Tweet
Let me preface this by saying that I definitely understand the complaints some people have. For example, I don't agree with HASCI's overly cautious approach. I'm still not convinced with their artistic abilities, although that may change depending on future results. These are important issues for me and have prevented me from getting an HST procedure at this point. I also disagree with how guarded Dr. Gho is with his procedure and his unwillingness to work with established hair transplant doctors to make HST a more mainstream option.
Nonetheless, I still feel that it's very important to look at the bigger picture. It's very possible that HST does indeed work as is described (i.e., 80+% donor regeneration, 90+% recipient yield). I say this based on Iron_Man's analysis of gc83uk, recent Gho patients who all appear to have pristine donors after the procedure, peer-reviewed scientific papers, court victories, and the fact that nobody, whether that's colleagues, coworkers, or patients, has exposed the procedure yet.
This is potentially a huge deal in an industry which moves at a snail's pace. For many people who want to do something about their hairloss now and not wait until the next big breakthrough, and who knows when that could be, this is very important. Suddenly, even younger patients can be viable candidates for hair transplant surgeries. For example, someone can get a 3k FUE procedure for their hairline from a doc who's artistic abilities they like, and then fill in the rest of the less cosmetically important areas with HST. Others who are more patient and prefer the option to buzz can go entirely with HST procedures. If we look even further down the line, imagine what doctors like Feriduni, Lorenzo, Bisanga, Cole could do with a procedure like HST if it became mainstream. It opens up a lot of possibilities that didn't exist before and minimizes many of the risks traditionally associated with hair transplants.
Of course, all this depends on how well the procedure works which is why I think there should be more focus on the procedure itself and in particular, its limitations. An important question I have is 'How many times can the same follicle be harvested and do these hairs maintain the same characteristics (diameter, texture) as before?'. One way or the other, I feel we need to get to the bottom of these issues so that we can all discuss the procedure on an even ground.
If we can answer these questions, and with the help of future patients (Iron_Man, gc83uk, tobban), I believe we eventually will be able to, it will be a huge development. First we will get a realistic view of the procedure. If there are major limitations/issues, prospective patients will have that understanding. If however it turns out to work as well as some believe, hairloss sufferers will have a new, more effective option and we can then work on making this a more mainstream option.
I'm sure there are some who may prefer for us to ignore the procedure, but I think that would a big disservice to anyone who has or is considering a hair transplant. Until we get answers on the procedure, I think we should continue to focus on it. Don't lose track of the bigger picture.
tl;dr
Nonetheless, I still feel that it's very important to look at the bigger picture. It's very possible that HST does indeed work as is described (i.e., 80+% donor regeneration, 90+% recipient yield). I say this based on Iron_Man's analysis of gc83uk, recent Gho patients who all appear to have pristine donors after the procedure, peer-reviewed scientific papers, court victories, and the fact that nobody, whether that's colleagues, coworkers, or patients, has exposed the procedure yet.
This is potentially a huge deal in an industry which moves at a snail's pace. For many people who want to do something about their hairloss now and not wait until the next big breakthrough, and who knows when that could be, this is very important. Suddenly, even younger patients can be viable candidates for hair transplant surgeries. For example, someone can get a 3k FUE procedure for their hairline from a doc who's artistic abilities they like, and then fill in the rest of the less cosmetically important areas with HST. Others who are more patient and prefer the option to buzz can go entirely with HST procedures. If we look even further down the line, imagine what doctors like Feriduni, Lorenzo, Bisanga, Cole could do with a procedure like HST if it became mainstream. It opens up a lot of possibilities that didn't exist before and minimizes many of the risks traditionally associated with hair transplants.
Of course, all this depends on how well the procedure works which is why I think there should be more focus on the procedure itself and in particular, its limitations. An important question I have is 'How many times can the same follicle be harvested and do these hairs maintain the same characteristics (diameter, texture) as before?'. One way or the other, I feel we need to get to the bottom of these issues so that we can all discuss the procedure on an even ground.
If we can answer these questions, and with the help of future patients (Iron_Man, gc83uk, tobban), I believe we eventually will be able to, it will be a huge development. First we will get a realistic view of the procedure. If there are major limitations/issues, prospective patients will have that understanding. If however it turns out to work as well as some believe, hairloss sufferers will have a new, more effective option and we can then work on making this a more mainstream option.
I'm sure there are some who may prefer for us to ignore the procedure, but I think that would a big disservice to anyone who has or is considering a hair transplant. Until we get answers on the procedure, I think we should continue to focus on it. Don't lose track of the bigger picture.
tl;dr
Comment