so I guess we'll just have to see what Arashi decides.

In my case I would definitely make the counting easier by having grafts taken from just some part of the donor (ie. just back of the head, not sides, or vice versa). It's MY donor, so what reason does HASCI have to say no, we won't do that? But you do whatever is the most cosmetically pleasing in your own case!

[crafter]

surely HASCI must be regulated? they are in Europe, a place that regulates everything.

[gc83uk]

To be fair I agree with pretty much all of that.

Although I'm not even aware of the regrowth rate from IronMan, can you tell me what it was? And did he confirm the same findings?

As for your question on what the average person would think on these forums, I would guess that most would be hugely suspicious and probably put off until more solid evidence is presented. However I reckon some people are so desperate that they'll try anything and take the risk, so in a way I think it's a great service by documenting results letting people know the reality of the procedure.

I don't think there is anything wrong in saying on these forums that we believe there to be less than 85%. In my case around 50%, but overall in comparison to FUE it's more like (equivalent) 35% because of the recipient being thinner.

Put another way for every 200 hairs extracted I calculated 239 regrowing on my head including the recipient. So really that is a 20% net gain, that is mainly due to only having 1.4 hairs per graft AVG in the recipient unfortunately.

There is so many ways to spin the results, but it's important to realise too that when you have FUE you're left with less hair on your head than what you started with probably -15%ish, that's my understanding of it, so it makes HST's 20% NET gain not too bad in direct comparison.

By the way do they still advertise anywhere the 85% figure? I'm sure they used to, but I can't see it anywhere unless I'm missing it! Maybe they took note?

[JJJJrS]

I'm surprised anyone hasn't done this yet. A minor touch-up like that would shut some of mouths here, in one camp or another. I'm considering doing a 400-500 grafts of dark wavy hair, just in the temples, and lack of thinning areas elsewhere (where ever there is any hair at all) along with an untouched donor would satisfy every condition for proper documentation (okay, just one "but"; I'm on finasteride and maintaining)... but unfortunately there are too many "ifs" for me to start before summer 2015. Alot of you will want something to look at much much earlier, so I guess we'll just have to see what Arashi decides.

In my case I would definitely make the counting easier by having grafts taken from just some part of the donor (ie. just back of the head, not sides, or vice versa). It's MY donor, so what reason does HASCI have to say no, we won't do that? But you do whatever is the most cosmetically pleasing in your own case!

If you're going to do a test like that, and want to learn as much about the procedure as you can, I'd strongly encourage you to limit the number of grafts. Anything above 50 grafts becomes a pain to analyze. Ideally, you'd want to place the grafts in one or two small, completely slick-bald areas to monitor the recipient growth. It would be easier to do that with a micro procedure.

In my opinion, you should either go all the way and get a full procedure or limit it to <50 grafts. In between is a waste.

[clarence]

If you're going to do a test like that, and want to learn as much about the procedure as you can, I'd strongly encourage you to limit the number of grafts. Anything above 50 grafts becomes a pain to analyze. Ideally, you'd want to place the grafts in one or two small, completely slick-bald areas to monitor the recipient growth.

In my opinion, you should either go all the way and get a full procedure or limit it to <50 grafts. In between is a waste.

I'm a bit in a hurry so don't have time to maybe properly reply right now, but
1. I really don't have extra money to put out on doing "tests" other than the one procedure
2. I'm a bit short of NW3 and there is almost no thinning anywhere, where there is hair, and the forelock thickness looks great-. 400-500 grafts is as full procedure for me as I am currently going need. NW2 is good enough for me
3. I work pro in the field of photography
4. Looks like it won't happen before 2015. Another patient, maybe then?

[JJJJrS]

Although I'm not even aware of the regrowth rate from IronMan, can you tell me what it was? And did he confirm the same findings?

I did an analysis for IM's procedure last year. Unfortunately, FileDen is gone now so the pictures are no longer online.

Without taking into account transections or failed extractions, around 70&#37; of the extraction points regrew hair. He seemed to support my findings. Of course, the actual "regeneration rate" will be much lower in practice.

You can read more about it here.

There is so many ways to spin the results, but it's important to realise too that when you have FUE you're left with less hair on your head than what you started with probably -15%ish, that's my understanding of it, so it makes HST's 20% NET gain not too bad in direct comparison.

If that were the case, those would be incredible results, especially combined with the scarless aspect.

Any net gain of hair is enormous. You can always work on the technical issues to improve consistency.

I think it's frustrating though, that we still have no concrete answers and HASCI still behaves so secretive about their procedure, even to the same patients that invested a lot, both financially and emotionally, to get a procedure done.

By the way do they still advertise anywhere the 85% figure? I'm sure they used to, but I can't see it anywhere unless I'm missing it! Maybe they took note?

Interesting. I'll take a look but last time I checked, which was a while ago, I remember seeing that 85% figure thrown around a lot.

[JJJJrS]

By the way do they still advertise anywhere the 85% figure? I'm sure they used to, but I can't see it anywhere unless I'm missing it! Maybe they took note?

Yup, you're right. It's gone now. No mention of the 85% figure.

Probably followed the discussion on the forums At least we're making somewhat of a difference

[crafter]

ok, so i've just watched the Pilofocus video and at 22 minutes Dr Wesley talks about regeneration, and the video shows evidence for it and Dr Cooley has acknowledged it has happened to, so why are we not more excited by this? both are reputable doctors.

[hellouser]

ok, so i've just watched the Pilofocus video and at 22 minutes Dr Wesley talks about regeneration, and the video shows evidence for it and Dr Cooley has acknowledged it has happened to, so why are we not more excited by this? both are reputable doctors.

+1

If the regeneration happens as the pictures show, then we need to get on this ASAP. We need solutions NOW.