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

[AlmostUndone]

Any updates ?

Nada. I never got home in time to get the right amount of light from outside, and the next two weeks are gonna be pretty tight for me. Damn.

[Arashi]

Any updates ?

[cocacola]

As someone who did an hst, my position was always innocent until proven guilty.

However, in the light of new evidence i must agree that to come up with some sort of acceptable regeneration figure we would need to see a very thick receipient. Something that i never seen with hasci.

At this point i think a class action becomes the most logical resolution as if we see no regeneration this becomes pure scam. I hope we have any documentation of 80% regeneration claims by hasci.

[HTsoon]

After you guys are done disproving donor regeneration, I got another task for you guys, disproving the Easter bunny LOL. Jk jk

[AlmostUndone]

* H2 was a 4 hair graft IMHO and in the after photo I see 4 hairs too (the two to the right are very light/thin)
* H14 I noted as 3 hairs going to 2 hair graft but it might also be a 4 hair graft going to 2 hair graft (I think that's your explanation ?)
* I6: I see as 3 going to 1 hair graft, I think this is good ?
*141: Not sure what you're seeing here ? I do see 2 into 2, like I had it in my calcs (could even be 3 into 3 but that's not changing anything)

Jus saying there was a viewpoint added in one of my last updates which may have helped me. In the down-left corner:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/right_side_final_98.jpg

I dont see an alternative viewpoint here ?

I know. I just decided to bring this one to your attention, when in fact it may be my mistake to mark it as a 5 going into a 4.

I'm sure, like you said (and demonstrated), by analysing 2nd viewpoints more errors can be found.

I think I managed to analyze them all myself. Here it's mostly just down to carelessness then. But I've had enough of the donor, for now. Kinda feel bad to keep you guys waiting a while for recipient stuff hmm

[Arashi]

Anyway, Almostundone, it isn't my goal to get to a 100% accurate picture. I'm sure, like you said (and demonstrated), by analysing 2nd viewpoints more errors can be found. I'm now at 1173 lost hairs, that's pretty close to your 1243 anyway. For regeneration to occur we'll need to see WAY more hairs than 1200 in your recipient. If we end up with 1300 hairs, then we might go over everything in the donor again, perfecting it and see if we can find those 1300. But even then, that would be trying to (dis)prove that 5% regeneration happened. Who cares about 5% regeneration, LOL. And then there are always other uncertainties like the amount of hairs going into sleeping state or the amount of hairs that was in resting state in the pre picture. So trying to prove 5% regeneration is pointless anyway if you ask me.

I'd say it's time to look at recipient

If we'd end up with 1500 hairs in recipient for example, then I think it would make sense to go over everything again, analyse 2nd view points etc. But I highly doubt that. It would make a lot of sense that you'd end up with roughly 1.3 * 800 = 1040 hairs in recipient (since 1.3 seems to be a normal hasci recipient density)

50% regrowth btw would mean that we'd need to see roughly 2400-2500 hairs in your recipient. Which already seems impossible cause that would mean an average of 3 hairs/graft !!! LOL

[Arashi]

H2, H14, which can be better seen from alternative viewpoints within the same image file.

* H2 was a 4 hair graft IMHO and in the after photo I see 4 hairs too (the two to the right are very light/thin)
* H14 I noted as 3 hairs going to 2 hair graft but it might also be a 4 hair graft going to 2 hair graft (I think that's your explanation ?)

"Area I" in your analysis: 6 (the third hair can be seen from 2 or 3 different viewpoints in the image), 9 and 8.

I6: I see as 3 going to 1 hair graft, I think this is good ?
I9: agreed, should be -1, corrected it.
I8: agreed, should be -3, corrected it.

"Area 9" in your analysis: 76, 148, 141, and 139 (The secondary angle in the before-image reveals 2 hairs you must have missed).

*76: Yeah in 2nd view this actually seems to be a 5 going into 2 eh ! I changed it.
*139: Yeah 2nd view shows indeed that this should be -2, changed it
*141: Not sure what you're seeing here ? I do see 2 into 2, like I had it in my calcs (could even be 3 into 3 but that's not changing anything)
*148: agreed should be -1.

"Area 10" in your analysis: 24 and so on and so on.

I dont see an alternative viewpoint here ?

[AlmostUndone]

Well it's better than 12%... or perhaps you meant 10,2% or what

H16 I'm not sure I agree with you there though, here it is: http://www.hasci-exposed.com/images/H16.jpg In the before I see 2 hairs and in the after I see 2 too (the left one is a lot thinner/lighter but in the after photo but it's there). Maybe your point is though that it was a 3 hair graft and the hair to the right of H16 in the before photo is part of the same graft ?

No, my point is that alternative angle which I included into my final update: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...mostUndone.jpg

Will look at your other points too now. But I didnt check alternative viewpoints so it's very well possible that some corrections indeed need to be made because of evidence shown in the alternative view.

The errors I suggested to you were just some random examples; I didn't check most of it.

In my own analysis, I did hopefully look at all of those slim alternative viewpoints into the neighbouring area which already existed in the "before" main image. But neither I ever looked into any of those additional "Alternative viewpoints"-files which you can find earlier in this thread.

[Arashi]

BTW, I hadnt posted the results of my 2nd analysis yet (my double check), the number I'm currently at is 1168 lost hairs, so that's only 6% difference from your number !

[Arashi]

Nice work guys! It's great to finally see a definitive analysis of the HST procedure. I thought it wouldn't be feasible beyond a 50 graft test procedure but the effort and dedication shown here is very impressive!



That was the conclusion I came to after the last analysis I did. Nice to finally be able to prove it though.

Hey JJJJrS, good to see you back man ! Yeah exciting times eh, I too figured it would be inpossible/infeasible to do this, but here we are Exciting stuff !

[Arashi]

Some examples. "Area H" in your analysis: 16 and 65, both easy to see why they are incorrect

I double checked each of the extraction points and there are of course several extraction points up for debate. H65 indeed was clearly incorrect though, should be -2, I corrected it in my sheet (will upload the changes later). H16 I'm not sure I agree with you there though, here it is: http://www.hasci-exposed.com/images/H16.jpg In the before I see 2 hairs and in the after I see 2 too (the left one is a lot thinner/lighter but in the after photo but it's there). Maybe your point is though that it was a 3 hair graft and the hair to the right of H16 in the before photo is part of the same graft ? Yeah that's up for debate, it might indeed be but I figured it was too far away from the other 2 hairs. So I figured that's a one hair graft that's gone into sleeping mode. But I'm 50/50 on that one actually, it indeed also might be the same graft. In fact, now I'm looking at it some more, I'm indeed starting to think the most probable is that it was a 3 hair graft indeed.

Will look at your other points too now. But I didnt check alternative viewpoints so it's very well possible that some corrections indeed need to be made because of evidence shown in the alternative view.

Anyway good work mate !

[AlmostUndone]

That's 12% more lost hairs than I counted. But that's pretty acceptable to me (I think I've been quite conservative indeed in my counting). If the amount of hair in your recipient is anywhere between 1106-1243 hairs, then we're just looking at a normal FUE. And I'm betting money on it that that's what we're going to see

The truth is apparently somewhere between your analysis and mine. I counted in the "before" images some bunch of hairs which you missed. And there lay a couple of small mistakes still intact in my work.

Some examples. "Area H" in your analysis: 16 and 65, both easy to see why they are incorrect, and 2, 14, which can be better seen from alternative viewpoints within the same image file. Secondary viewpoints in the same image may reveal some which you missed.
"Area I" in your analysis: 6 (the third hair can be seen from 2 or 3 different viewpoints in the image), 9 and 8.
"Area 9" in your analysis: 76, 148, 141, and 139 (The secondary angle in the before-image reveals 2 hairs you must have missed).
"Area 10" in your analysis: 24 and so on and so on.

There must be similar issues especially in "Area 9/9A" and maybe "Area K", or there are more mistakes in my analysis than what I can presently see.

[JJJJrS]

Nice work guys! It's great to finally see a definitive analysis of the HST procedure. I thought it wouldn't be feasible beyond a 50 graft test procedure but the effort and dedication shown here is very impressive!

That's 12% more lost hairs than I counted. But that's pretty acceptable to me (I think I've been quite conservative indeed in my counting). If the amount of hair in your recipient is anywhere between 1106-1243 hairs, then we're just looking at a normal FUE. And I'm betting money on it that that's what we're going to see

Remember: 80% regrowth means that we'll need to see 5x more hair than that

That was the conclusion I came to after the last analysis I did. Nice to finally be able to prove it though.

[Arashi]

I counted 1243 lost hairs in my donor.

That's 12% more lost hairs than I counted. But that's pretty acceptable to me (I think I've been quite conservative indeed in my counting). If the amount of hair in your recipient is anywhere between 1106-1243 hairs, then we're just looking at a normal FUE. And I'm betting money on it that that's what we're going to see

Remember: 80% regrowth means that we'll need to see 5x more hair than that

[AlmostUndone]

Is everything here correct, I'll need to inquire.