Debunking HASCI´s regeneration claim - an open letter.

[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...?

[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!

[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.

[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]

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".

[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.

[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?

[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

[Arashi]

2) At least since Dr. Gho's scientific publication of the HST technique

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

[534623]

Of course if you transect a hair at the right point, there will be regrowth. That's not the issue.

REALLY?
After around 15 years of "traditional FUE" - sorry, I'm not aware about any legit proof of your claim.

By the way - and just to let you know:
Concerning "transecting" or "splitting" follicles to get 2 follicles from 1, something like "transect at the right point" doesn't exist. Simply because the "right point" varies not only from patient to patient, it varies even in the same patient. That's also the reason why all those researchers, who investigate this issue, are always so "confused" and when they talk about "mixed results"...

"Splitting at the right point" ... yeah, sure ...

Oh, by the way - I heard Dr. Nigam is splitting FUE extracted follicles in vitro "at the right point" and under magnification. You should buy it! Works great! lol

[JJJJrS]

Of course hairdressers. I guess there are 2 reasons for that:

1) Hairdressers bring Dr. Gho their REAL clients into his clinic(s) simply by doing "word-of-mouth advertising" - you can't expect the same from his competitors (hair transplant industry/doctors).

2) At least since Dr. Gho's scientific publication of the HST technique in a reputable medical journal, the hair transplant industry in general, FUE doctors in particular, are either not interested such a presentation, or they are completely unable to verify at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim, as described, even in detail (how he extracts the grafts, and what hollow needle and needle size he is using etc), in the mentioned medical journal.

Concerning 2), even Spencer Kobren mentioned during one of his radio shows a few month ago, that basically EVERY American hair transplant doc could simply do what Dr. Gho is doing - right?
So the BIG question remains:
Why don't THEY simply prove or disprove at least Dr Gho's donor regrowth claim??

For example, especially guys like Dr. Cole, who is easily able (due to his FUE tools company) to reproduce Dr. Gho's special sharp/blunt combined triple waved needle for the extraction of HST grafts. That's everything what is needed (if at all) to prove or to disprove at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim.

So what's the problem?
Why don't THEY simply "debunk" Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim???????
I mean, if Dr. Gho would be my biggest competitor, I would immediatly try to "debunk" him, simply by doing practically exactly the same what I do, as FUE doc, every day in my clinic. Again, I would immediatly try to grill him ... but it seems they love him - or simply don't want to make advertising for him...the only explanation I have...lol

Of course if you transect a hair at the right point, there will be regrowth. That's not the issue. The question is whether you can transect a hair and achieve consistent growth, both in the donor and recipient. Basically, what Gho has to prove is whether he is multiplying hairs or redistributing them.

It's a very simple process to prove. All they have to do is completely document a relatively small procedure. HASCI seems completely unable to do that however, and instead are more interested in dealing with hair dressers and those that are easier to fool.

[One]

GC's case is amazing. Looking at his before and after pics, it doesnt look like he had any follicles extracted AT ALL. The amount of coverage he's got is simply insane and he's still got plenty of hair in his donor area to make his head much denser. I cannot say with certainty that Dr. Gho's HST method is definitely 0% regeneration, it jut doesn't look like it at all.

+1

[534623]

I hope you are being sarcastic. This was a presentation at Gho's clinic to a bunch of hairdressers, really hairdressers.

Of course hairdressers. I guess there are 2 reasons for that:

1) Hairdressers bring Dr. Gho their REAL clients into his clinic(s) simply by doing "word-of-mouth advertising" - you can't expect the same from his competitors (hair transplant industry/doctors).

2) At least since Dr. Gho's scientific publication of the HST technique in a reputable medical journal, the hair transplant industry in general, FUE doctors in particular, are either not interested such a presentation, or they are completely unable to verify at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim, as described, even in detail (how he extracts the grafts, and what hollow needle and needle size he is using etc), in the mentioned medical journal.

Concerning 2), even Spencer Kobren mentioned during one of his radio shows a few month ago, that basically EVERY American hair transplant doc could simply do what Dr. Gho is doing - right?
So the BIG question remains:
Why don't THEY simply prove or disprove at least Dr Gho's donor regrowth claim??

For example, especially guys like Dr. Cole, who is easily able (due to his FUE tools company) to reproduce Dr. Gho's special sharp/blunt combined triple waved needle for the extraction of HST grafts. That's everything what is needed (if at all) to prove or to disprove at least Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim.

So what's the problem?
Why don't THEY simply "debunk" Dr. Gho's donor regrowth claim???????
I mean, if Dr. Gho would be my biggest competitor, I would immediatly try to "debunk" him, simply by doing practically exactly the same what I do, as FUE doc, every day in my clinic. Again, I would immediatly try to grill him ... but it seems they love him - or simply don't want to make advertising for him...the only explanation I have...lol

[hellouser]

Thing is with gho so far, 85% regeneration seems like bs because of independent analysis on this forum and lack of nw7 to nw1 pictures.

0% regeneration seems like bs as well, because of the same independent analysis on this forum and gc's case.

Somewhere between 0% and 85% seems the most reasonable conclusion, the question is where?

GC's case is amazing. Looking at his before and after pics, it doesnt look like he had any follicles extracted AT ALL. The amount of coverage he's got is simply insane and he's still got plenty of hair in his donor area to make his head much denser. I cannot say with certainty that Dr. Gho's HST method is definitely 0% regeneration, it jut doesn't look like it at all.

[cocacola]

mm can you explain the logic behind the 35% and the 20%, maybe i missed something