update HASCI, Arashi?

[534623]

The fact that they won't offer the 50 graft test, no matter how much money you give them, tells me everything I need to know.

Yeah, exactly the same thoughts when somebody is asking JJJJrS for some zoomable photos, which just show JJJJrS's hairloss problem ...

You guys will never see any - and that tells me everything.

[534623]

Sure, go ahead and show me posts where I confirmed that Nigam was for real. Good luck with that !

lol - that is NOT what you said - and that's also not what I claimed.

Just to summarize some of the facts that we know now:

1) Gaz analysis showed regrowth to be in the 0-38% range, where 0% was equally possible as 38%.

Really? I'm not aware about such an "analysis" and such numbers - and such fictitious numbers (out of your anus) are what you call "facts"???

2) They dont want to do a 50 graft test, even if offered 3000 euro

Perhaps they just don't want a psychiatric guy as test candidate (they know it, I know it), because they didn't have any problems with other test-candidates like James Bald?

3) They 'magically failed to show usable photo's for their previous 50 graft test, even after we made a checklist for dummies and even the second time !

Yeah, that's THE ultimate proof that the HST technique doesn't work. Sure ...

4) After all these years we've seen NO result that couldnt be achieved with simple FUE

Untrue. gc83uk can show today around 5000 HST grafts within his former slick bald scalp area, instead of the around 2500 pluggy looking FUE grafts (same looking as in James Bald's case!) other clinics could do for him with normal FUE. And gc's case is definitely NOT over concerning donor resources!

But just in case you actually meant there are no "wow-results" during the past years with 9 or more HSTs:
That's true! You're the living proof that 1) many guys are unable to buy not even a 2nd procedure because 2) guys like you always told them that it doesn't work anyhow. So how and why could you ever see any "wow-results"??

5) None of the celebs went there for more than a couple times

Yeah, but THEY DID IT a couple of times!
So perhaps they are already satisfied with what they got so far?

6) They even advise a max of 3 HST's per patient and then evaluate if they can go on.

3 HSTs create already around 1300 hairless gaps - simply because 80% is NOT 100%; so if I would be a guy like Dean Saunders, who likes to shave his head down to the bone - around 1300 hairless gaps, could be already a problem for me...

If 80% regrowth was true the average patient could go even more than 25x times and donor would still look untouched.

Really? Around 11,000 hairless gaps (~440 per HST x 25) would still provide an untouched donor????????????
ops, I forgot: 80% is for Arashi = 100% lol

7) No other clinic ever could repeat what they claim to do.

hmmm, Dr. Gho must be very pleased!
In fact, a few years ago, a guy named James Bond (not James Bald!) interviewed Dr. Gho once again, and Dr. Gho predicted that within just a few years some others in this field will catch up - seems he failed with his prediction ...

8. They tell NW2's with GOOD donor (their own words) not to go beyond 25 gr/cm2 on the temples cause supposedly there's not enough hair in donor.

Interesting. Seems you installed bugs in their clinics?

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

So, all the points you listed above is the proof that the HST technique doesn't work???

CONCLUSION:

http://youtu.be/GPz-j3bfq3E

[Arashi]

Really? I'm not aware about such an "analysis" and such numbers

I know you only read things you like and you live in your own world of lies, but the facts are there.

Untrue. gc83uk can show today around 5000 HST grafts within his former slick bald scalp area, instead of the around 2500 pluggy looking FUE grafts (same looking as in James Bald's case!) other clinics could do for him with normal FUE.

Average hair/graft with HST is 1.3, even you agreed to that, so 5000 HST grafts = 5000*1.3/2.5 = 2600 FUE grafts. You agreed to that. So gaz got the equivalent of 2600 FUE grafts. And his donor is depleted now (generally accepted at 125 hairs/cm2, he's way below that). And that's your proof HST can do something FUE cant ? There are guys out there who got over 10.000 FUE grafts ! That's 4x more !! Having your donor depleted after 2600 grafts, that's generally considered to be a bad donor. The average donor has 4000 available for depletion.

Yeah, but THEY DID IT a couple of times! So perhaps they are already satisfied with what they got so far?

HASCI confirmed that they've given the HST's for free away to the celebs. After the free sessions they stopped.

Really? Around 11,000 hairless gaps (~440 per HST x 25) would still provide an untouched donor????????????

Hairless gaps ? Average donor has 4000 grafts available for transplant. That equals to 4000 * 2.5 / 1.3 = 7700 HST grafts. 80% should grow back so they can have 5 times that amount = 38460 grafts. Per session average is about 1600 grafts, so yes, that's 24x times. And after that donor looks untouched (still above 125 hairs/cm2). IF 80% regrowth were true. Of course in this calculation grafts are being used more than once, but even if that wouldnt happen, they at least can use the WHOLE donor once. Yet, HASCI advises to evalute after 3 sessions. That's pretty much admitting that it doesn't work. Cause even if there were NO regrowth, then pretty much everybody could go at least 3x times, before donor depletion, and people with good donor could go even about 7 times to HASCI before donor depletion and that's WITHOUT REGROWTH

Interesting. Seems you installed bugs in their clinics?

Nope, Kristel simply mailed that to me if you want I can post her quote ? You can then email her and ask her if that was her quote. Deal ?

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

There are serveral guys who have enough money to go several times here. Gaz, Caddarik, me for example.

So, all the points you listed above is the proof that the HST technique doesn't work??

Exactly. You're getting there finally.

[Arashi]

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

I was already planning to make it a yearly event ! Money is no problem to me. Then Kristel mailed me and said it was impossible ! While they even said my donor was good, they said it was impossible to go beyond 25 hairs/cm2 for the whole scalp. Do you want me to post that email ? You may then email her to verify that was her quote, ok ? Cause really, effectively THAT was already admitting their HST doesnt work as advertised. Cause if 80% regrowth was true, the AVERAGE person could get 38460 grafts. That's 770 cm2 at 50 grafts/cm2 LOL enough to give 3 people a nice head of hair.

Instead they advise a max of 3 times and evalute after that. That only adds up in Ironman world.

[JJJJrS]

http://stemcellbioethics.wikischolar...+Hwang+Woo-Suk

"He lost his university position and his two important papers on embryonic stem cell research had to be retracted from the journal Science"

It's my opinion that it's time they retract Gho's papers too. How the hell they can accept blurry pictures like those is really beyond me. Just wanted to post the above link to show that it's obviously not impossible to trick scientific journals and post fake results. Another striking similarity: after the publication of that stem cell paper collegue's tried to repeat it and they all failed. Exactly like everybody else failed at regenerating follicles in donor by taking part of the FU away. How the hell is it possible that something so simple and which forms a cure for hairloss, NOBODY could repeat ? A lot of doctors tried it (nigam, Mousseigne, Mwamba etc), they all failed. And there are other FUE clinics (even Turkish ones) using 0.6 mm bores as a standard, same as HASCI. This should yield regen too. However NOBODY ever repeated success.

And same thing: what the hell is Nigam even going to do presenting at WCHR 2014 !?!?! How can they even accept him there ?

Getting a paper published doesn't mean a whole lot anymore. There's so many journals out there, it's not too hard at all to get published. I've come across a number of plagiarized/fabricated papers and have heard plenty of first-hand horror stories about some of the bs that goes along with the process. So trust me on that, it really doesn't mean much at all.

What matters is the quality of the specific paper. Given that nobody has been able to reproduce Gho's claims (95% donor regeneration) and that the paper produces absolutely no convincing photographic evidence, you can make your own conclusion.

[Arashi]

My mail to Kristel to ask why she said it was impossible to get a full head of hair at 60 grafts/cm2:

Verzonden: donderdag 29 november 2012 16:00
Aan: Kristel van Herwijnen
Onderwerp: RE: Vraagje

Dank voor het antwoord Kristel. Op de fora lees ik dat haartjes die hergroeid zijn in het donor soms iets scheef teruggroeien, waardoor het moeilijker is in sommige gevallen om ze te hergebruiken maar dat dit niet voor grote problemen zou zorgen. Als dat zo is, dan moet 60 grafts/cm2 toch haalbaar zijn voor het hele hoofd ? Mochten haartjes niet 2x te gebruiken zijn, waarom is dit dan ?

Her answer was:

We zien het verschil niet eens tussen de eerder gebruikte haren en de niet gebruikte. Bij multipele behandelingen krijgen we wel iedere keer ietsje minder grafts uit hetzelfde oppervlak. Dit is omdat de hergroei ongeveer 80 % is. 2e keer is altijd hetzelfde aantal als de eerst keer. Vanaf de derde behandeling zien de aantallen teruglopen met ongeveer 100 grafts per keer.

So basically she says an average person can get 1600 + 1600 + 1500 +1400 etc = 15.200 HST grafts. That equals to7904 FUE grafts. So that's 2x more than the average person can get with FUE.

Now tell me, if 80% would grow back every time, then why can people according to HASCI only get 7900 FUE grafts ? While the average donor has more than 14000 grafts ? Really, explain that to me dear Ironman ! REALLY looking forward to your answer !

[Arashi]

Or look at it simply this way: The average peron has about 14.000 grafts in his donor (70 grafts * 200 cm2). If HASCI were to use every graft ONLY ONCE, then 80% would grow back and donor would still have 56 grafts/cm2, thus would look untouched. So the average peron could get 14.000 grafts, donor would look untouched and then they would have used every graft only once ! Enough to give people a full head of hair = cured. Yet they admit they can't do that. And that equals to admitting that 80% regrowth is a lie.

[Arashi]

What matters is the quality of the specific paper. Given that nobody has been able to reproduce Gho's claims (95% donor regeneration) and that the paper produces absolutely no convincing photographic evidence, you can make your own conclusion.

Agreed. Or how Dr Rassman put it:

Dr. Gho reported that he did 1500 patients with his “cloning” procedure. If I had to give a score to the material he presented using a 1-10 scale for scientific credibility, I’d score it a 1, with 1 being the lowest possible. His science was pathetic, with slides that were blurred and blackened out so that there was really nothing to see. He claimed that his FUE technique cut the follicular units in half longitudinally, and that the part that remained regrew hair, but there was no proof of this in any of the material he showed. He did not show any patient results and certainly was never reviewed by any credible agency or physician.

http://www.baldingblog.com/2009/08/11/gho-clinic-says-their-fue-allows-the-donor-hair-to-regrow/

But indeed, THE most important factor is that in all these years nobody could reproduce what Gho claims to do in his paper. That, plus the blurry pictures. Obviously all this doesn't matter to Ironman. But I'm sure it matters to anyone with a brain.

[gc83uk]

Average hair/graft with HST is 1.3, even you agreed to that, so 5000 HST grafts = 5000*1.3/2.5 = 2600 FUE grafts.

5000 HST grafts at approx 1.35 hairs per graft = 6750 hairs
4218 FUE grafts at approx 2 hairs per graft, with only 80% recipient growth = 6750

That 80% figure I got from Mwamba.

From looking at the case results on this website, it's quite unusual to find anything above 2 hairs per graft average.

[Arashi]

4218 FUE grafts at approx 2 hairs per graft

The average hair/graft is scientifically accepted at 2.5, not at 2. Of course one could argue that with FUE most of the times they get a bit less than 2.5, maybe closer to 2 but that doesn't matter to my calcs. Fact remains that the average donor has 4000 follicles available at 2.5 hairs = 10.000 hairs avaible for transplant. At 1600 HST average with 1.3 hairs that is 4.8x a HST and even without regrowth, the donor would look untouched. Then WITH 80% regrowth this boils down to 4.8 x 5 = 24x HST's and donor would still look untouched !!

Whatever way you look at it: it just doens't add up. Nothing adds up when it comes to their regrowth claims.

[gc83uk]

The average hair/graft is scientifically accepted at 2.5

I'm not sure what that has to do with it? It's what FUE surgeons are extracting using ever decreasing needles. I'm going from the cases on this website. I think 2.5 is rare. FUT is different from what I can see.

[Arashi]

I'm not sure what that has to do with it? It's what FUE surgeons are extracting using ever decreasing needles. I'm going from the cases on this website. I think 2.5 is rare. FUT is different from what I can see.

What does FUE have to do with this ? I'm saying, that an average donor has 10.000 hairs available for transplant. If 80% regrowth was true, that would equal to 25x a HST for the average patient and donor would still look untouched. Yet HASCI advises to go 3 times and then evaluate after that to see if a patient can go more often. That does only add up in Ironman Land.

[cocacola]

Gc, will you post any updates on ur donor and recipient anytime soon? Really curious.

[gc83uk]

What does FUE have to do with this ?

Didn't you bring up FUE in one of your posts to show comparisons with HST?

[gc83uk]

Gc, will you post any updates on ur donor and recipient anytime soon? Really curious.

Yes mate, just been dead busy, but will do shortly.