The Ironman Procedure

[534623]

After all the photos you've asked me to do, which I did. Don't be so sensitive man.

I hereby declare, that we both do NOT work anymore "under 1 hat". That means, I do not need your photos anymore - to fake them thereafter.

Yes, it is true. It wasn't that difficult to paint some hairs (not too much, so that nobody become suspicious) onto all the FUE dots. I wonder myself, why still nobody noticed all this. I must be better than I thought ...

[Arashi]

Only if his regrowth number is REALLY high, like 95-100%, then we wouldn't even need to see the actual puncture number. But below 90% the real regrowth number possibly drops very steeply.

[gc83uk]

This is ridiculous.

IM, please reconsider and continue to post your pictures. I've saved your original photos so there's nothing lost.

IM I also think you know very well that some people would be very happy if you don't post your pictures and document your procedure. Please don't let them succeed and discourage you from posting your pictures. Thousands of people are interested and it would be a great service to all of us.

Arashi do you really have to continue arguing with IM? I know you two can't get along but can you please, at least out of respect for the other forum posters on here, not argue in this thread?

I have to second this. I've got some decent day 5 pics lol for what its worth.

Get your act together mate, your probably just pulling our legs.

[Arashi]

Besides, if he doesn't want to post all data, what's the use ? Like in my example, even 80% regrowth might mean only 20% real regrowth.

[Arashi]

Arashi do you really have to continue arguing with IM? I know you two can't get along but can you please, at least out of respect for the other forum posters on here, not argue in this thread?

Don't know about that. It's just a lot of fun with this freak.

[JJJJrS]

This is ridiculous.

IM, please reconsider and continue to post your pictures. I've saved your original photos so there's nothing lost.

IM I also think you know very well that some people would be very happy if you don't post your pictures and document your procedure. Please don't let them succeed and discourage you from posting your pictures. Thousands of people are interested and it would be a great service to all of us.

Arashi do you really have to continue arguing with IM? I know you two can't get along but can you please, at least out of respect for the other forum posters on here, not argue in this thread?

[gc83uk]

In fact, a few hours ago, I deleted everything - I mean EVERYTHING, not just my own photos.
Even if someone has downloaded a few photos/pics - U S E L E S S.

I mean, can't you guys read?


Right, what does it mean. That's the point. Again, I have just HST beamed back in the stone age - was pretty easy and fast. So where is the proof for anything? I don't know. I mean, seriously, what part of this ...


... don't you really annoying losers understand?

WTF, quit being a girl.

Just because you and Arashi haven't seen eye to eye, why have you got to throw all your toys out of the pram?

After all the photos you've asked me to do, which I did. Don't be so sensitive man.

[Arashi]

In fact, a few hours ago, I deleted everything - I mean EVERYTHING, not just my own photos.

Please don't delete your own account. It would get boring in here if I can't insult your ugly head anymore.

[Arashi]

I went over the value of doing an analysis in this post and this post.

To summarize, if IM had a 1:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions, a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 80% regeneration for the successful extractions, assuming all unsuccessful extractions regenerate in the donor.

I'll add another example to make it more clear. Let's go a step worse and say Iron_Man had a 2:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions. Then a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 70% regeneration for the successful extractions.

Now, let's make it the worst case scenario and assume Iron_Man had a 3:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions. Then a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 60% regeneration for the successful extractions. You can change the ratio and follow the pattern.

In my opinion, from the pictures IM has provided of his donor and the petri dish, it's pretty clear that he didn't have more than 2800 drills. Even if he did, the results of the hair count are still very valueable because no other procedure offers anything better then 0% regeneration. Proving hair multiplication is a huge thing! This is the first time in human history something like that is happening. So far gc83uk was the only person who did a hair count, so this is very worthwhile.

Now, we won't know exactly the regeneration rate, but we'll still get a general idea. I don't think it's fair to ask IM to take pictures of his whole donor. Maybe a few different spots but it's hard enough taking nice, consistent photos of just one area and not the entire hear. People will also want to see the recipient and a hair count there. And then possible the before picture so the requests can become very unreasonable.

My point is, Schweinhund has all the data to present a REAL STRONG case. But he's not willing to do that and keeps important data out of his case. That's just a big shame in my opinion.

[534623]

He's already posted the initial photos though, stupidly I didn't download them. jjrs have you got the originals which you edited with a marked zone?

In fact, a few hours ago, I deleted everything - I mean EVERYTHING, not just my own photos.
Even if someone has downloaded a few photos/pics - U S E L E S S.

I mean, can't you guys read?

I'm sure he has regrowth by now, otherwise i would be really worried. But without knowing the amount of drilled extractions, what does it mean ?

Right, what does it mean. That's the point. Again, I have just HST beamed back in the stone age - was pretty easy and fast. So where is the proof for anything? I don't know. I mean, seriously, what part of this ...

To the annoying skeptics;

If I were to get Gho's HST procedure, what the f**k makes any of you think i'd shave my head just to satisfy you losers when I've spent thousands of dollars to ENJOY having hair?

Quit bitching, shut up and get the procedure yourself if your that desperate for an answer that satisfies your curiosity.

... don't you really annoying losers understand?

[Arashi]

.
Now, let's make it the worst case scenario and assume Iron_Man had a 3:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions. Then a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 70% regeneration for the successful extractions. You can change the ratio and follow the pattern.

Worst case scenario would of course not be 90% regeneration but 80%. But even if you went with 90% regeneration: 4000 hairs extracted, 1000 succesful, 3600 regenerated, means 600 out of 1000 is only 60%. And that's at the 90% rate, at 80% rate it's a lot worse (20% real generation)

[JJJJrS]

He's already posted the initial photos though, stupidly I didn't download them. jjrs have you got the originals which you edited with a marked zone?

His fileden account has exceeded its bandwidth, so I'm not sure that criticism is fair.

I saved them but I haven't marked an area yet. As soon as I get the newest pictures I will though. I'm going to try to count the maximum possible points from the before and after pictures.

I think IM should just create a second account and post them there.

[gc83uk]

Iron Man has all these photos for sure. Iron man could you please upload them somewhere?

It's probably possible to count all of c5000's extractions, have you tried this Arashi? I might have a go now.

[JJJJrS]

I'm sure he has regrowth by now, otherwise i would be really worried. But without knowing the amount of drilled extractions, what does it mean ?

I went over the value of doing an analysis in this post and this post.

To summarize, if IM had a 1:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions, a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 80% regeneration for the successful extractions, assuming all unsuccessful extractions regenerate in the donor.

I'll add another example to make it more clear. Let's go a step worse and say Iron_Man had a 2:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions. Then a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 70% regeneration for the successful extractions.

Now, let's make it the worst case scenario and assume Iron_Man had a 3:1 ratio of successful to unsuccessful extractions. Then a 90% regeneration rate would correspond with 60% regeneration for the successful extractions. You can change the ratio and follow the pattern.

In my opinion, from the pictures IM has provided of his donor and the petri dish, it's pretty clear that he didn't have more than 2800 drills. Even if he did, the results of the hair count are still very valueable because no other procedure offers anything better then 0% regeneration. Proving hair multiplication is a huge thing! This is the first time in human history something like that is happening. So far gc83uk was the only person who did a hair count, so this is very worthwhile.

Now, we won't know exactly the regeneration rate, but we'll still get a general idea. I don't think it's fair to ask IM to take pictures of his whole donor. Maybe a few different spots but it's hard enough taking nice, consistent photos of just one area and not the entire hear. People will also want to see the recipient and a hair count there. And then possible the before picture so the requests can become very unreasonable.

[Arashi]

I'll tell you one thing for a fact. If 100% of the extractions in a sample area are showing regrowth, then that'll mean success and failures have shown 100% regeneration in this particular area.

You could argue that one sample area is not enough, but one sample area from each person showing the same results is enough.

Sure, if he has 100% regeneration in 3 area's, then he won't need to show me any pictures of donor holes. But I'm sure he'll end up in that 80-85% ballpark. And in that case, we'll just have to take his word for it ? For the 1500 holes ? Why even post pictures in the first place then and why not instead just tell us: I have 85% regrowth ? Effectively it's exactly the same thing, because in both cases, we just have to take his word for it.