HASCI - -How well does it work? Now we'll be able to find out!

[Arashi]

Hey, Arashi. I once did a complete check on the "extraction wounds" photos to see, if I had placed the circles correctly into the "before" pictures. I hope you don't have to deal with many errors.

Nope, your work was near perfect (only forgot one circle and another circle where a graft didnt grow back was misplaced slightly: circle for nr 3 in the 'after' photo should be bit more to the right but no problem there). Other than that, everything was flawless ! Great work ! And I'm happy to help out mate, excited about all this !!

[Arashi]

Cool, thanks mate ! I'll use gimp then. Going to the office right now, when I'm back I might have some time later.

[AlmostUndone]

If this would be the average result for "Almostundone" that would mean he had lost in total: 1400/104 * 96 = 1292 hairs. By analysing previous cases, we found that HASCi transplants on average 1.28 hairs/graft. So that would mean for the 800 grafts "Almostundone" had done, he would have gained 800 * 1.28 = 1024 hairs in recipient !! So no hair multiplication, but a net loss of 268 hairs !! Actually I don't think it will end up in such a huge loss, I think he might have a bit more hairs transplanted/graft AND/OR these 104 extraction points I analyzed contained more hairloss than the average extraction point

Also, that area was harvested quite near the end of the procedure. It may have been the nurse got better at making successful extractions towards the end.

[AlmostUndone]

Hey, Arashi. I once did a complete check on the "extraction wounds" photos to see, if I had placed the circles correctly into the "before" pictures. I hope you don't have to deal with many errors. Here I will post the first half for the donor area:

BEFORE PROCEDURE

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/left_side_final_98.jpg

BEFORE PROCEDURE (SOME ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS, NO CIRCLES MADE YET):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/left_side_final_alternative_98.jpg

EXTRACTIONS:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/Left_extractions97.jpg

EXTRACTIONS (AN ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINT):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/Left_extractions97%20-%20A16%20ADDITIONAL%20PICTURE.jpg

>3 MONTHS AFTER

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/Left_3months.xcf

This is a Gimp file. You can easily make corrections to the circles, if you are using Gimp. If you would like me to convert it to JPEG for you, just let me know. (I have a readymade circle brush for GIMP, but for some reason, dropbox refuses to upload it)

[Arashi]

Almostundone, were are you mate, I have some time today to analyse some more

[Arashi]

Are you saying with certainty that out of 105 extraction points, 10 hairs grew back?

No. What we're doing here is counting how many hairs were lost in donor and how many hairs have been added to the recipient. Currently we're counting donor loss. So far 105 extraction points of the 1400 have been analysed, so the other 1295 still need analysing, and then donor needs to be analysed and then we have an exact number on how well HASCI's HST works

So this will take a few weeks ....

[jamesst11]

Also, I recounted all the hair loss and updated the file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...17536856346723

I changed a few but the total only comes out 1 lower, my final result is 95 lost hairs in 105 extraction points.

Looking forward to the next area !

I am not following this too closely and for some reason cannot upload your pics on my computer. Are you saying with certainty that out of 105 extraction points, 10 hairs grew back? I wonder what is was about these extractions that allowed that, and if the correlating transplanted hairs grew in the recipient site.

[Arashi]

Also, I recounted all the hair loss and updated the file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...17536856346723

I changed a few but the total only comes out 1 lower, my final result is 95 lost hairs in 105 extraction points.

Looking forward to the next area !

[Arashi]

Oops, missed a few circle numbers, here's the corrected extraction pic: http://s9.postimg.org/61my0tsfz/extractions.jpg

BTW I must say, man, I'm excited This is the first time we have really good quality photo's of the whole area, 800 grafts makes it a bit more managable than those mega sessions and the structure of your hair is just perfect for analysis. I must admit that I was a bit sceptic when you opened this thread with this title 'now we'll be able to find out', but man, you were right ! This is going to be the first time we can finally show with a real life example what the result of a HST surgery is !!

[Arashi]

Exactly swooping, sad but true, a lot of those papers are false, thanks for that link !

@Almostundone: I figured I'd also check your extraction points circles, and again, you've all placed them correctly: http://s2.postimg.org/oi8to3ty1/extractions.jpg

Wonderful job mate ! So as an overview:

1) before: http://s29.postimg.org/wi5quy0pz/Before.jpg
2) extractions: http://s2.postimg.org/oi8to3ty1/extractions.jpg
3) after: http://s24.postimg.org/9tzvyp60l/after.jpg

(btw while doing this I found that I also made an error, I placed number 18 two times. I labeled them 18a and 18b in the 'extractions' photo).

[Swooping]

"The committee wrongly assumed that the "peer reviewed"method also examined whether the HSCT method really leads to multiplication of hair. The managing director of the journal of Dermatological Treatment has informed us that this is not the case and that the review panel, consisting of two experts, particularly examined whether the published research met the standard of the magazine, concerning contents and subject, and whether the research was acceptable. More generally, it appears that there is much criticizism on the value that is awarded to peer review. A peer review is no guarantee of the effectiveness of a method. Contrary to the evaluation by the Committee, the publisher does not assess whether an article is sufficiently scientifically sound"

Good point...

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

His report “Why most published research findings are false” is the most cited paper in PLOS Medicine and has contributed to him being profiled in the New York Times and becoming famous.

When a theory is shown to be incorrect or a publication in error, it is all too easy to think that the scientist who came up with this theory is a liar or a dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain. Or as Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, puts it: Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.

Companies and hedge funds are catching up with the fact that so many published studies are misleading—because it’s one thing to have the study published in a journal, with the publishers making money and the authors enjoying “fame and the love of beautiful women,” but it’s another thing to invest millions of dollars in what appear to be new possible treatments or diagnostic tests when the result may be wrong. So companies are learning the importance of replicating studies, and a recent study by Amgen of preclinical studies showed that 80-90% could not be replicated. Hedge funds have thus become nervous about investing in what seem to be promising scientific results and are hiring contract research organisations to replicate studies before they make any investments.

Enough said .

[Arashi]

Why did people just assume this would work? I am sick of all this f*cking bullsh*t

Well there are several reasons.

1) First of all HASCI gave away free treatments to Dutch celebrities. This bought them a lot of credit initially, people always look up to celebs and when they go to a certain doctor, even if they get a treatment for free, that means something to the public. Eventually this backfired since Dean Saunders donor got already depleted after 3 seasons and most celeb results are quite horrible.

2) HASCI transplants way less hairs per graft than other clinics (see also the above analysis I just posted, you will see that mostly they transplant 1 hair per graft). This gives the illusion that they can do a lot more sessions than other clinics. But the reality is that they just transplant way less hair per session

3) Like you can see in the above analysis I just posted, they split FU's. This gives the illusion of regrowth. But it's just split hair and failed extractions (like 'almostundone' noted, he has 1400 extraction points but only 800 grafts were transplanted, so 600 'failed extractions', which might look like regrowth to newbies to their fables but it's just unextracted hair growing back)

4) Most importantly: they published an article in a 'peer reviewed scientific magazine'. This was THE biggest reason people initially believed hasci. In that article they showed 85% regrowth after 3 months ! And since this was a scientific magazine AND peer reviewed, people thought it must have been true. However after some research it turned out that the 2 reviewers who reviewed the article, did NOT check the results. In a lawsuit against HASCI, it turned out:

"The committee wrongly assumed that the "peer reviewed"method also examined whether the HSCT method really leads to multiplication of hair. The managing director of the journal of Dermatological Treatment has informed us that this is not the case and that the review panel, consisting of two experts, particularly examined whether the published research met the standard of the magazine, concerning contents and subject, and whether the research was acceptable. More generally, it appears that there is much criticizism on the value that is awarded to peer review. A peer review is no guarantee of the effectiveness of a method. Contrary to the evaluation by the Committee, the publisher does not assess whether an article is sufficiently scientifically sound"

So it's all a bunch of BS. Or in better words: fraud. In petridish photo's from a forum member we could clearly see that HASCI just ejects the whole follicle and doesnt leave a part behind, like they showed on photo's in that article. And I'm 100% confident we'll see that in this new analysis we're doing now too.

In fact, about that last, I already can do a prediction regarding "Almostundone's" case:

"Almostundone" had 1400 extraction points. In the 104 extraction points I analyzed, 96 hairs were lost. If this would be the average result for "Almostundone" that would mean he had lost in total: 1400/104 * 96 = 1292 hairs. By analysing previous cases, we found that HASCi transplants on average 1.28 hairs/graft. So that would mean for the 800 grafts "Almostundone" had done, he would have gained 800 * 1.28 = 1024 hairs in recipient !! So no hair multiplication, but a net loss of 268 hairs !! Actually I don't think it will end up in such a huge loss, I think he might have a bit more hairs transplanted/graft AND/OR these 104 extraction points I analyzed contained more hairloss than the average extraction point, but I do think that recipient will have received less hairs than in donor were loss, in other words, I'll bet ya that just like with any FUE, the net hair result is going to be negative !!

Maybe we should do a class action law suit if indeed turns out that Almostundone had a net hair loss. I'm prepared to invest a few thousand dollars in a lawyer.

[Arashi]

Recounted, got to 96 hairs lost now in the first 104 extraction points: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...00967059054270

Also the original files (slightly better quality, other files I just uploaded got recompressed) http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...22306456854616 and http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...40335858343404

The actual number might be a bit off but I do think it's within a 7% error margin. And it doesnt have to be 100% perfect, we have a margin for error, because we're here to prove if 80% regenerates like HASCI claims, LOL.

[Arashi]

BTW, did a quick calc, I think you've lost 91 hairs in the first 104 extraction points. Will re-count to verify tomorrow.

[Arashi]

Hoping to find a way to get this done, without wasting too much time, and achieve consistency as well. Anyone got suggestions?

Look, here's an example of an area, which can be counted: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...g_example1.jpg

Man I must congratulate you, you're doing really an awesome job !! I thought I'd analyse the pics myself and see if your circles were placed correctly. I could only find 1 error in the 105 circles you've placed in the main part (you missed nr 49, see my pic, not even an error, you just forgot a circle), so less than 1% error, really really good job !

My analysis:
Before: http://s29.postimg.org/wi5quy0pz/Before.jpg
After: http://s24.postimg.org/9tzvyp60l/after.jpg

Will do the counting tomorrow but that's trivial now. Again, wonderful job mate, I'm impressed ! If we can do the same for the recipient, we can count exactly how much hairs were lost in donor and how much gained in recipient and we can see how much hairs were 'regenerated' (LOL yeah right).

If you post some more of these pics, I'll continue counting !

BTW we discussed earlier that the normal hair cycle might complicate the comparison (hairs that were in sleeping state will be visible 3 months later and vice versa) but it seems this isnt really an issue. I saw only a couple of hairs that were obviously in sleeping state after 3 months and vice versa. You can also clearly see in a few parts how the hair is going into sleeping state: when you look closely you will see a very very thin hair where there earlier was a normal hair for example).

So, this is really looking good man !!