NeedHairASAP

[hairysituation]

Btw! They also kept on repeating: "We believe that a natural density is more important than a high density" I therafter said that I naturally have a high density, so why wouldn`t it be natural? They didn`t have a good answer for that.

The whole thing just screemed incompontence and failure. In addition a pathetic rationalization by calling it "natural density". If they worked as advertised, they would be a practical cure. 30 000 grafts with normal hair characteristics, with Dr. Rahal`s dense packing skills. Are you kidding me? Even I would be happy with that. But unfortunately, their product is pure bullshit.

And Iron_Man, don`t bring up the marco case from hairsite to dissprove Rahal as a surgon. Every good doctor have a few bad cases.

[topcat]

Everything is based on solid results without that whatever is being promoted runs out of steam and then it’s on to the next thing that can generate income. At the moment tattooing seems to be gaining steam and HM seems to be losing steam. This is how it works boys and girls. It doesn’t have to be better you only have to get people to believe it’s better for as long as you can.

[hairysituation]

"the amount of HST grafts he has recieved"??

How much grafts?

1st procedure (Nov 2009): Just 1500 HST grafts distributed all over the (big) whole balding/thinning scalp.

2nd procedure (2011): 1650 HST grafts - almost everything just for the CROWN area!

3rd procedure (July 2012 - ~2.5 month ago): 1670 HST for the CROWN area again as well as just for the hairLINE.

And with such rather small procedures (in comparison) into different areas you expect an extremely dense looking hairline - especially for a hairline just 2.5 month after having the procedure???

The intention and focus of the first 2 procedures has never been to give Joling an extremely thick looking hairline!

It's a difference between dense hair and the sparsest looking gras hairs you will ever see. I know it ain't many grafts. However - yes! - it should have looked fuller/denser. I don't see how you can disagree. Without concealers, it barely looks like any hairs at all. Just some few lonely campers!

[JJJJrS]

So, he's supposedly had a total of 7-8K grafts combined between HST and FUT? a couple photos in there where he's not wearing concealer look extremely thin. That's not too impressive a result. Are you sure those photos are from "after" is procedures with Gho?

It's an interesting case because you'll see pictures where his hair looks fantastic, including situations where it might be hard to get away with wearing concealer (shaved down, wet hair, too much hair) like here, here, or to a lesser extent here. But there are other pictures where things look very thin like this one.

I don't know the timeline of all these pics either, whether it's before or during the recovery period of certain HST procedures, sessions, so it's difficult to comment.

One of the primary reasons holding me back from getting an HST procedure from HASCI is the lack of recipient results. I need to be absolutely confident with the artistic skills of a surgeon before ever stepping into the chair because the recipient is always the priority. Hopefully the guys who have got an HST procedure can keep us updated with their results.

Yes. Maybe it`s before his last procedure before he filled in his hairline and the crown. But he definetely had two HST procedures in the picture I provided. Nevertheless, you can see the updated pictures after his latest procedure on his facebook profiile. Judge for yourself.

Of course it`s not impressive, the entire procedure is pure bullshit. I guess it works for the people who are ok with with a sparse-looking recipent area and a virgin-looking donor area. However, the majority want something more impressive.

To summarize, convetional methods, like FUE and FUT, produce decent, but not very dense-looking results. But HST produce results which are FAR more minimal (aesthetically). What would you rather choose? you have to prioritize:

recipent VS donor- what is more important to you?

The first thing we have to establish is exactly how well does Gho's technique work in practice and neglect the artistic aspects for a moment. To me, this comes down to two things primarily:

1) What exactly is the donor regeneration rate?
2) How many times can the same follicle be harvested and do these hairs maintain the same characteristics (diameter, texture)?

If the answer to these are min. 85% donor regeneration and no change of hair characteristics like HASCI claims, then that's massive even if we operate under the premise that Gho's artistic skills are poor.

If these claims are conclusively proven true and accepted, then HST will inevitably find its ways into the hands of more artistically talented surgeons. Even if that does not happen, 85% donor regeneration provides more than enough donor supply that you could use other surgeons to touch up the hairline and let Gho handle the cosmetically less important areas behind it.

I really hope they post that interview with Gho because Spencer said they would directly touch on this issue, i.e. density of his procedures.

[534623]

I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

"the amount of HST grafts he has recieved"??

How much grafts?

1st procedure (Nov 2009): Just 1500 HST grafts distributed all over the (big) whole balding/thinning scalp.

2nd procedure (2011): 1650 HST grafts - almost everything just for the CROWN area!

3rd procedure (July 2012 - ~2.5 month ago): 1670 HST for the CROWN area again as well as just for the hairLINE.

And with such rather small procedures (in comparison) into different areas you expect an extremely dense looking hairline - especially for a hairline just 2.5 month after having the procedure???

The intention and focus of the first 2 procedures has never been to give Joling an extremely thick looking hairline!

[534623]

Of course it`s not impressive, the entire procedure is pure bullshit.

Scissorboy doesn't agree with you ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=83762&postcount=18

[hairysituation]

So, he's supposedly had a total of 7-8K grafts combined between HST and FUT? a couple photos in there where he's not wearing concealer look extremely thin. That's not too impressive a result. Are you sure those photos are from "after" is procedures with Gho?

Yes. Maybe it`s before his last procedure before he filled in his hairline and the crown. But he definetely had two HST procedures in the picture I provided. Nevertheless, you can see the updated pictures after his latest procedure on his facebook profiile. Judge for yourself.

Of course it`s not impressive, the entire procedure is pure bullshit. I guess it works for the people who are ok with with a sparse-looking recipent area and a virgin-looking donor area. However, the majority want something more impressive.

To summarize, convetional methods, like FUE and FUT, produce decent, but not very dense-looking results. But HST produce results which are FAR more minimal (aesthetically). What would you rather choose? you have to prioritize:

recipent VS donor- what is more important to you?

[The Alchemist]

No, but they didn`t deny it either. They rather ignored the question alltougheter (Gho as well). I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/gerardjoling...type=3&theater

I used to believe in Gho, but after several discussions with him and his collegues, I must say I don`t believe them for a second. The technique is less invasive, but that`s it. I don`t wont people to hope for this treatment, because they will end up dissapointed.

PS! Sorry all the typos, English isn`t my native language, and I don`t care to look up every single word.

So, he's supposedly had a total of 7-8K grafts combined between HST and FUT? a couple photos in there where he's not wearing concealer look extremely thin. That's not too impressive a result. Are you sure those photos are from "after" is procedures with Gho?

[hairysituation]

What I'm interested in is your observation on the grafts being thinner. This has been said a few times now, did hasci confirm this with you?

No, but they didn`t deny it either. They rather ignored the question alltougheter (Gho as well). I think if you look at Gerard Joling`s results, you will se that it`s very thin. It should have looked denser given the amount of HST grafts he has recieved.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/gerardjoling...type=3&theater

I used to believe in Gho, but after several discussions with him and his collegues, I must say I don`t believe them for a second. The technique is less invasive, but that`s it. I don`t wont people to hope for this treatment, because they will end up dissapointed.

PS! Sorry all the typos, English isn`t my native language, and I don`t care to look up every single word.

[gc83uk]

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.



And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

What I'm interested in is your observation on the grafts being thinner. This has been said a few times now, did hasci confirm this with you?

[hairysituation]

And do you think other techniques could give you back your thick density ? No other HT can give you that, so maybe HT in general is not for you.
But seriously, if they are trying to mislead you they can easly change the number and tell you they can do much better than 50 graft per cm2 and of course you will not be able to measure it and find out if what they say is true or not.

I agree. HT`s is not viable option for me, no question. However, HASCI shouldn`t act like they can give me 75% of my original density, when they obivousely can`t. This says something about HASCI`s credibility alltogheter.

Conventional HT`s will not bring back an ideal density, but it will look denser than an HST procedure. I`m yet to see a dense HST result, and I think I never will.

[aim4hair]

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.



And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

And do you think other techniques could give you back your thick density ? No other HT can give you that, so maybe HT in general is not for you.
But seriously, if they are trying to mislead you they can easly change the number and tell you they can do much better than 50 graft per cm2 and of course you will not be able to measure it and find out if what they say is true or not.

[hairysituation]

50 grafts per sqcm is like 115 hairs per sqcm. That's pretty good right?

It`s decent. Far from dense. However, The HST grafts seems to be thinner than the grafts from conventional methods.

Mathematics is not your thing - right?

And to Iron_man, an avarage caucation have at least 100 grafts (200 hairs) per square centimeter. Also, my original hair density was beyond avarage. So, 50 grafts pr square centimeter would still only be 50% of the original density for an avarage caucation. Do you see anything wrong with my mathematic? Please explain.

I also saw the this thread from hairsite, were the HASCI-employees obivousely had mislead a patient. Even futher than they tried to mislead me.

Quote: "They told me that their technique allowing to use and re-use the donor zone, would allow me to reach a maximulm of 50 grafts per cm2 and that a normal non balding person has between 52.5 and 65 grafts per cm2!!!"

Source: http://www.************/hair-loss/bo...casc-DESC.html

It is what it is!

[gc83uk]

Gho told me that he couldn`t share his technology with Dr. Cole, because Dr. Cole was "skeptical" about the HST when it first arrived. He therefore had to prioritize the "open-minded" doctors. I can`t recall that Dr. Cole ever vas sceptical about HST. In addition, Where is all the new-trained "open-mined" doctors? The once Dr. Gho actually prioritized?

What really made decide cancelling, was that they tried to"mislead" me. They told me that they could give me 75% of my originally density back. I then asked, how many grafts pr square centimeter that would require, and they said: "50 grafts pr square centimeter". This is a lie. A avarage caucation has a much higher density. So, no way that 50 grafts pr square centimeter will be equally to 75% of your/my original density.

50 grafts per sqcm is like 115 hairs per sqcm. That's pretty good right?

[534623]

What really made decide cancelling, was that they tried to"mislead" me. They told me that they could give me 75% of my originally density back. I then asked, how many grafts pr square centimeter that would require, and they said: "50 grafts pr square centimeter". This is a lie. A avarage caucation has a much higher density. So, no way that 50 grafts pr square centimeter will be equally to 75% of your/my original density.

Mathematics is not your thing - right?