Gho's files patent for Hair multiplication

[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.

[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?

[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

[Arashi]

Thanks for posting. I have found that cameras + flash often make hair appear much thinner than it actually is.

Yes, thats the way how Dr Nigam grows hairs

[35YrsAfter]

Hi Chuck, when they say Gaz, they are referring to me. I have created a link to a recent set of photos about 3 or 4 pages back in this thread.

Thanks for posting. I have found that cameras + flash often make hair appear much thinner than it actually is. Below is an example of how lighting can change the appearance of hair density. Notice the appearance of thinning on the photo on the right. The right photo was taken indoors with flash just minutes before the second photo. The photo on the left was taken outside in direct sunlight. The camera with flash found "thin" areas that I couldn't see at all in natural as well as indoor lighting.
BTW, have you considered beard hair grafts? One of our repair patients has had over 5,000 placed all over his head to cover scars and improve density. The beard area heals remarkably well and beard hair is often twice the caliber of scalp hair. It looks natural when placed correctly.


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

[Arashi]

Also they claim on the Dutch forums that Gho is not even a 'surgeon' but just a 'doctor'. I havent verified it but reading papers like this, that would make a LOT of sense !! What a joke ... He should go back to highschool

[Arashi]

Really? All of the sudden most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft survival rate - without changing anything??

WHY should they suddenly have 95% graft survival, when 95% (or more) HT doctors still use saline solution as graft storage medium??

Recently, Dr. Gho has scientifically proven (contrary to others who just make wild claims out there) completely the contrary to your “hot air” claims …

The Influence of Preservation Solution on the Viability of Grafts in Hair Transplantation Surgery

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/2013_gho_the_influence_of_preservation_solution_on_the_viability_of_hairtransplantation_grafts.pdf

Hahaha that study is a joke, just like all other Gho 'studies'. Any university would throw it in a trash can, in fact, I laughed out loud. Did you even read it Ironman ? They compared their own solution to 2 commercial solutions, dumped the grafts in it and watched it and concluded that grafts were more viable in their own solution BUT THEY DID NOT EVEN IMPLANT THEM !!! They only implanted the grafts dumped in their own saline and concluded they all survived. What's a study without a control ? How can they even say grafts are more viable without implanting the grafts bathed in the commercial solution ? What a complete joke, like all of their 'research'. If a student in his first year would present this to his professor, he'd tell the student to go back to high school !!

Furthermore, they used 0.7 mm grafts, so probably there wasnt any damage at all to the follicle, that's FAR from a real world situation. Grafts die not because of the saline, but because of damage.

Remember how that ISHRS surgeon said Gho's paper with his regrowth claims had a scientific value of about 0 ? Well This paper is even worse.

[Arashi]

That is a myth, sorry. For the likes of Mwamba to say it's around 80%, he seems like an honest kind of guy too, perhaps too honest with the whole Nigam situation.

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 ?

[Arashi]

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics

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 !

[caddarik79]

your very next move will be very very interesting to follow!!!!

and more, I am very curious about how top will look in another 6-9 months...

[caddarik79]

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics, it's seems more and more unlikely that I have had no regrowth. If I would have had 3500 FUE extracted from my donor I damn well know my donor would be decimated far over what we see now, I think you know that too.

.

Thank you!!!!!!!

[gc83uk]

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays. In my opinion HST is just exactly a FUE. Only difference is that HASCI splits grafts and thus takes a 3-4 FU, leave 1-2 hairs behind and move 1-2 hairs to donor. Exactly like JJJJR's concluded.

That is a myth, sorry. For the likes of Mwamba to say it's around 80%, he seems like an honest kind of guy too, perhaps too honest with the whole Nigam situation.

Has there been a study to show how FUE is now getting as high as 95%? If there is I will obviously retract!

It was common knowledge graft survival even compared to FUT was shocking, which is why many like at Hasson & Wong still do FUT.

It's an important fact that HST pisses on FUE when it comes to graft survival, that is why HST is not 'exactly like a FUE', plus no scarring.

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics, it's seems more and more unlikely that I have had no regrowth. If I would have had 3500 FUE extracted from my donor I damn well know my donor would be decimated far over what we see now, I think you know that too.

I'm pretty sure that if you extract 5000 times with HST, you'll hit the sweet spot some of the time and this is when the regrowth will happen, it's almost accidental you could say.

Just my opinion.

Anyway I will do that count in my donor, just not this week. I need to get the hair shorter, otherwise it will be impossible.

[caddarik79]

what about the evolution of your 2nd procedure, Ironman?

[534623]

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays.

Really? All of the sudden most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft survival rate - without changing anything??

WHY should they suddenly have 95% graft survival, when 95% (or more) HT doctors still use saline solution as graft storage medium??

Recently, Dr. Gho has scientifically proven (contrary to others who just make wild claims out there) completely the contrary to your “hot air” claims …

The Influence of Preservation Solution on the Viability of Grafts in Hair Transplantation Surgery

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/2013_gho_the_influence_of_preservation_solution_on_the_viability_of_hairtransplantation_grafts.pdf

But completely independent from this study, all those guys who had HST procedures know anyhow: whatever they implant - GROWS.

And last - but not least:
I still wonder why nobody is asking Arashi, IF everything is so great with normal FUE procedures - why doesn't he buy one?? ... in Turkey ... lol

[Arashi]

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.

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays. In my opinion HST is just exactly a FUE. Only difference is that HASCI splits grafts and thus takes a 3-4 FU, leave 1-2 hairs behind and move 1-2 hairs to donor. Exactly like JJJJR's concluded.