and how is Gaz doing?

[534623]

nonsens

lol, great find.

alone the fact they (hasci) themselves do not recommend more than 2 or 3 treatments says it all. it's undeniable.

Here we go again …

Arashi’s “They can only do 3 procedures!” nonsense is still floating around.

I don’t even have the best donor quality (in comparison to “virgin” and untouched scalps), but since day 1, they recommended me to do –at least- 5 procedures (with around 1500 grafts or so), to get at least my desired coverage. And everything beyond these 5 procedures is just all about “we will see” if further procedures necessary at all … but definitely not impossible.

By the way …
In around 6 month I’ll get my 3rd HST – oops, I meant “my last & final” HST …lol

[joachim]

lol, great find.

alone the fact they (hasci) themselves do not recommend more than 2 or 3 treatments says it all. it's undeniable. the world should know about it. it's in our responsibility to tell the world the truth. fraud should not be permitted. Gho made millions from his regeneration bullshit.

patients worldwide shoul form a group and sue him when it comes out that he can't back his claims.

to make clear: i'm not saying we should bring Gho out of business. he might be a good hair surgeon. so he can still continue with normal advertised FUE treatments if you ask me. but he should never ever put the word regeneration in his mouth again.
and he has to officially apologize in a public letter for all the false claims, and clarify the truth on his website, too. and give a part of the money back to the customers of they like.

it's time for the truth, once and for all.

[Arashi]

And another post from Dr Woods which I liked a lot:

I don't need to refute the Gho study

It refutes itself

He claims to have a technique which turns 1 follicle into 2 and have and endless supply of donor..Probably one of the most incredible claims in medical history

And demonstrates ONE hair shaft to prove this after a 12 month study

Now try sending this study to any major research institute . And don't forget the world media..where are they, by the way ???

On one hand, this is serious because so many are desperate

On the other, it is hilarious.

As for transecting follicles, during the 1990s the HT industry ridiculed me because they felt such an approach will mainly deliver transections, longitudinal and transverse.

And as EVERYONE had witnessed in their own clinics, from the very beginnings of the industry, from the 1960s till today, TRANSECTIONS CAUSE VERY POOR YIELD..PERIOD !

So no, I will NEVER deliberately transect follicles because Dr Gho made these outrageous claims...and as is evident to everyone, the study shows one hair as proof..go look at it again. It is on page one on this thread

If he showed true believable results, he would right now have news teams camped on his lawn and NATO/CIA/MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL company helicopters hovering above his house. Unless the Russians or Chinese get to him first

I don't mean to be witty, but can't you see there is something funny/strange about this ??

And Imagination is important.
So is "keeping it real"


James Bond clings to the study photo of ONE hair shaft as proof..and it looks severely shaken, and stirred

Dr Ray Woods

[Arashi]

BTW, by going through that 70 page long Gho thread, started in 2006 on the Dutch forums, I found some interesting stuff. Remember how some Dutch clinics sued Gho for being a fraud ? Well it started this way: a collective of about 15 Dutch doctors, scientists and researchers signed a petition that said that Gho was basically a fraud. Then, Gho's lawyer sent letters to these guys, demanding them to publicize a recitifcation, saying that they had not investigated Gho and now that they did, they believed Gho was right. If they would not do that, Gho would sue them all. Three out of the 15 doctors were afraid of a lawsuit and actually publiczed that letter (how lame). Anyway, the other doctors weren't that scared and did the right thing: they actually sued Gho ! So this is how that lawsuit started. Anyway as we all know, Gho won the case, mainly because their publication in that 'scientific magazine' (which was a big joke, like we all know now). Anyway, Dr Woods, yes THE inventor of FUE, knew it was all a joke back in 2010. I found this post of him, linking is illegal on this board so I will just copy paste it here, it's a fantastic read:

»Dr Gho, for several years now, has talked about hair multiplication.

I never checked it myself, but I was told that he claimed he could remove a follicle from the donor, and despite being removed the follicle would regenerate in the donor, and also create almost perfect yield in the reicipient area

I was told this by patients several years ago and I believe it has been put out there on the net

I discarded this as being utter nonsense and typical of the myths peddled in this industry

And now there is a thread here which cites a “peer reviewed” publication in a respected journal where Dr Gho proves this is a reality.

So , I went online, found the journal, amongst the plethora of other online “journals”, Paid $86.00 US and read it

And it was worth every cent. I have not been so entertained since Dr Jones publicly stated he was “ removing the spiral apocrine glands from armpit hair with a pair of tweezers”….no no, its the guy who is running a multi spiked roller over your head , and then drenching it in your own plasma…etc etc.

But the tragedy is, there are desperate guys who want to believe, there are operators who will sell anything to the desperate…and there is nothing funny about that

So here is some background, and then a summary of what Gho is up to

Dr Bob Limmer was the guy who , back in the late 80s said that strips removed should be dissected into intact individual FOLLICULAR UNITS under stereoscopic control, ie magnification.

While struggling with my concept, the only doctor worth talking to was Dr Limmer. We first spoke in 1993. He thought my work was interesting , but impracticable due to the inevitable high transection rate. He thought it was of no practical significance. But I still called him from time to time to give him updates

The following year, he sent me his published paper. He implied that FUE would generate a majority of transections, and transections produce a grossly inferior yield

The idea that stem cells could make follicles magically multiply was a fascinating academic pursuit however

In his study, he took a completely bald guy, and placed transected follicles, at varying points along the follicle , into different areas.

And he reported his results , the same as I witnessed on countless occasions

YES, transected follicles, be they lateral or partially longitudinal can regenerate a terminal hair….too bad that the yield is very very very low. In my own observations since 1993, about 5% .
And Dr Limmer also observed that while regrowth can occur, the success rate is negligible and NOT viable .
The same holds for partially transected hair in the donor . Regrowth varies between zero and negligible

But the fact that a tiny percentage of hair will regenerate is fascinating to academic scientists working in the most acclaimed multidisciplined reputable institutions in the world working with multimillion dollar annual budgets…AND they still can’t crack it

But Dr Gho has. By simply coring out a follicle, with 2 power magnification, he is claiming to do what no other scientist on earth can achieve. He is turning one into two. But it gets more impressive. This then becomes an ENDLESS supply

I paid $86 bucks to read this. It is long , convoluted and denched with scientific jargon and tables. But here is a summary.
Now remember, Gho has been claiming he has been doing this for several years.

“this technique enables us to generate 2 hair follicles from 1, with CONSISTENT RESULTS and preserve the donor area “

“95.9% of implanted hair survived ….AND 97.7% of removed donor hair had COMPLETE REGENERATION..

The study had 5 PATIENTS…it was for 12 months, and approx 800 hair was transplanted.

And how many hair did they show regrow from the approx 800 transplanted with a STATED 95.9% survival…ONE. You read correctly. One shaft. I repeat . ONE HAIR.

They could only show ONE hair after 12 months. But wait, they did state most will grow out in 5 to 8 months. And word is they have been doing this technique for years !!

And finally, the conclusion.

“the weakness of the study is the limited number of patients……therefore a larger group of patients is necessary to study the REAL CLINICAL RELEVENCE of this technique “

What Dr Gho says in this “peer reviewed journal” is diametrically opposed and contrary to everything I have observed seen and studied over the past 20 years, and I am not alone.

Every guy who suffered permanent scalp shock and trauma simply because techs jabbed incisions too close to pre existing hair knows that this study is flawed

To anyone seriously contemplating this treatment, please take this advice

Pay $86 bucks, get the paper, and spend a long consultation with a credible non aligned, independent dermatologist to review this for you. It may be a good investment

Dr Ray Woods

Anyway, that's exactly in according with all ours (and I'm sure with Ironman's too, otherwise he wouldnt be saying HST is just a good FUE) findings.

Now it's time to finally back this up with 100% hard proof and do Gaz's analysis. I just sent him an email, hopefully he will read it. It's time to hit Gho hard and make him pay for 12 years of scamming and fraud !!

[Arashi]

I think Dr. Gho owes it to the world. We shouldn't be doing his work.

Sure but you can't expect a fraud to expose himself. And you know who else KNOWS that Gho is a fraud ? Ironman ! Did you see his latest post ? He's now just basically claiming that HST is a "a safe FUE with no loss" -> https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post177026
LOL ! That's Ironman, Gho's biggest fan, who kept saying HST yields 85% regeneration even after it all got debunked, now is saying HST is basically just a good FUE You remember how Ironman said he took good photo's before and after his last procedure ? And that he counted all extractions (2200 in his case, so 600 failed ones in his case) ? So I'm 100% SURE he did his own analysis and concluded that we were correct all the time.

Anyway, hopefully Gaz comes back one of these days and we can finally confirm it ourselves. And then seek the media, and/or Dutch authorities, and/or write an open letter to that magazine.

[hellouser]

LOL, so I just finished reading a 70 page long thread on HASCI on the Dutch forums, started in 2006. And even in 2006 people said "Isnt it weird that after all this time we havent seen any credible proof at all ?", LOL. Gaz if you read this: let's finish this for once and for all, we owe it to the world to get this thing finally cleared up !!

I think Dr. Gho owes it to the world. We shouldn't be doing his work.

[Arashi]

LOL, so I just finished reading a 70 page long thread on HASCI on the Dutch forums, started in 2006. And even in 2006 people said "Isnt it weird that after all this time we havent seen any credible proof at all ?", LOL. Gaz if you read this: let's finish this for once and for all, we owe it to the world to get this thing finally cleared up !!

[Arashi]

BTW: why do we know that there were 1000 failed extractions?

HASCI counts the succesful extractions with a clicker. They told Gaz they transplanted 1300 grafts, I don't think they would lie about that, but haven't verified it. What I did do is count all extraction sites, there were 2316, I posted the picures I used, see the download file in the first post here: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...an-open-letter.

[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.

[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.

[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 !

[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]

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 ?

[Pentarou]

Rooney went to a clinic in London.

[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.