The Ironman Procedure

[JJJJrS]

Ok, sure if you don't consider it proof, I'm sorry for you. I really don't see how you can miss the regrowth on the pictures. Maybe you should try to watch them on a monitor and not on your phone.

But, for what it's worth, I'm damn sure you DO see the regrowth and you are just trying to push IM to come back. With which I don't have any problem, but I'm telling you, this IS his LIFE, he will come back for sure. Then you can see regrowth and you will still wonder: are these just failed extractions or not ? But if that makes you happy, then it's all good.

Honestly, it's hard for me to see regrowth because I have no idea where the extraction points were made.

If you had taken a picture of that same area:

1. Before the procedure so we can see the untouched donor area
2. Right after the procedure so we can see exactly which hairs were extracted
3. After a number of days/weeks so we can see how the hairs regenerated and in what configuration

And kept the hairs short then an analysis of the regrowth would have been easy, especially with the marks you had which would have served as a nice reference point.

Based on what you showed though, I don't see much at all. Yes, it looks like some hairs are sprouting but that's about it. Not very objective at all though.

[gc83uk]

I decided to try and count the number of extractions in c5000 day 0 picture showing the left side and part of the back. I would say this accounts for approximately 1/3 of his donor area.

I counted approx 460 ish, cba recounting, but its about that I think. This doesn't prove much, but c5000 might be interested! I can post the original larger image if needed because on this version some of the hairs look like extractions. Best I could do though!

[Arashi]

Besides, we'll have the GC83UK case in 3 weeks with tons of pictures, including ones that IM never wants to release.

[Arashi]

And I don't agree with his decision.

But if you see that it's bothering him and it's discouraging him from posting his pictures, then why don't you just temporarily ignore him, especially now that your point has been very clearly made.

Otherwise you're acting no different than the same posters you hate

Again, I really don't care if he posts his pictures or not for the reasons I've outlined, they're useless IMHO if he doesn't supply ALL the info needed. But I don't see how I'm actually discouraging him to come back. I really couldn't care less.

[JJJJrS]

LOL. Again, it is HIS decision, not mine.

And I don't agree with his decision.

But if you see that it's bothering him and it's discouraging him from posting his pictures, then why don't you just temporarily ignore him, especially now that your point has been very clearly made.

Otherwise you're acting no different than the same posters you hate

[Arashi]

But, for what it's worth, I'm damn sure you DO see the regrowth and you are just trying to push IM to come back. With which I don't have any problem, but I'm telling you, this IS his LIFE, he will come back for sure. Then you can see regrowth and you will still wonder: are these just failed extractions or not ? But if that makes you happy, then it's all good.

[Arashi]

Sorry, but I don't see much in those pictures, glasses or no glasses.

I can't tell where the extraction points were made and without knowing the exact locations of the extractions, the pictures can't prove anything.

With gc83uk and IM's pictures, you can see exactly where the extraction points were and count each and every hair in that area.

In your case, the circles are all over the place. There is no consistency between the circles in both pictures. The hair is also too long and gets in the way of counting.

Sure, I can see what looks like some small hairs sprouting but it's not enough to be considered objective proof.

Ok, sure if you don't consider it proof, I'm sorry for you. I really don't see how you can miss the regrowth on the pictures. Maybe you should try to watch them on a monitor and not on your phone.

[JJJJrS]

Here's the link to my thread: http://www.haarweb.nl/forum/showthread.php?t=31602 Click on the pictures. Sure they're not high res and shot with a phone, but if you can't see the regrowth, sorry, but you'll need to get your eyes checked mate.

Sorry, but I don't see much in those pictures, glasses or no glasses.

I can't tell where the extraction points were made and without knowing the exact locations of the extractions, the pictures can't prove anything.

With gc83uk and IM's pictures, you can see exactly where the extraction points were and count each and every hair in that area.

In your case, the circles are all over the place. There is no consistency between the circles in both pictures. The hair is also too long and gets in the way of counting.

Sure, I can see what looks like some small hairs sprouting but it's not enough to be considered objective proof.

[Arashi]

But it seems that you're trying to discourage him from posting his pictures.

LOL. Again, it is HIS decision, not mine.

[JJJJrS]

Look JJJJrS, I understand you want to see IM's photo's for whatever reason (it's beyond me, but ok). But do understand that it is HIS decision not to come back (although I'm absolutely sure he WILL come back), not mine. If he wants to act like a little girl, that's up to him, not me.

I'm not defending his behaviour. It's pretty clear he's pissed off a tremendous number of people online over the years and that's understandable.

But it seems that you're trying to discourage him from posting his pictures. Obviously you have problems with him and I think you're trying to ruin his thread for whatever reasons.

There's no problems offering reasonable suggestions. I've asked him to mark points on his donor which he did. I was actually very pleasantly surprised how open he was about his procedure and how civil the discussion was going at the beginning and then it all went to shit.

You've made your point and we'll try to address it when doing the analysis. I'm not sure if he's going to post the pictures though. I'm sure he's analyzing it for himself, and he may post the results sometime in the future, but I'm not sure if he'll continue to update us.

[Arashi]

Here's the link to my thread: http://www.haarweb.nl/forum/showthread.php?t=31602 Click on the pictures. Sure they're not high res and shot with a phone, but if you can't see the regrowth, sorry, but you'll need to get your eyes checked mate.

[Arashi]

That would imply 5600 drills and extractions. Does it look like he has 5600 extraction points based on his pictures? Has any patient ever had 5600 extractions in a documented FUE procedure over one day? Cmon man, be realistic here.

Again, not sure why you don't believe me, but I'm telling you, I counted roughly 5000 drills in my case. Might be a bit less but no way it was below 4000.

Proving any multiplication or regrowth is a huge deal, so why try to downplay something like that.

And I'm all for that !! That's why I'm following this thread. IM has the potential to make a very solid case, but he wasn't willing to do this from the start.

How on earth can you count the number of extraction points without monitoring and mapping the entire donor area?

Again, I said that I'd have NO problem at all to do this for him.

Second of all, you can't prove regeneration by only showing the donor because people could argue that every spot or the vast majority were failed extractions.

BUT if the extraction points are really as low as IM claimed they were, then there's really no way to make that claim.

The only way you can absolute, irrefutable prove it is by marking the donor and recipient spots and counting the hairs in both spots.

It's possible that one section was just worse than the other regarding drill/extraction ratio. But if you monitor 3 different sections, all over the head, and they all add up to about the same level, then sure there COULD still be an element of luck but imho this would be neglectible. Just monitoring one spot though is way too risky.

Sorry, but with all due respect, your picture was among the worst I've seen. It shows absolutely nothing. The fact that you think it's proof of anything is laughable.

Did you even see the right picture ?

[JJJJrS]

But I showed you where your calculation was wrong. At 80% regrow this could still effectively mean you have only 20% real regrowth. Besides, to make it even worse, that's on *average*. The ratio is very different from different places. In my case it was more difficult to extract hairs from above the ears, because the angle there was flatter. So it's very well possible that even at 90% regrow, this is just a section with bad ratio and the *average* still could even be less than 20% regrowth.

That would imply 5600 drills and extractions. Does it look like he has 5600 extraction points based on his pictures? Has any patient ever had 5600 extractions in a documented FUE procedure over one day? Cmon man, be realistic here.

Proving any multiplication or regrowth is a huge deal, so why try to downplay something like that.

Sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. All you need is 3 places to monitor regrowth AND a total count of donor extractions.

No it seems that you don't really understand things at all.

How on earth can you count the number of extraction points without monitoring and mapping the entire donor area?

Second of all, you can't prove regeneration by only showing the donor because people could argue that every spot or the vast majority were failed extractions. The only way you can absolute, irrefutable prove it is by marking the donor and recipient spots and counting the hairs in both spots.

Define 'good' ? In my picture it was very easy to see that at least half of the hairs grew back after a few days. Again, a more specific number was useless because of the failed extraction issue.

Sorry, but with all due respect, your picture was among the worst I've seen. It shows absolutely nothing. The fact that you think it's proof of anything is laughable.

[Arashi]

Look JJJJrS, I understand you want to see IM's photo's for whatever reason (it's beyond me, but ok). But do understand that it is HIS decision not to come back (although I'm absolutely sure he WILL come back), not mine. If he wants to act like a little girl, that's up to him, not me.

[Arashi]

We're just arguing in circles now. You've made your point and everybody has acknowledged it. If you read my posts in this thread, you'll see that I've clearly shown that it's not as big of a problem as you are making it out.

But I showed you where your calculation was wrong. At 80% regrow this could still effectively mean you have only 20% real regrowth. Besides, to make it even worse, that's on *average*. The ratio is very different from different places. In my case it was more difficult to extract hairs from above the ears, because the angle there was flatter. So it's very well possible that even at 90% regrow, this is just a section with bad ratio and the *average* still could even be less than 20% real regrowth.

If you want a 100% accurate regeneration rate, the only way to accomplish this is by mapping the hairs on your entire head, donor and recipient, which is a ridiculous task for an average person.

Sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. All you need is 3 places to monitor regrowth AND a total count of donor extractions.

You yourself could not post one good picture

Define 'good' ? In my picture it was very easy to see that at least half of the hairs grew back after a few days. Again, a more specific number was useless, just as it is for IM if he doesn't post donor extractions, because of the failed extraction issue.

Instead of trying to spam the thread nonstop, let IM post his pictures and we can all make a judgement on our own.

Yeah sure, I'm the one spamming, you're not right ? If you keep posting false statements, I'm just going to correct them, deal with it. If you can't stand discussion, I'd suggest not to take part of internet forums.