and how is Gaz doing?

[534623]

The key is this: the only way to expose hasci is to send some undercover guys there, have EVERY graft photographed ...

No less ridiculous than all others points and comments...

Basically, it's all about the possibility to make 2 or more fully functional hair follicles from 1:
YES or NO?

Of course YES, as tested and confirmed by lots of researchers and scientists in the past - like Dr. Gardner recently. BUT that doesn't mean that you always get (through "splitting") what you want, simply due to technical hurdles - and that's BASICALLY (needed special storage solutions etc aside) the fundamental main problem and why you not always (for each and every extraction/splitting) get 2 or more hairs from 1. Therefore, Dr. Gho found so far at least a pretty good compromise between SPEED (precise extractions would simply take to much time) and a classical 2 from 1 hair follicle procedure, which will ALWAYS work with "mixed" results - but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

But all the above is so-called "rocket science" and therefore for smart guys only.

[JJJJrS]

No less ridiculous than all others points and comments...

Basically, it's all about the possibility to make 2 or more fully functional hair follicles from 1:
YES or NO?

Of course YES, as tested and confirmed by lots of researchers and scientists in the past - like Dr. Gardner recently. BUT that doesn't mean that you always get (through "splitting") what you want, simply due to technical hurdles - and that's BASICALLY (needed special storage solutions etc aside) the fundamental main problem and why you not always (for each and every extraction/splitting) get 2 or more hairs from 1. Therefore, Dr. Gho found so far at least a pretty good compromise between SPEED (precise extractions would simply take to much time) and a classical 2 from 1 hair follicle procedure, which will ALWAYS work with "mixed" results - but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

But all the above is so-called "rocket science" and therefore for smart guys only.

The big problem with HASCI and Gho is the lack of transparency. Just do a simple 50 graft test and count the hairs before and after in both the donor and recipient. That way patients can have a strong idea of exactly what to expect. So far, HASCI has avoided that completely and they continue to mislead potential patients with this 85% figure they keep bringing up.

Clearly, if you avoid scrutiny at all costs like HASCI does, something is being hidden.

[Arashi]

but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

If they would market their procedure like that, everything would be fine. But they still keep telling all of their clients that 85% of the hairs will grow back !

[Vox]

All in all, what a joke. But at least we now KNOW how that magazine worked: those 4 guys never saw the original photo's, they never could verify the photo's were real. They just got to read that same article and concluded it was scientific enough to be published.

I don't know which is your scientific background but this is how it works all the time in applied sciences and biology, where you have extremely complex process and very often model simulations. The referees will see the results and based on their experience and knowledge, they will assess the appropriateness of the paper for publication. They cannot verify if the results are 100% correct or not, unless there are glaring errors or something going against their knowledge and intuition.

If someone disagrees, he has to prove that the paper is wrong. It happened before (and it still happens) so many times in applied sciences. I know such a recent case in geophysical modeling. If someone picks up the error, all he has to do is to present arguments and repeat some numerical (or clinical, or whatever) experiments in order to prove his point. He can then publish his results. The reaction of the journal regarding Gho's paper is quite natural. This is simply how it works.

Only in mathematics the situation is different. In that case you provide mathematical proofs of your claims (lemmas, propositions, theorems) with enough elements, so that any expert in the field can verify them. This practically eliminates the ambiguity about correctness but again, only mathematics have this luxury.

[Arashi]

I don't know which is your scientific background but this is how it works all the time in applied sciences and biology, where you have extremely complex process and very often model simulations. The referees will see the results and based on their experience and knowledge, they will assess the appropriateness of the paper for publication. They cannot verify if the results are 100% correct or not, unless there are glaring errors or something going against their knowledge and intuition.

If someone disagrees, he has to prove that the paper is wrong. It happened before (and it still happens) so many times in applied sciences. I know such a recent case in geophysical modeling. If someone picks up the error, all he has to do is to present arguments and repeat some numerical (or clinical, or whatever) experiments in order to prove his point. He can then publish his results. The reaction of the journal regarding Gho's paper is quite natural. This is simply how it works.

Only in mathematics the situation is different. In that case you provide mathematical proofs of your claims (lemmas, propositions, theorems) with enough elements, so that any expert in the field can verify them. This practically eliminates the ambiguity about correctness but again, only mathematics have this luxury.

Sure but that's not how Gho made it look when I talked about it with him. He told me that they really investigated everything thoroughly. They didnt, they didnt even check if the pictures were real or not. It all makes a lot of sense now anyway.

[cocacola]

Good ideas, contact media or a blog. I really don't understand why a 50 graft test is refused. Its still advertised on the website. This is literally discrimination.

[LMS]

its 2014
and we're still wasting time with gho when he actively refuses any sort of cooperation

[joachim]

just watching the soccer match between england and italy right now.
rooney's hair looks good. at the crown he's a bit thinner, but everything else is nice.
i wonder if that's from the 85% regeneration =D

[hellouser]

just watching the soccer match between england and italy right now.
rooney's hair looks good. at the crown he's a bit thinner, but everything else is nice.
i wonder if that's from the 85% regeneration =D

I don't think Rooney ever has an HST done from Dr. Gho. Wesley Sneijder from the Dutch team definitely has and his hair looks great.

[Pentarou]

Rooney went to a clinic in London.

[Arashi]

It's been 9 months and 1 week since gaz's last HST, so according to HASCI the final result is visible now (they always email their customers that at the 9 months mark). So if you want, Gaz, we can do some new analysis ? We have some decent photo's, we know they drilled 2316 times to get 1300 grafts so we could make an even more accurate estimate now of the regeneration. Even if we neglect recipient, we can do an analysis of a few random area's (left side, back, right side) and do some counting to see if it corresponds with previous numbers ?

[Arashi]

I've been thinking about it, and actually it would be exciting to do an analysis. I think we all agree (even Ironman, judging by his last post), that regrowth is nowhere near the 85% hasci promises. But maybe it does happen somewhat, in my previous analysis it showed about 38% room for regrowth. We can analyse it pretty well this time:

We know that 1300 grafts were extracted and 1000 holes were drilled as failed extractions. So it's to be expected that in 1000 sites ALL hair grew back (these were just the failed extractions) and in 1300 sites either grafts grew back with less hair or no hair at all (completely extracted grafts + split grafts, but every time it yielded a graft for transplantation). In that case no regrowth at all happened. But if in say 1600 sites ALL hair grew back, then we know that some regrowth did actually happen for sure ! And we dont need to monitor all 2300 extraction points of course, we could analyse 25% for example, on some random spots. If we see that in random area's each time on average 10 of the 23 extractions points grew back completely and 13 extraction sites with less hair or not at all, we know that HASCI is just splitting grafts. But if that number is higher, then we can calculate a regrowth percentage. Would be interesting to know, right ? We all know HASCI is lying about that 85%, but it would be interesting to know if they actually did reach for example 35% regrowth.

Anyway I think this is our one and only shot at exposing HASCI (and maybe to prove that regrowth actually did somewhat happen, albeit much lower than 85%)

[Arashi]

And my prediction: Out of each cluster of 23 extraction points, on average:

A) 6 didn't grow back at all (completely moved to recipient)
B) 7 grew back with less hair (in accordance with JJJJR's findings. So these are split grafts: one part stays in donor, other part is moved to recipient)
C) 10 grew back completely (the failed extractions)

Conclusion in this case would be: No regrowth at all, just moving and splitting of grafts. And this is exactly what I think that happens, I'd love to see if this holds true ! And if this holds true, then we're going to do something, seek the media, contact the Dutch authorities and regulators, whatever, then HASCI needs to suffer !

[joachim]

And my prediction: Out of each cluster of 23 extraction points, on average:

A) 6 didn't grow back at all (completely moved to recipient)
B) 7 grew back with less hair (in accordance with JJJJR's findings. So these are split grafts: one part stays in donor, other part is moved to recipient)
C) 10 grew back completely (the failed extractions)

Conclusion in this case would be: No regrowth at all, just moving and splitting of grafts. And this is exactly what I think that happens, I'd love to see if this holds true ! And if this holds true, then we're going to do something, seek the media, contact the Dutch authorities and regulators, whatever, then HASCI needs to suffer !

i'm thinking exactly the same. NO REGROWTH at all! just splitting grafts.
and how the hell can they do 1000 failed extractions? that's almost 50% failure rate!
i think that could be part of the tactics, to make patients believe there is sooo many regrowth from all those extraction sites.

[joachim]

BTW: why do we know that there were 1000 failed extractions? did they really count that? how crazy is that? and what if they lied? we wouldn't be able to analyze the regrowth then. if they give us a wrong number they could tune their results to their advantage.