The Ironman Procedure

[Arashi]

I'm not saying that at all but a lot of people online are not convinced. Many of them are shills for other clinics, but many just want to see more documentation understandably.

But if they're not convinced after 4 other patient documentations, what makes you think they'll be convinced after the 5th ?

From my perspective, I'm curious to see what percentage of IM's donor regenerates and whether the regenerated hairs are 1, 2 or 3-hair follicular units. I don't believe he had a lot of failed extractions at all so I think the hair count will be fairly accurate.

I don't know. I just find it VERY suspicious that he's not willing to show us photo's for counting.

[gc83uk]

Iron man is busying hiding in his underground bunker trying to avoid the apocalypse right now. Profile fits.

[aim4hair]

So you're saying that you're still not convinced that 80-85% of the hairs grow back ? I stopped counting in my own case when I saw at least 50% of the hairs growing back after a few days. I figured, since I didn't know about the failed extraction issue it was kind of useless, since all this could be just failed extractions growing back ...

Then why didn't you document your case the way you are requesting IM to do now ?
I find it funny, since you are attacking IM and asking him to do something you yourself didn't do even though you just had your HST recently and you are the one who brought up the whole fail extraction concern....

If you think what IM is doing is useless, that's your opinion but most ppl don't agree. The only HST clear analysis available is GC83UK and many ppl claim that he is a special case and one analysis is not enough to be taken as a proof.

This thread had the potential to be the strongest HST analysis yet it turned to a racist talk about ww2, hitler, nazis, germany, netherlands, drugs, etc...

I hope the moderator of this forum deletes the racist posts and turn the thread back to its main topic which is IM procedure analysis.

[JJJJrS]

But if they're not convinced after 4 other patient documentations, what makes you think they'll be convinced after the 5th ?

Like I said earlier, only gc83uk has posted a hair count. Nobody else. The other cases do not even have a tenth of the detail of gc's case. I'm sure a lot of the reasonable posters would appreciate that level of documentation again.

Even for myself, I would like to see as much documentation as possible before committing to any procedure.



There's really no reason for IM to react like that and stop posting pictures.

The results of his analysis are very useful so it doesn't make sense to just stop now. I know he's doing the analysis on his own for himself but I really think he should continue to share the pictures.

[JJJJrS]

Then why didn't you document your case the way you are requesting IM to do now ?
I find it funny, since you are attacking IM and asking him to do something you yourself didn't do even though you just had your HST recently and you are the one who brought up the whole fail extraction concern....

If you think what IM is doing is useless, that's your opinion but most ppl don't agree. The only HST clear analysis available is GC83UK and many ppl claim that he is a special case and one analysis is not enough to be taken as a proof.

This thread had the potential to be the strongest HST analysis yet it turned to a racist talk about ww2, hitler, nazis, germany, netherlands, drugs, etc...

I hope the moderator of this forum deletes the racist posts and turn the thread back to its main topic which is IM procedure analysis.

Great post aim4hair!

[Arashi]

Then why didn't you document your case the way you are requesting IM to do now ?
I find it funny, since you are attacking IM and asking him to do something you yourself didn't do even though you just had your HST recently and you are the one who brought up the whole fail extraction concern....

Because nobody here or any other board ever mentioned the whole failed extraction aspect before. I emailed Kristel with a question after 1 week and then she told me about these failed extractions growing back first.

There's a good chance I'll be going back in september for my second procedure and if nobody has done it by then, I'll make sure to make tons of highres pictures, documenting both regrowth and total amount of extractions.

If you think what IM is doing is useless, that's your opinion but most ppl don't agree.

Sure, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I just don't see what pictures of regrowth tell us without pictures of the total amount of holes. Even if on one pictures the regrowth is 90%+, this still could mean that this just is an area with a bad drill/extraction ratio.

The only HST clear analysis available is GC83UK and many ppl claim that he is a special case and one analysis is not enough to be taken as a proof.

But the Tobian case, mine and C5000 all show regrowth, albeit not in exact numbers. But again, what do exact numbers tell us when we don't know anything about the drill amount ? Nothing ...

[Arashi]

Like I said earlier, only gc83uk has posted a hair count. Nobody else. The other cases do not even have a tenth of the detail of gc's case. I'm sure a lot of the reasonable posters would appreciate that level of documentation again.

Even for myself, I would like to see as much documentation as possible before committing to any procedure.



There's really no reason for IM to react like that and stop posting pictures.

The results of his analysis are very useful so it doesn't make sense to just stop now. I know he's doing the analysis on his own for himself but I really think he should continue to share the pictures.

Again, what does a high level of details mean if they only make out half of the equation ? It's like X+Y =Z. If you only know X, even at extremely high precision, what does that tell us about Y and Z ? Exactly nothing.

[topcat]

When you guys can count hairs in the donor region and hairs in the recipient region and they add up to more than the total before the procedure than you have hair multiplication. Has anyone provided this number that shows proof of concept?

[Arashi]

When you guys can count hairs in the donor region and hairs in the recipient region and they add up to more than the total before the procedure than you have hair multiplication. Has anyone provided this number that shows proof of concept?

Of course, we'd just need to know that indeed. And that's exactly what I've asked IM to supply. But he didn't want to do that from the start. He only wanted to supply 1 paramater in the equation, which is totally useless.

[JJJJrS]

When you guys can count hairs in the donor region and hairs in the recipient region and they add up to more than the total before the procedure than you have hair multiplication. Has anyone provided this number that shows proof of concept?

For a 1500 graft procedure, with approximately 2.5 hairs per graft, that would require us to count 7500 hairs. To do that, we'd have to map an entire patient's head using high-resolution photos. This would be very, very difficult to accomplish for a procedure of that scale. IM has already provided better documentation of his donor then any other patient I've ever seen online. I'm sure he would have posted the recipient area as well in time. So it's important to be reasonable with your request, especially when no one else has even remotely documented their case like that.

The most realistic way to fully verify HST is for someone to get a 50-100 graft procedure. The grafts taken from the donor and recipient all have to be localized within a marked area of reasonable size (5-10 cm^2). Then we can do a hair count before the procedure, after the extractions, and after the grafts have been given enough time to regenerate.

Topcat have you ever considered something like that? In the worst case, you get minimal scarring and can easily prove to the online community that no regeneration is occurring. In the best case, your grafts regenerate, and for a repair patient like yourself, you have verified the best possible procedure for yourself.

[JJJJrS]

Again, what does a high level of details mean if they only make out half of the equation ? It's like X+Y =Z. If you only know X, even at extremely high precision, what does that tell us about Y and Z ? Exactly nothing.

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.

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. You yourself could not post one good picture and your case provided no proof or insight into the HST procedure at all. So it's very easy to talk when you wasted your opportunity.

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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 ?