The Ironman Procedure

[gc83uk]

oh come on, relax a little.

I think these photos help to show IM has hardly any failed grafts if any at all (from the petri dish)

What I think Arashi is saying (correct me if I'm wrong)...Is 85% regrowth could just be the regrowth from the failed transactions, with 0% regrowth from the successful extractions.

I don't see how this could possibly be the case after a careful analysis of somebodies photos.

If we were to scan an area on Iron Mans photos.
Example 1:
Lets say for example we have 100 extraction sites and he has a ratio of 20:3 (so in effect 20 successful extractions out of a possible 23), exactly 85% success and over the days we also see 85% regrowth out of the 100 extraction sites, but I think your point is the 15 extraction sites were failed and therefore this leaves an 70% regrowth rate from the successful extractions and a further 100% regrowth from the failed extractions, which is why we come back to the overall average of 85%.

Is this what your getting at Arashi?

[JJJJrS]

The requirements to provide a 100% accurate regeneration and yield rate are very high. You would need to monitor every extraction point in the donor region and all implanted hairs in the recipient region. So in essence, you'll be counting thousands of hairs which requires a large, detailed mapping of Iron_Man's entire head. In my opinion, something like that is unreasonable to ask for.

Even for those who have had a traditional FUE and FUT procedure, it would be beneficial for these patient to monitor the yield of the transplanted hairs in the recipient area through a hair count. Yet no patient has ever presented such an analysis, presumably because of how tedious it would be.

From the pictures Iron_Man has supplied, both of the petri dish and from a rough estimate of the number of extraction points based on his donor picture, I don't think he's had much more than 1400 drilling points.

Let's assume however that the ratio of drilled to extracted hairs was 2:1, i.e., one out of every two hairs extracted is viable for implantation. Therefore, IM actually has 2800 drill points in his donor and 1400 grafts are implanted into the recipient area. The remaining 1400 grafts are transected hair follicles and we'll assume that every one of these hairs will regenerate in the donor.

Under the assumptions we can do hair count, of let's say 100 extraction points. Even if we get a 90% regeneration rate, that would imply that 80% of the implantable grafts regenerated, which is still totally remarkable when you consider that no other procedure offers anything but 0% regeneration.

[gc83uk]

The requirements to provide a 100% accurate regeneration and yield rate are very high. You would need to monitor every extraction point in the donor region and all implanted hairs in the recipient region. So in essence, you'll be counting thousands of hairs which requires a large, detailed mapping of Iron_Man's entire head. In my opinion, something like that is unreasonable to ask for.

Even for those who have had a traditional FUE and FUT procedure, it would be beneficial for these patient to monitor the yield of the transplanted hairs in the recipient area through a hair count. Yet no patient has ever presented such an analysis, presumably because of how tedious it would be.

From the pictures Iron_Man has supplied, both of the petri dish and from a rough estimate of the number of extraction points based on his donor picture, I don't think he's had much more than 1400 drilling points.

Let's assume however that the ratio of drilled to extracted hairs was 2:1, i.e., one out of every two hairs extracted is viable for implantation. Therefore, IM actually has 2800 drill points in his donor and 1400 grafts are implanted into the recipient area. The remaining 1400 grafts are transected hair follicles and we'll assume that every one of these hairs will regenerate in the donor.

Under the assumptions we can do hair count, of let's say 100 extraction points. Even if we get a 90% regeneration rate, that would imply that 80% of the implantable grafts regenerated, which is still totally remarkable when you consider that no other procedure offers anything but 0% regeneration.

I agree with most of that, but isn't a 2:1 ratio actually equal to: 2 successful extractions and 1 unsuccessful?

So in effect 1400 extractions on a 2:1 ratio is assuming 2100 total extractions with 1400 successful vs 700.

So lets imagine all 700 of these failed extractions grow back and we see from the photos that 85% of all the extractions (success&failed) grow back, this would imply 1785 out of 2100 extractions would show regrowth.
If we deduct the 700 failed from the overall 1785 then we have of course 1085 successful extractions which are showing regrowth from a possible 1400 = 77.5%

[JJJJrS]

i find it a bit strange that IM didnt ask about graft breakdown, normaly he is all about details

if 2.5 hairs per graft is an average, it means some guys get more than that,


the best way is to get someone who is willing to go for 50 graft test on slick bald area of scalp, think somebody from forum wanted to do test but Gho would let him

That would definately be final proof, and i would push Gho to give that person 40 3s and 10 doubles...monitor both recepient+donor


sound like a good idea?

If I understand correctly, I think you want this type of analysis in order to prove that Gho is not splitting multi-hair follicular units, right?

In general, I don't think a patient has to keep track of exactly how many 3-hair, 2-hair, and 1-hair follicular units have been transplanted in order to prove hair multiplication. Of course, this information is nice to know but it's not absolutely necessary.

If a patient takes a nice picture of the donor area before the procedure and continues to monitor it over the following days and weeks, until the hairs regenerate, then that is enough in my opinion. One can then compare the extraction points before and after the procedure and see exactly what the hairs looked like before the extraction and after regeneration. If the hairs are regenerating in the same configuration, then clearly there was no splitting. This is why I wish the before picture for IM was a little bit clearer.

Still, even without the before picture, we can get an impression of whether the grafts were split. For example, if Gho was splitting grafts, we would expect to see some hairs remaining in the extraction points and this is not the case at all.

The only other explanation is that Gho is somehow blindly splitting the follicles underneath the skin. For example, for a 2-hair graft, this implies that the needle is somehow taking both hair follicles at the surface, but only leaving the root of one of the hairs under the skin. I find something like that unlikely.

Nevertheless, if we see a lot of 2-hair and 3-hair follicular units in IM's recipient area and regenerating in his donor, and Gho was splitting hairs, this would imply that he is splitting a tremendous amount of 4 and 5 hair follicular units! which is impossible.


I think a hair count of say 100 extraction points, and a look at the recipient, will be more then enough to answer a lot of questions about the procedure. So far, gc83uk is the only person to present a hair count and in my opinion, Iron_Man's pictures are even more clearer.

IM has been extremely generous to share so many pictures and details so I think we should be very respectful of that. The documentation of the procedure is very important so let's not try to nitpick about things. If you have a reasonable request, share it now, but it's pointless to complain about things IM can't control.

[JJJJrS]

I agree with most of that, but isn't a 2:1 ratio actually equal to: 2 successful extractions and 1 unsuccessful?

What I meant is that for every 2 drills, 1 is successful. Or if you're looking at it from your point of view, this is the same as a 1:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions.

So in effect 1400 extractions on a 2:1 ratio is assuming 2100 total extractions with 1400 successful vs 700.

So lets imagine all 700 of these failed extractions grow back and we see from the photos that 85% of all the extractions (success&failed) grow back, this would imply 1785 out of 2100 extractions would show regrowth.
If we deduct the 700 failed from the overall 1785 then we have of course 1085 successful extractions which are showing regrowth from a possible 1400 = 77.5%

Working under your premise of a 2:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions, your math is exactly right.

As you can see, it makes a difference but not anywhere near enough to invalidate a hair count. In IM's case, I think it's clear that he had a fairly high success rate in drilling.

[534623]

(success&failed)

gc, come on, why do you think about this shit at all?

Didn't you notice that NO ASSHOLE OUT THERE (besides just this completely useless idiot) ever, again, EVER has reported such a COMPLETE SHIT?

None - out of far more than 5000 HST patients out there in the meanwhile - NONE! There is even a long thread on hairsite about this issue - none of interestingly many HST patients in this thread confirm the shit what he is trying to pretend. NONE.

Can you confirm what about this idiot is talking?
Can I confirm in the meanwhile what this idiot is talking?
Can his DOCTOR confirm what this idiot is talking about at all??

Didn't you notice, the this idiot always is trying to avoid simply asking HIS HST DOCTOR? No, IronMan should know and explain what happened - sure.

Did you EVER see, what this guy provided as "proof" for his claimed HST?
Oh, I can still see it on haarweb.nl - 3 tiny "pics" which show or prove zero, zilch, NADA!

[gc83uk]

I thought it was good to highlight what 2:1 actually meant because some others have made the same mistake.

But I agree completely, even somebody who has had 20:3 this is going to make hardly any difference.

Next, people will be saying the failed extractions don't grow back, which would just mean that the actual successful extractions would have to be over 100% to equal the overall 85% which is obviously impossible!

I think the important thing here though is Iron Mans petri dish is empty in the cross compartment, so 99% of the extractions I think we can safely assume are from successful extractions.

Moving along, have you been able to put any regrowth rates together from Iron Mans pictures or are you waiting a few more days?

[gc83uk]

gc, come on, why do you think about this shit at all?

Because failed extractions is real, hence the cross in the petri dish.

Didn't you notice that NO ASSHOLE OUT THERE (besides just this completely useless idiot) ever, again, EVER has reported such a COMPLETE SHIT?


None - out of far more than 5000 HST patients out there in the meanwhile - NONE! There is even a long thread on hairsite about this issue - none of interestingly many HST patients in this thread confirm the shit what he is trying to pretend. NONE.

That's not quite true, c5000 and needmorehairasap have touched on the possibility of the failed extractions, however I don't believe it to be a serious issue.

If you read carefully my goal here is to basically say even with failed extractions the maths clearly shows almost no difference.

[534623]

But I agree completely, even somebody who has had 20:3 this is going to make hardly any difference.

Exactly. Could you read what I explained ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=94628&postcount=138

... in this post?
Even there would be indeed such a worst case scenario, as pretended just by this idiot, even so, HST would still be a NO BRAINER for this patient!

I know guys who had FUE done by a really high skilled FUE doctor in Turkey (Dr. Keser). A young and VIRGIN patient reported, that even this doctor needed 4 full working days, just to get 2000 FUE grafts from this patient - 4 full working days just for 2000 FUE's from a VIRGIN guy!

I will try to find the link to this report ...

[JJJJrS]

I thought it was good to highlight what 2:1 actually meant because some others have made the same mistake.

But I agree completely, even somebody who has had 20:3 this is going to make hardly any difference.

The reason I used the 1:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions is because that was the worst case example I read on this forum from Arashi's and possibly c5000's procedures.

In IM's case, it doesn't look like he had 2800 extractions. Even if he did, it wouldn't invalidate the results of the hair count at all, as we both proved with the math. If we want it to be a little more credible, maybe you can monitor in a couple of spots on the donor but it's not a big deal imo.

Moving along, have you been able to put any regrowth rates together from Iron Mans pictures or are you waiting a few more days?

I'm waiting for the newest pictures and for the bandwidth on IM's FileDen account to increase. So nothing to report yet but I will definitely do a hair count and upload the results as soon as I see regeneration.

[gc83uk]

Exactly. Could you read what I explained ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=94628&postcount=138

... in this post?
Even there would be indeed such a worst case scenario, as pretended just by this idiot, even so, HST would still be a NO BRAINER for this patient!

I know guys who had FUE done by a really high skilled FUE doctor in Turkey (Dr. Keser). A young and VIRGIN patient reported, that even this doctor needed 4 full working days, just to get 2000 FUE grafts from this patient - 4 full working days just for 2000 FUE's from a VIRGIN guy!

I will try to find the link to this report ...

Well HST is indeed a nobrainer. I have just read your post that you linked to, I would go one better than what you said, people keep assuming that failed extractions mean they won't grow back, I believe it to be the complete opposite. Why can't we have 100% of regrowth in the failed areas and 85% regrowth in the success areas?

So if we are talking about 1:1, then this would be just 210 that wouldn't regrow out of a possible 2800.

This is my point!

[gc83uk]

I'm waiting for the newest pictures and for the bandwidth on IM's FileDen account to increase. So nothing to report yet but I will definitely do a hair count and upload the results as soon as I see regeneration.

Haha it won't be long until Iron Man is asking for donations to fund his bandwidth. Damn I should have just downloaded them!

[534623]

...people keep assuming that failed extractions mean they won't grow back ...

no no, you didn't get it - first he claimed everywhere, that ALL the early regrown hairs in the donor area "are just those regenerated hairs, which were actually just unsuccessful extractions" - oh, and that "his doctor confirmed him this via email". In other words, she comfirmed him, that her boss is not only fooling you and me, also the whole research community, because he is always talking about "regrowth after 1 week" - right?

Then, because of this, "the brand new story":
Namely, just the unsuccessful grafts regenerate indeed (so that patients like you and me think "great!" after 1 week), but instead of, the SUCCESSFUL extractions never grow back. THAT's what he is trying to pretend. But NO, he doesn't address this "intelligent thinking" TO HIS DOCTOR - ask YOU him why ... I already tried this several times ...

[gc83uk]

no no, you didn't get it - first he claimed everywhere, that ALL the early regrown hairs in the donor area "are just those regenerated hairs, which were actually just unsuccessful extractions" - oh, and that "his doctor confirmed him this via email". In other words, she comfirmed him, that her boss is not only fooling you and me, also the whole research community, because he is always talking about "regrowth after 1 week" - right?

Then, because of this, "the brand new story":
Namely, just the unsuccessful grafts regenerate indeed (so that patients like you and me think "great!" after 1 week), but instead of, the SUCCESSFUL extractions never grow back. THAT's what he is trying to pretend. But NO, he doesn't address this "intellgent thinking" TO HIS DOCTOR - ask YOU him why ... I already tried this several times ...

What the hell? Your right I don't get it. Simply because if I have 100 extractions in my sample area and ALL 100 are showing regrowth after 1 week (lets pretend), then these extractions according to Arashi are the failed extractions right?

If he is indeed saying that, then where exactly are my successful extractions sites? That just doesn't make sense.

I think he is confused because that email he received from one of the dr's suggested that some of the early regrowth could be failed extractions. I think that email was lost in translation. I'm also aware that on Gho's paper it clearly shows 'regrowth' after 1 week.

I think we're both preaching to the preached, but it still needs to be said.

[Arashi]

Oh, damn - I didn't see this post before I made my previous post. Hmmm, can't delete it anymore. But I'm able to delete YOU once and for all ...

It's simple:
All the other interested users will not see or hear something anymore about my procedure/details etc, until such a REAL useless idiot like you is banned from this site once and for all. Trust me, I wouldn't even have a problem, when the contrary would happen. Seriously ...

Hehe. It makes me wonder, when you knocked on the HASCI's door, did you yell "AUFMACHEN !! AUFMACHEN !!" ? I really can see you walking through amsterdam with your black boots and Swastika on your stretched right arm