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

[Swooping]

A troubling case about HASCI has emerged on another forum too. 3K grafts, very sparse sub-par results. The guy paid almost 20k. With permanent ongoing redness.

These guys are at best mediocre at performing hair transplants.

Not to mention their regeneration claims which is a dream pur sang.

Let it go already.

[caddarik79]

A troubling case about HASCI has emerged on another forum too. 3K grafts, very sparse sub-par results. The guy paid almost 20k. With permanent ongoing redness.

These guys are at best mediocre at performing hair transplants.

Not to mention their regeneration claims which is a dream pur sang.

Let it go already.

Would be really nice to paste us the link to this forum, would like to see it by myself !

[Arashi]

Would be really nice to paste us the link to this forum, would like to see it by myself !

I'm pretty sure the moderator will ban you for that. But maybe swooping can copy/paste the photo/text ,would like to see it too, thanks !

[Arashi]

A troubling case about HASCI has emerged on another forum too. 3K grafts, very sparse sub-par results. The guy paid almost 20k. With permanent ongoing redness.

These guys are at best mediocre at performing hair transplants.

Not to mention their regeneration claims which is a dream pur sang.

Let it go already.

Hey Swooping. Yeah I kinda agree but there are still people on this forum who believe or at least have doubts about HASCI. Don't ask me why, we've already shown that it's a lie (because HASCI just ejects the whole follicle, nothing stays behind, we've shown that on photo's). Anyway, for them it would be nice to have this case documented. Although then again, if after those other photo's they still have doubts, they'll probably always have doubts.

[Swooping]

Yeah can't link to the forum but will dump the text here for consumer interest. I only added 3 pictures, to much effort to add them all (see links to the three pictures below the text). Dr. Gho even commented on your site Arashi .

Hi everyone

I'd like to share my story here so that others may benefit from my experience and not make the same mistakes I have so far. I've been worried about hair loss ever since I was 18 or so, since my temples went bald very early on, and my father is completely bald so I knew the problem would only get worse as time went on. However, when I heard about a hair stem cell therapy offered by HASCI in the Netherlands, I got some hope. Previously I did not start any treatments because I know I will likely progress to NW6 or NW7 eventually. However, their claim - backed by research papers and celebrity testimonials - is that there is "virtually complete regrowth of the hairs in the donor area" which would allow for virtually limitless procedures. As such, I decided to tackle the problem early on and enjoy my youth with a full head of hair.

The first hair transplant was performed on 2013-03-12. Nine months after the surgery when final results were supposed to be visible, I was quite disappointed by the density though. Some redness was also still visible, which the doctors assured me would dissipate within a year after the surgery. I scheduled a second hair transplant for 2014-09-22 which was a year and a half after the first one. Each time they did about 1,400 grafts.

It has now been almost a year and a half since the second surgery and my hairline seems to be receding faster. Density in the temples is slightly higher than after the first surgery, but not what I was hoping/expecting. In fact, earlier this year I shaved my head for the first time because I was considering going for SMP as to avoid chasing after my receding hairline. Unfortunately, I found out that my scalp is just too red in the transplant area, it looks horrible especially under artificial lighting at certain angles. Since it has been a year and a half since the final surgery I am worried this might be permanent.

Recently, I've read some disturbing information about the HASCI clinic (summarized at http://www.hasci-exposed.com/analysis.html) and indicate that the claims made by Dr. Coen Gho at HASCI are deceitful.

Personally, I feel like I spent about 20,000 USD in vain and all I got were two poorly executed FUE treatments which left me with damaged skin and possibly limited my options for both going bald gracefully as well as having enough donor hair left to keep from going bald.

Right now I am consulting with some other surgeons to see what options I have left in terms of further hair transplants. I have several questions I'd like answered to decide on my next course of action. If HASCI has been deceitful about their claims and does not offer a solution I fully intend to file a lawsuit personally or a class-action lawsuit if other disadvantaged patients present themselves;

1. Is HASCI indeed a scam and if so, why hasn't this come to light yet after several years of them making claims and performing surgeries?
2. The fact that hairs seem to be at odd angles and pointing in different directions, is this due to my type of hair or were they implanted incorrectly?
3. Are any treatment options available for the redness in case I go the SMP route? Lasers seem to have their fair share of risk as well of further discoloration.
4. I trusted the doctor to decide on the shape of the hairline, but it seems to me that they chose one that does not look natural, is that correct?

== UPDATE 2016-02-18 ==

Today I had a Skype consultation with Dr. Gho. We discussed the topics I had doubts about.

REDNESS: Not explained

He says it's the first time he has ever seen redness lasting this long (just my luck) and rather than offering a solution for the redness, he offered to hide it with a free-of-charge third procedure to fill up the low density areas and gaps so the redness would no longer be visible using a new technique (pick & place).

NEW TECHNIQUE: Proof pending

He told me to watch a video (in Dutch) about the new technique which is the only information I've received so far. Supposedly the difference is that the hair is inserted at the time the perforation of the skin is made, and as such smaller punch size suffices and there is much quicker healing and less issues with blood and crusts. I'm waiting for more information by email since the video isn't exactly scientific evidence nor does it provide much information about the technique itself:

http://www.hasci.com/nl/nieuws-media...-aflevering-4/

What I find a bit odd is that according to some videos on their website, the punch size in the recipient area is already as small as the one from the donor area (0.5 mm), so I don't understand how they would use an even smaller punch as the graft wouldn't even fit anymore.

DENSITY ISSUES: Not explained

I told him I had read the information on HASCI exposed and asked him to clarify why density with HASCI is apparently much lower than with normal FUE techniques. He sort of dodged the question saying that natural density will never be achieved, especially on a first pass. He followed this up saying that one wouldn't want too high density hair in the temples since as my natural hair starts thinning out, I'd have unnatural looking results. However, none of this explains why there seem to be consistent complaints about density with HST. I have seen some FUE results and often these look much denser on the first pass with less grafts than my two transplants for a total of 2,800 grafts.

ANGLES OF TRANSPLANTED HAIRS: Not explained

When I asked why the hairs were growing in different directions, he did not really provide an answer about the flaws in his current technique, but mentioned that with his new technique there should be more consistency in hair direction along with the other benefits.

DONOR REGENERATION & MULTIPLE HST'S: Proof pending

When I mentioned my main worry is the news report about Dean Saunders being depleted after three HST transplants, he declined that the donor area could have been depleted and said the doctor who did a body hair transplant on him didn't know what he was doing. He assured me that I would be able to do at least 8 and likely up to 11 total transplants and said that he has clients who have had 8 of these. I asked if I could see photos and speak to these people to hear about their experience with HASCI. He replied that he would ask them if their contact information could passed and said he could not send photos without permission. He sent me a photo of a donor area of someone who had had 4 transplants for a total of 6,000 grafts, which did not seem depleted. On forums I have read that people have between 3,000 and 7,000 grafts available for transplant in their donor area depending on original density and other factors, so I would still need to receive more information and references.

PARTIAL EXTRACTION: No proof provided

When I asked about the doubts raised at http://www.hasci-exposed.com/partial.html he told me that there is no way to really see the difference with just a photo, one would need to use a microscope to see the difference between normal FUE grafts and their HST grafts. It seems odd then that their presentation includes regular photos showing the difference rather than photos from under a microscope. In fact, the photos taken by HASCI Exposed seem to be of higher quality than those used in their presentation.

HAIRS PER GRAFT

I touched the subject of the number of hairs per graft being lower than the industry average. He said that in the temples one must use 1-hair grafts for natural results. I haven't done much research into the ratio of 1 vs 2 vs 3-hair grafts in the temples so this may be true, but for providing coverage on the remainder of my head I would be worried that two passes are required with HST and density is still disappointing.

CONCLUSION

I'm not convinced at all at this stage. I'll wait for his email to see what evidence and references he provides regarding his new technique but unless there is some very compelling information, I still feel he owes me a full refund for at least the surgeries since there is no evidence that I now have more hairs than I did before or that they even used the techniques they explain on their website. In fact they should be happy refunding just the surgeries considering the travel expenses I incurred, lost time/productivity and possibly costs for treatment of the redness they caused.

http://s27.postimg.org/5drxmtltv/2013_03_12_HASCI_1_Right.jpg

http://s28.postimg.org/co6mo1yv1/2013_12_12_Low_density_nine_months_post_op.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/q07ggnqgz/2016_01_03_Right_profile_with_short_hair.png

[Arashi]

Thanks swooping ! This is exactly why we need an analysis like "almostundone" is doing. To hopefully bring a final blow to HASCI and their regeneration claims.

@Almostundone: again, if I can help out, please share some more pics for me to analyze and I'm happy to help out !

[jamesst11]

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

[Swooping]

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

Dunno man. As far as I am concerned when someone makes claims there has to be hard evidence for that claim. Science right?

Well.. Unless we talk about vulnerable people off course.. And people with hair loss are often vulnerable as hell.

People love also to rationalize certain things they want to believe in, just to keep their "hope" alive.

Doesn't even matter if you will prove 100% that HASCI regeneration claims are not true, enough people will continue to go there anyway.

[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 !!

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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).

[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 !!