Debunking HASCI´s regeneration claim - an open letter.

[crafter]

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

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[cocacola]

Just the fact that hasci been doing scarless for a while now is a big differentiation point. Then, for me gaz case is more believable evidence of regen than any studies they published. Myself i only had one and cant tell anything about regen or lack of.

[gc83uk]

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 think that would be a great idea, but just make sure Rolf is extracting and Gho or Deborah is implanting.

[Arashi]

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

[Arashi]

And remember those 100 graft tests they did ? Kristel told me that they'd put it all up on their site. What happened to that ? It all just seems really fishy to me. If they don't want to show any proof of their claims, one can only assume that's for a good reason.

[Arashi]

Also if my maths are correct even if it's 44% failed extractions then it would still give 24 grafts out of 56 grafts which would mean 43% regrowth instead of the 52% regrowth.

I'd still take that to be honest, but I know for sure that Rolf ain't Failing 1 in 2 attempts.

43% is fairly consitent with my 38% calc. But again, of course it's a best case scenario. We didn't look at recipient. I know in my recipient I had good growth. Maybe that was true in your case as well and you did get some regrowth. Who knows. But the major point (at least to me) remains: if they really had something that would work, they'd show patient evidence. Not just some paper that nobody can't verify. Look how many people doubt HASCI's claim. They could all just take away that doubt with some good patient cases and get tons of more patients. They don't do that, which to me means a lot.

[gc83uk]

Also if my maths are correct even if it's 44% failed extractions then it would still give 24 grafts out of 56 grafts which would mean 43% regrowth instead of the 52% regrowth.

I'd still take that to be honest, but I know for sure that Rolf ain't Failing 1 in 2 attempts.

[gc83uk]

I still think HASCI and Dr Wesley should currently be the only options for people who want to get surgery. But I wish HASCI would either back up their claims with a patient analysis or just stop making those claims. But unfortunately that will never happen.

If they would just claim, hey we can do scarless transplants with some regrowth, then they would probably get more customers coming forward.