Debunking HASCI´s regeneration claim - an open letter.

[Arashi]

Why don't THEY simply prove or disprove [B]at least Dr Gho's donor regrowth claim??

How's that simple ? I don't see how they can do that. All they can do is analyse GC's data and they'll come to the same conclusion as I: that generation was in the 0-38% range.

What IS easy is for Hasci to prove their claims: just document a 50 graft test and that's that ! In all of those 10+ years they've never done that, which tells me enough. They're in the same league as Nigam. Fairytale league

[hellouser]

How's that simple ? I don't see how they can do that. All they can do is analyse GC's data and they'll come to the same conclusion as I: that generation was in the 0-38% range.

What IS easy is for Hasci to prove their claims: just document a 50 graft test and that's that ! In all of those 10+ years they've never done that, which tells me enough. They're in the same league as Nigam. Fairytale league

Has HASCI ever documented ANYONE at all?

[534623]

something that's not reproducible per definition is not scientific.

Yeah, I know. Doing this ...


... to prove or to disprove at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim is -especially for FUE docs- not reproducible. Sure. It's rocket science.

[Arashi]

Yeah, I know. Doing this ...


... to prove or to disprove at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim is -especially for FUE docs- not reproducible. Sure. It's rocket science.

Nobody succeeded at doing what HASCI *supposedly* did. And that's because, as HASCI puts it, the key is in their 'secret preservation media'. Therefore that paper they published is not scientfic, since it's not reproducible. And that's one of the 4 pillars of science. Without those 4 pillars work is not scientific.

It's exactly as scientific as saying "I can turn metal into gold, you just need to dip it into my secret preservation media and it will happen".

[hellouser]

Nobody succeeded at doing what HASCI *supposedly* did. And that's because, as HASCI puts it, the key is in their 'secret preservation media'. Therefore that paper they published is not scientfic, since it's not reproducible. And that's one of the 4 pillars of science. Without those 4 pillars work is not scientific.

It's exactly as scientific as saying "I can turn metal into gold, you just need to dip it into my secret preservation media and it will happen".

So then... whats the special preservation media?

[Arashi]

So then... whats the special preservation media?

Nobody knows. It's their secret elixer of eternal youth. Or so they say in fairtytale land

"Yeah we know how to multiply hair we just dont care to prove it", LOL.

[534623]

Nobody succeeded at doing what HASCI *supposedly* did. And that's because, as HASCI puts it, the key is in their 'secret preservation media'. Therefore that paper they published is not scientfic, since it's not reproducible.

Nobody is talking here about the recipient part. The recipient part is a completely different story. But even that is reproducuble:

Some doctors claim that they get growth in the recipient area just with PLUCKED HAIRS! So it's "logically" that, of course, you can get better results (or "more consistent results") if you use more "fleshy" plucked hairs like HST grafts. That's it.

Now back to the donor area regrowth claim:
Without doing or applying something special (ACell or PRP whatever) ...


... around 80-85% of ALL extraction sites (lots of failed extraction sites or not) regenerate. Sure, perhaps not 100% identically than before - but ALL extraction sites simply regenerate. It really doesn't matter whether or not you can see regeneration of hairs of "failed extractions" or successful extractions in the pic above. The point is that around 80-85% of ALL extractions sites regenerate - even if they would need TWICE AS MUCH extractions/drills to get the "useable grafts" (the amount of grafts patients finally pay). And even in such a case - the patient's donor area would still look better than after the best normal FUE procedure out there.

So again: Where is the problem to prove or to disprove AT LEAST THE DONOR REGROWTH CLAIM?
Why don't others show such pics ??
I can show you hundreds of such photos!

[hellouser]

Nobody knows. It's their secret elixer of eternal youth. Or so they say in fairtytale land

"Yeah we know how to multiply hair we just dont care to prove it", LOL.

I've heard before the 'special sauce' is whats not allowing Gho to perform his HST method in USA as its not FDA approved.

I wonder what it is...?

[cocacola]

This is a 8757th deja vu seeing arashi and ironman repeat same stuff over and over where is didi???

[caddarik79]

so you, IM, are sure about the regen percentage in donor?
80-85%

in their study in dermatologic journal there is even 104% and 97% etc...

I have to admit that seeing Gaz donor and knowing he even dared not to respect the 9 months, it's quite impressive, and starting from slick and seeing his result, I'm sorry but it's great.

The price of HST and HT in general is just not fair...

The only big shit from them is that they pretend having a 13.000 grafts dude but wierdly, no picture and that sucks a bit, I'd like to see a gallery of 9000 grafts, 8000 gafts, 10.000 grafts in their web pages, especially for a hair multiplication business.


So I'm again, 50/50% confident, you'll go soon anyway, let's try to grab some info from your second procedure and even about future treatments.

[Kiwi]

so you, IM, are sure about the regen percentage in donor?
80-85%

in their study in dermatologic journal there is even 104% and 97% etc...

I have to admit that seeing Gaz donor and knowing he even dared not to respect the 9 months, it's quite impressive, and starting from slick and seeing his result, I'm sorry but it's great.

The price of HST and HT in general is just not fair...

The only big shit from them is that they pretend having a 13.000 grafts dude but wierdly, no picture and that sucks a bit, I'd like to see a gallery of 9000 grafts, 8000 gafts, 10.000 grafts in their web pages, especially for a hair multiplication business.


So I'm again, 50/50% confident, you'll go soon anyway, let's try to grab some info from your second procedure and even about future treatments.

Gho is ghoing to get rich.

Not share his technique like a total douche bag - and eventually one day he'll die and nobody will be able to his technique done because he won't share

And he's a rip off.

I hope you wait for Pilofocus.

[Kiwi]

so you, IM, are sure about the regen percentage in donor?
80-85%

in their study in dermatologic journal there is even 104% and 97% etc...

I have to admit that seeing Gaz donor and knowing he even dared not to respect the 9 months, it's quite impressive, and starting from slick and seeing his result, I'm sorry but it's great.

The price of HST and HT in general is just not fair...

The only big shit from them is that they pretend having a 13.000 grafts dude but wierdly, no picture and that sucks a bit, I'd like to see a gallery of 9000 grafts, 8000 gafts, 10.000 grafts in their web pages, especially for a hair multiplication business.


So I'm again, 50/50% confident, you'll go soon anyway, let's try to grab some info from your second procedure and even about future treatments.

BUT - gaz's transplant looks awesome. So I don't doubt Gho is good

[Arashi]

This is a 8757th deja vu seeing arashi and ironman repeat same stuff over and over where is didi???

You're right. Hasci will never prove their claims so unless *we* do something the discussion will go on forever. Thats why i am planning to ask them to do a 50 graft test on me. In fact i am gong to mail them right now

[Arashi]

BUT - gaz's transplant looks awesome. So I don't doubt Gho is good

Gaz result looks great. But is it possible to draw conclusions with the naked eye ? When we look at the data we now know his regen was somewhere in the 0 - 40%. The rest is speculation.

[FearTheLoss]

GC, I'm sure you have posted before, can you direct me to a picture showing where you initially started and where you are now?

Thanks, FTL