Gho's files patent for Hair multiplication

[35YrsAfter]

Hmm I'm not just talking about my case in particular though, what I'm saying is Fue ain't all that. It's generally worse than fut imo.

And by time you factor in graft survival, it's pointless. Nevermind moving hair from a to b, you lose hair as a whole when having an fue.

I actually told hasci to take grafts from around my scar to reduce the contrast of bare skin to thick hair around it. Long term I need to get some hair placed in there, that's for sure.

General statements about FUE vs FUT are not going to be accurate statements. Here at Dr. Cole's office I see at least four patients per week who have had work done by other doctors. The work ranges from great to mediocre to absolutely horrible with both FUE and FUT.

35YrsAfter also posts as CITNews and works at Dr. Cole's office - forhair.com - Cole Hair Transplant, 1045 Powers Place, Alpharetta, Georgia 30009 - Phone 678-566-1011 - email 35YrsAfter at chuck@forhair.com
The contents of my posts are my opinions and not medical advice
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. Ask for Chuck

[gc83uk]

Can you show me where he said that ? Also do you have any other proof of FUE survival being only 80% ? And do you have proof it's much higher at HASCI ?

It was possibly in the interview with Spencer Kobren, I'm not going to dig it out, I know he said it, believe what you want.

Other proof? Just what everyone for years has been saying.

Proof higher at Hasci? The very first procedure I had I counted almost 700 grafts, so 99.9% You have claimed yourself 97% and Ironman claimed a similar number.


Do you have proof that FUE is over say 95%?

Well, that's of course questionable: with 7000 hairs, did the doctor have 7000/2.5 = 2800 grafts in mind ? Or more, like you seem to think ? Furthermore, how accurate could his prediction have been ? Would it be possible his prediction could have been off 800 grafts ? And last, what target density did he have in mind for your donor ? It seems likely 125 hairs/cm2 and it also seems likely you're already past that. So again, you result is nothing beyond an ordinary FUE result in my eyes.

But, to cut down on speculation: let's measure your donor density now !

Yes everything being said here is questionable. Let's be honest there aren't many facts spoken including from yourself, we work with what we've got. You have to remember I was there and you were not, hence it's what I've been told.

Again I was told my donor was weak, I wasn't going to get this magical 2.5 figure you keep talking about. The Dr had 2000 grafts in mind! Nevermind 2800 lol

How accurate was his prediction? Well I spoken to 3 different hair transplant clinics all giving me similar numbers.

Target density for my donor? That wasn't mentioned, they were more concerned about not having enough grafts to create any sort of look at all for my recipient.

You also keep talking about this 125 hairs cm2, if I had lets say 100 hairs per cm2, what would that tell you? Also do you know my starting point? What if the starting point was say 115 hairs cm2? What will the test show us?

[Arashi]

You have claimed yourself 97% and Ironman claimed a similar number.

Yes. But I still wonder if my number was valid. What I did back then is compare the first photo I had from my recipient to the final situation a year later. But the problem was that the first good photo of my recipient was after about a week, so it's possible I lost some grafts during that first week, which might have skewed the number. And secondly, it's possible that some follicles had short hair that barely or even did not reach the surface, so that also might have skewed the number ...

Do you have proof that FUE is over say 95%?

Nope. That's why I said that I didnt know. I only read 'hearsay' regarding FUE graft survival. Never looked into it myself.

Yes everything being said here is questionable. Let's be honest there aren't many facts spoken including from yourself, we work with what we've got.

I know. It is what it is. The only way to get some real solid numbers is to do a 50 graft test and that's something that HASCI avoids against all costs, even if offered 3000 euro. Remember by the way how they DID do a 50 graft test about 1.5 year ago ? They showed us only photo's that were unusable to us but they said that they'd make a demonstration case out of it and publish it on their website. Never heard anything back from that neither eh ...

You also keep talking about this 125 hairs cm2, if I had lets say 100 hairs per cm2, what would that tell you? Also do you know my starting point? What if the starting point was say 115 hairs cm2? What will the test show us?

Well, 75 hairs/cm2 is often cited as the bare minimum needed to give the ILLUSION of a natural density and 125 hairs is often cited as not just the illusion but really a natural looking density. Of course that's just an average number and it would vary somewhat per person, depending on hair thickness. And as shown over and over again, what looks good to one person looks thin to another (which this topic clearly illustrates), so of course it's not a hard number. But it's a density that personally I would never want to go below myself. An unnatural looking donor is worse in my opinion than thin hair on top, but of course also that's a personal preference. But I think it's always a good guideline with any kind of plastic surgery to keep natural appereance as a main goal.

[Arashi]

BTW Gaz, one more thing then: I agree that your photo's were shot under unfavourable circumstances (= with flash). Could you maybe then shoot some photo's under normal daylight ? I think that would give a better impression of your current situation, agreed ?

[gc83uk]

Yes you might have lost some grafts, but you know if you had done the same after an FUE and done a count, the same could have happened.

I'm sorry to say, but it does sound like you have a vendetta against Hasci now. That may not be the case, but it does come across that way.

Not so long ago your opinion seemed much more balanced:https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showth...t=14349&page=9
I found this when trying to find something from the Mwamba thing.

What has changed since then? There are probably better examples than the link I have posted there, but I couldn't believe that was the same Arashi

[gc83uk]

I could, but the photos are terrible when there is no flash, just from previous experience. It looks like I have a full head of hair usually, which I don't want to fool people into thinking so. I will have another go at some point, tbh I'm really disappointed with my new camera phone, it's meant to be a fkin upgrade lol

[gc83uk]

And you know what, we're never going to get that 50 graft test, Hasci screwed it up, but I also believe they don't trust people from the forums. I've pretty much heard from the horses mouth that they think whatever they do they won't be believed. I don't agree with that, but hey ho.

The fact they tried to do the test initially shows they actually believe in what they are doing and wanted to prove it, I just don't think they were prepared for the level of analysis, perhaps someone at Hasci took offense to that.

I understand you want to expose frauds etc, but I think this is totally different to the Nigam saga.

What I don't agree with is saying they can get 85% regen, but you know already.

[Arashi]

What has changed since then? There are probably better examples than the link I have posted there, but I couldn't believe that was the same Arashi

I remember coming to this forum to find out about a 'cutting edge' hair procedure cause I wanted to have something done. I quickly found the threads on HASCI with heavy fighting among forum members, there was one guy who called himself "Ironman" and he seemed 100% convinced HST worked as advertised I didnt know who to believe but I remember seeing his analysis on your first HST where he claimed 85% regrowth and I thought "WOW it works indeed !!!" Little did I know back then that the analysis was totally false, totally skewed by failed extractions and hairs growing back in smaller configurations. Anyway I was convinced. Then when I was at HASCI lying on their surgery table, listening to the 'clicks' (the counting of hairs) versus the number of drills, I figured WHAT THE F*CK, this guy Ironman never talked about failed extractions, this would have totally skewed the number and invalidates his research. After this, I was still thinking HST would work, but maybe just not up to the point of 85% regrowth.

The first moment of REAL doubt about HASCI came when I informed at HASCI about a 2nd procedure. They had told me my donor was above average and since I wasnt happy with the density in my recipient, I thought, let´s double the density there. HASCI´s response came to me as quite a shock: they advised me NOT to do it. I was really really amazed. Cause if HASCI worked as advertised, no even if it worked way worse than advertised, an 'above average donor' has WAY more than enough hair to give you full density on top. So that was the second, but this time a real big crack into my faith in HASCI. They said there wasnt enough hair in an 'above average' donor to get recipient upto a normal density. That's totally going against all of their claims. Then the evidence against HASCI just kept piling up:

* They agreed to that 50 graft test. Remember how we made guideliness to do it in such a way that they couldnt mess it up ? I was a bit reluctant to mail it to them, cause you know, most of it was quite trivial and they could take it as an offense, seen as questioning their ability to do scientific research. Kristel replied something like "Yeah you dont have to tell us how to do our work, we know". Thus really big was my amazement when they showed horrible useless photo's and went pretty much against all guideliness. When confronted with this major f*ck up, they agreed to a 2nd test, this time with professional photographers. So even bigger was my amazement when they showed horrible photo's AGAIN !!!!! How could this happen ? There was only one possible explanation: they did it on purpose. They didnt want to show us good photo's, they wanted to keep them to themselves and see first for themselves if it actually worked or not. Cause releasing good photo's to us would kill them in case it didnt work. So again, another huge crack into the whole hasci story
* Then that case of that Dutch singer. Remember how he went only 3 times to HASCI while he needed a LOT of more hair ? When asked, Kristel said 'yeah that's what we advise people in general, maximum 3 times HST'. That makes NO SENSE at all, cause the average patient could go over 20x times to hasci if HST really worked.
* Then we found out HASCI transplanted WAY less hair on average than other clinics. This explained a lot too
* Then I did my research on your case and it turned out regrowth was WAY lower than always claimed by hasci, possibly 0
* Then I contacted them to do a 50 graft test on myself, so we werent dependent on THEM, cause I would have everything in my own hands ! I figured, I'm going to offer them 3000 euro's to do it, cause i didnt want any excuses like 'yeah 50 graft test is very expensive for us to set up' and nonsense like that. We all remember how that turned out ... They refused to do it.
* Then I figured, what's left ? Where do their claims come from anyway ? And I found everything is based on that single ' peer reviewed scientific' publication they did. So I started researching into that. I saw that the photo's they publicized in that article were of such a lousy quality that they were impossible to verify. I then researched further and found out that the 'peer reviewers' only had access to that exact same article !! So they were never shown the original photo's. So they neither could have possibly verified if hasci's claims were true, cause the photos where just so lousy that you could impossibly deduce anything at all from them. So what do we have ? Yes, only THEIR claims. While EVERYTHING we know now, points against there claims.

Oh and maybe the biggest factor: they publicized exactly how their method works. However, even after all this time, NOBODY could reproduce the results HASCI claimed to have. That in itself is pretty much 100% proof it's all just BS.

[gc83uk]

hmm well I won't argue each and every point, because I'm sure on many points we already agree, however I don't think they deliberately screwed up the analysis. It would have been much easier to refuse to do the analysis at all. I think it's something else!

3000 euros is maybe not enough to tempt them. If they contacted you tomorrow and said ok, 10,000euros and you can have your 50 graft test, would you do it?

I mean how far do you personally want to take this? What are you wanting them to do? Do you want to close them down?

They are not going to go public and admit any wrong doing, doing so would put them in a grave position, liable for all sorts!

And the 3 times thing, you know I've heard different things from different people at Hasci on a whole range of questions, I don't think that is automatically a fact. Afterall this is my 5th time and nobody has said anything to me.

[Arashi]

hmm well I won't argue each and every point, because I'm sure on many points we already agree, however I don't think they deliberately screwed up the analysis. It would have been much easier to refuse to do the analysis at all. I think it's something else!

What else could it be ? Really ! Even if they were extremely dumb and ignorant: they had a pro photographer there the 2nd time ! They had all our guideliness up front, yet they messed up TWO times, even with pro photographer present ! What other explanation could there possibly be ?

3000 euros is maybe not enough to tempt them. If they contacted you tomorrow and said ok, 10,000euros and you can have your 50 graft test, would you do it?

Why ? I offered them 3000 euro's cause they once said the costs of a 50 graft test would be relatively a bit higher, because of fixed costs (eg, cost of their preservation medium). 3000 euro is WAY more than those costs could possibly be. Why would they agree to 10.000 euro if they refused 3000 euro ? This would have been FREE marketing, a FREE way to FINALLY prove their technology and they would even get paid 3000 euro too !! If they were honest, this would have been a dream come true ! There's only one possible explanation really, for refusing it: they were afraid to be exposed.

[gc83uk]

And more importantly how far do you want to take this? What's your objective?

[Arashi]

And more importantly how far do you want to take this? What's your objective?

Raise awareness: help people to realize that if they go to hasci because they believe in their regrowth stories, they most likely will be scammed.

I'm not going to sue them. It did cross my mind to contact the media, there's this Dutch show on fraudsters called "Tros Opgelicht", maybe HASCI would be a nice topic for them, but haven't contacted them yet.

[Haircure]

Reach awareness: help people to realize that if they go to hasci because they believe in their regrowth stories, they most likely will be scammed.

I'm not going to sue them. It did cross my mind to contact the media, there's this Dutch show on fraudsters called "Tros Opgelicht", maybe HASCI would be a nice topic for them, but haven't contacted them yet.

Although I am not informed and experienced about this issue as much as some of the other guys here, I agree with Arashi that it's wrong to falsely advertise claims they cannot keep, especially when it involves such an expensive procedure.

I'm curious, do they have any refund policy if there is no regrowth?

[gc83uk]

I think it's absolutely fine letting people know that they might get no regrowth or little regrowth but at the same time pointing out that's it's the only known scarless procedure faster healing times compared to other traditional hair transplants. Letting people know the pros and cons, nothing wrong with that.

[Arashi]

I think it's absolutely fine letting people know that they might get no regrowth or little regrowth but at the same time pointing out that's it's the only known scarless procedure faster healing times compared to other traditional hair transplants. Letting people know the pros and cons, nothing wrong with that.

And of course I agree with you on that ! HASCI in general is a fine clinic, I liked how they performed the treatment and I yet have to see someone with a horrible result from HASCI (unlike some Turkish clinics for example, who butchered up some of their patients let alone Nigam who almost killed a patient). I just really find it dispicable how they even now keep telling new clients that 85% regrowth fable.