HASCI - -How well does it work? Now we'll be able to find out!
The thing is, I've been seeing some hairs in the mirror this morning, which weren’t there a few days earlier hmm… You see, this week, a much-discussed dutch clinic decided to have me as their client. I had to pass up on the opportunity to take photos of my head, using a 2000€ camera, and light equipment to add up a total of 7 kilowatts (enough to burn the paint away from my wall!), some time before my visit to the clinic. Sample photos are provided through links. Eventually we will, when the new hairs have fully matured, be able to verify how many hairs exactly were multiplied.
Some info about the patient in the pictures ie. myself:
Subject: male
Age: Early 30s
Hair type: Brown, thick, slightly wavy
Previous hair transplants: No
Treatment in: Hair Science Institute, Maastricht, May 2015
Grafts obtained for transplant: ≈800
Recipient location: temples, exclusively. Not one graft was visibly transplanted into the center of the hairline. No grafts were transplanted in front of the widows peak.
Estimated area of donor used in the session: estimate of less than 50 % of the ”safe donor zone”.
You should all know about the very warm feeling I had toward the clinic and the way they handled my requests. There was no bullshit. The team was consummately dedicated to fulfill my highest expectations. Many ideas about graft placement came from the doctor, who even surpassed what I had in mind, and she made a lot of choices, where deliberate imperfections contribute to the natural look. I found her to be an extremely talented doctor. Now this is not a suspicious-looking Tom Cruise hairline.
I did not even once feel uncomfortable during the treatment, and probably even fell asleep at least once during the implantation process. The only discomfortable part was after the treatment was over - people in the streets, cars passing by. Everyone must be looking at the guy who just had some creepy stuff done on his head, so I though! But later on, it was just like ”Yeah, so what?”, and I didn’t feel unnormal when some guy chatted with me on the train on my way to the airport.
In the end, I have a good feeling about this treatment. If Hair Science can consistently make one hair out of two, then the full set of photos will prove it. Once my new hairs are fully grown out, the "after"-photos should leave no questions left unanswered.
This will be a very simple thread about numbers, numbers and numbers. Please don't slander, and please, pleeeeeaase, don’t jounce this thread completely off the track.
05-28-2015 02:16 AM
AlmostUndone
Here's a small set of examples. The pictures were taken 7 weeks before the procedure. There are around 500 usable photos in my vault, and I tried to take as many angles as possible, to get every single follicular unit from such an angle, that we can count how many hairs it has.
Some of these image files had to be split into 3-4 parts to be viewable in full quality. Some of the smallest hairs around the temples can only be seen in full quality. Oh, and don't forget to press "zoom in" on the browser.
awesome, you seem very wishing to make a good case out of yours.
Pics from further to have a generl feeling will be welcome too.
We need to see if donor regenerated and how is your recepient doing.
It's been three years now since my frist and only procedure, shared exactly the same feeling as you!!! It was soooo smooth, I got 1800 grafts, you see the final result after 9 months to a year.
You have a fair idea after 6...
The controversy around HASCI should not be the subject here as you insinuated, let's just focus and count.
A second procedure would bring me a strong front and I was hoping to go back for 1800 or even 2000 sharing 1000 in front (total would then be 2800) and the rest on the vertex which starts to thin seriously (I am 36).
Gaz is also an interesting element since he got 5 procedures.
I wish HASCI were sharing more pics, especially multiple sessions... but they don't.
I hope they will improve their technique (did you speak with them about the future of multiplication?)
Who was your doctor? Deborah? Kristel?
05-28-2015 07:20 AM
AlmostUndone
The camera lenses for the eventual "after" shots will be even bigger, better. Mark my word, this is going to be nowhere near the gargantuan task of analyzing gc83uk's photos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddarik79
I hope they will improve their technique (did you speak with them about the future of multiplication?)
No, all I wanted to know was how the DVD player skipped chapters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddarik79
Who was your doctor? Deborah? Kristel?
Deborah.
05-28-2015 12:46 PM
Arashi
Not sure I understand the reason for this topic ? We already know 100% certain HST doesn't regenerate anything at all. We've seen the close up photo's of the petridish: only 100% intact bulbs there, no split follicles like HASCI always tells. That proofed 100% beyond any doubt, that HST = FUE.
Apart from that, I think your idea is next to impossible. Your photo's are of good quality for sure. But 800 grafts is a LOT. You will need very good photo's immediately after the surgery so you can track which grafts were extracted. And then you need to compare it all to photo's next year. That's a HELL of a job. Not impossible but a hell of a job: find each extracted spot, see how many hairs are gone compared to the pre-op photo's, count it all and then do the same for recipient. And if that wasnt complicated enough in itself, the extra complication is in the fact that 10% of the hair is in its sleeping state. So next year, 10% of the current follicles will be gone and 10% follicles that slept now will be visible then. So 20% difference already just caused by that. That makes it extra hard to track hairs. And you dont seem to have much 'reference points' like moles, birthmarks, scars or things like that. So that makes tracking a lot harder.
All in all, almost impossible, especially for 800 grafts (instead of a 50 graft test), spread over your whole donor (which I assume was the case). Oh and also, it wont just be 800 grafts, most probably you will have way more extraction points than that, maybe even up to 1500 or more, depending on the skill of the technician and the difficultness for them to extrac them (your skin condition). So you'll need to track all that !
And why ? Again, we already know 100% certain it doesnt work. There's no doubt anymore. We know they extract the whole follicle, contrary to what they tell. So nothing left behind = nothing to regenerate. It really boils down to just that ! Stem cells are located inside the bulb. If you take the whole bulb away, nothing can regenerate. End of story, really.
05-28-2015 01:21 PM
NeedHairASAP
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
The camera lenses for the eventual "after" shots will be even bigger, better. Mark my word, this is going to be nowhere near the gargantuan task of analyzing gc83uk's photos.
No, all I wanted to know was how the DVD player skipped chapters.
Deborah.
I had Deborah. She is awesome.
I want to say she just just a "nurse" level when I saw her, but was studying to be a doc. It sounds like she has made that leap. Glad to hear it.
Thanks for posting. I will be watching for sure.
@Cad -- most of my hairs didn't even fall out! I had 80% of my final result right after post-op... this was why I was so pleased. The recovery did take a little longer than I thought (scabs, etc.). I probably couldn't walk around "unnoticed" for 14+ days.... of course this is still 100X better than the recovery time for FUT and 59X better than FUE recovery times.
My only complaint was the "angle" of the grafts. With long hair, it's not noticeable, but it may be when shaved (as in arashi's case)... I hope that they've corrected this angle issue in their processes/training.
05-29-2015 09:20 AM
AlmostUndone
I will take two sets of photos, spaced about 3-4 months apart, to get a verdict as accurate as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
You will need very good photo's immediately after the surgery so you can track which grafts were extracted.
And you dont seem to have much 'reference points' like moles, birthmarks, scars or things like that. So that makes tracking a lot harder.
I have already done most of the work of connecting photographed areas, using my own reference points. Such as this. (Not one of the better quality photos for sure, but take a look)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
All in all, almost impossible, especially for 800 grafts (instead of a 50 graft test), spread over your whole donor (which I assume was the case)
I thought g83uk's was impossible, for the reason alone, that he had the extractions spread all over his whole donor. In addition to that, he them spread all over his recipient. You only have to look at the temples in my recipient photos. And the photo, which I just provided of the extraction point, represents almost half of my used donor area. This is the back of my head just hours after surgery.
Wow your photo's are indeed good ! And your donor seems about perfect. Well still tons of work but I guess with those kind of photo's it's doable ! On the one hand I think it's kind of useless, cause we've seen the petridish photo's, we know already it doesnt work. On the other hand, some people here still seem to have some believe in HASCI. But then again, if the petridish photo's doesnt convince them, why would your case ?
Nevertheless, good luck mate !
05-29-2015 01:50 PM
AlmostUndone
@ Arashi
Whatever evidence you got, my opinion is that people need something more "tangible". I need something more "tangible".
It's tons of work, for me. The rest of you're in for the easy part. There are marker lines all over the scalp in my "before" photos. There are also added markers, which I made in a paint program. I took great effort to secure the continuity of the photos. And I'm hoping to throw big money on massive camera lenses for the "after"-photos to capture all the hairs on my head with a minimal amount of pictures. Just relax.
(Hmm... Some of the sample pictures I posted are relatively weak in quality. I probably have somewhere around 500 pictures, so I didn't always have time to pick the best ones for display.)
05-29-2015 04:01 PM
NeedHairASAP
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
@ Arashi
Whatever evidence you got, my opinion is that people need something more "tangible". I need something more "tangible".
It's tons of work, for me. The rest of you're in for the easy part. There are marker lines all over the scalp in my "before" photos. There are also added markers, which I made in a paint program. I took great effort to secure the continuity of the photos. And I'm hoping to throw big money on massive camera lenses for the "after"-photos to capture all the hairs on my head with a minimal amount of pictures. Just relax.
(Hmm... Some of the sample pictures I posted are relatively weak in quality. I probably have somewhere around 500 pictures, so I didn't always have time to pick the best ones for display.)
arashi's evidence is pretty poor thb
I look forward to your analysis
05-29-2015 09:40 PM
jamesst11
Nice post and awesome photos!! I haven't fully researched HASCI, but I do have a question if I may ask... Throughout this procedure, it is expected that the donor will grow back? How exactly is this possible if the entire hair bulb is removed? Are they trying to leave just enough behind in assumption that the stem cells will proliferate into a new, functional follicle?
05-30-2015 08:09 AM
NeedHairASAP
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesst11
Nice post and awesome photos!! I haven't fully researched HASCI, but I do have a question if I may ask... Throughout this procedure, it is expected that the donor will grow back? How exactly is this possible if the entire hair bulb is removed? Are they trying to leave just enough behind in assumption that the stem cells will proliferate into a new, functional follicle?
yes this is right
to clarify my last comment.... I am somewhat skeptical of gho--- so arashi may be right. However, arashi's website does not provide a strong argument.
Thus, I really look forward to this analysis. thanks again.
05-30-2015 11:42 AM
AlmostUndone
I'm busy matching the extraction holes to the "before" pictures, for curiosity's sake. We'll take a look at the regrowth later. I won't be shaving my donor again, as long as there is still redness and gaps.
05-30-2015 01:09 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedHairASAP
yes this is right
to clarify my last comment.... I am somewhat skeptical of gho--- so arashi may be right. However, arashi's website does not provide a strong argument.
Thus, I really look forward to this analysis. thanks again.
He asked you a very simple question: how can a follicle regenerate if the follicle is fully extracted ? This simple question has a very simple answer: it can't.
In their thesis, HASCI pointed out:
Quote:
"The aim of the extraction is to remove only a part of the follicle unit, containing follicle and connective tissue from several hair follicles, and leave sufficient follicle unit tissue behind to regenerate hairs"
Then they even say:
Quote:
"We illustrate the difference between a complete follicular unit (Figure 3A1) and a partial longitudinal follicular unit (suitable grafts) (Figure 3B1)
Where we clearly see that in the completely intact follicalr unit, the bulbs are completely in tact. In the figure B1 we see what they claim to do, a follicle where parts of the bulbs (containing stem cells) are left behind.
In the petridish photo's we saw complete intact bulbs (see my website). So really, how is this all possible NeedhairASAP ? Tell me, how is this not 100% proof that it doesnt work ? If they claim that they need to leave a part behind to regenerate a new follicle and then just take a away the whole follice then how exactly should we see a new follicle appear ?
05-30-2015 05:11 PM
joachim
i still don't get it how people still believe in hasci and dr. gho.
arashi has put so much effort into the whole hasci topic. he clearly proofed they are cheating for more than a decade now. go back to all the recent topics where we discussed about hasci on many pages. you will find the evidence yourself.
hasci is a scam and one day the truth will get public.
05-30-2015 05:19 PM
joachim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
He asked you a very simple question: how can a follicle regenerate if the follicle is fully extracted ? This simple question has a very simple answer: it can't.
Where we clearly see that in the completely intact follicalr unit, the bulbs are completely in tact. In the figure B1 we see what they claim to do, a follicle where parts of the bulbs (containing stem cells) are left behind.
In the petridish photo's we saw complete intact bulbs (see my website). So really, how is this all possible NeedhairASAP ? Tell me, how is this not 100% proof that it doesnt work ? If they claim that they need to leave a part behind to regenerate a new follicle and then just take a away the whole follice then how exactly should we see a new follicle appear ?
hey arashi, i had a thought. do you know the BBC documentary series? if not, check it on youtube. some of their documentaries are very good and investigative. they have the courage to reveal such scams. what do you think? wouldn't it be good to pitch them the whole story so that they can investigate that stuff and draw an objective conclusion?
06-01-2015 03:08 AM
caddarik79
Guyz please, let's not deviate as asked by Almostundone.
He is willing to give us another well illustrated case, let's not re-enter in the debate we had so many times.
You are not trolling anything, but we have a thousand posts where you freely demonstrated your points.
Let's just reset here, and try again.
An intervention of Gaz would be more than welcome to.
I know Arashi has done a lot of work and I am not saying that it does not matter. But let's not be redundant. New page, let's see what Almostundone brings here without presuming or arguing.
Gaz, if you read me, are you planning a sixth one? could you upload some pics of your donor and recipient piost 5 HST?
See you guyz
06-01-2015 05:58 AM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddarik79
An intervention of Gaz would be more than welcome to.
It would certainly be nice to see Gc's result. But it surely wouldn't proof anything at all. Like I showed, the average person could have 6 times a 1600 HST transplant without getting to donor depletion. Sure, GC's donor was below average but he did get into donor depletion after the 4th HST already. I know you have a different opinion on that, you thought his donor still looked good after 4 times. But that's of course the key here. It can never proof anything beyond doubt cause we don't know exactly how many hairs he had to begin with and we don't know how many hairs he's ending up with, unless we count them all. But since we don't know his begin situation, even counting them all won't yield any valid conclusion.
Quote:
I know Arashi has done a lot of work and I am not saying that it does not matter.
It's 100% proof HASCI does not work, simple as that. They claim to leave part of the follicle behind and that part is supposed to regenerate into a new follicle. I showed you that's false and that they take the WHOLE follicle away. Nothing to regenerate, so it's just a FUE. So that's all you need to know. Really, it boils down to that. I'm not sure why some people seem to have such a hard time accepting that.
But yeah of course a case like this will be interesting to follow. The photo's he shot are the best we've ever seen. Yet even on these kind of photo's it's going to be extremely hard to do an analysis, mostly caused by the 20% difference in follicle positions now and next year, ONLY caused bye the dormant follicles already.
06-01-2015 12:06 PM
AlmostUndone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
But yeah of course a case like this will be interesting to follow. The photo's he shot are the best we've ever seen. Yet even on these kind of photo's it's going to be extremely hard to do an analysis, mostly caused by the 20% difference in follicle positions now and next year, ONLY caused bye the dormant follicles already.
Hey, correct me if I'm wrong but the difference in follicle positions when shooting "before" and "after" photos would be somewhere between 0-20%, not 20% like you say. The probability of a 0% difference is equal to the probability of 20%, and the probability of anything in between.
So is 20% the percentage of unseen hairs or hair follicles in the resting phase? Jus' wondering, how many weeks throughout the resting phase do hairclubs still stay latched to the skin? Either way, I might as well shoot two sets of "after" photos, and I'd say we'll get very close to home. Just need to keep all this counting from getting too impractical.
06-01-2015 01:20 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
Hey, correct me if I'm wrong but the difference in follicle positions when shooting "before" and "after" photos would be somewhere between 0-20%, not 20% like you say. The probability of a 0% difference is equal to the probability of 20%, and the probability of anything in between.
So is 20% the percentage of unseen hairs or hair follicles in the resting phase? Jus' wondering, how many weeks throughout the resting phase do hairclubs still stay latched to the skin? Either way, I might as well shoot two sets of "after" photos, and I'd say we'll get very close to home. Just need to keep all this counting from getting too impractical.
Here they state that Anagen is 2-6 years. Quite a variance, but let's go with the mean, 4 years. Telogen state is noted to be 1-4 months, let's go with the mean again, 2.5 months. So on average that would then be 2.5/48= 5% in Telogen state. So that then would be a 10% difference and not 20%. However other sources, when you google, talk about 10-20% in telogen state, I guess that's really varies per person and really boils than: is your hair 2, 4 or 6 year in Anagen ?
Either way, it really complicates the research. You're going to wonder: was this follicle here before, was it extracted or is this just a follicle that was in the resting state ?
Regardless, I'd love for you to do this and compare this, would be really cool to see !
06-01-2015 04:00 PM
AlmostUndone
It takes quite a while for the hair to shed, after the anagen phase has terminated. So when taking photos, the amount of missing hairs should not be quite as high as 10%, and certainly not 20%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
Regardless, I'd love for you to do this and compare this, would be really cool to see !
I will ! Hoping to have a representation of all the extraction points in the following, weeks, maybe? You were right, it's tons of work.
06-01-2015 04:56 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
It takes quite a while for the hair to shed, after the anagen phase has terminated. So when taking photos, the amount of missing hairs should not be quite as high as 10%, and certainly not 20%.
If 5% is dormant now and in 1 year, when you will do the comparison, another 5% is dormant, thats 10% difference. And that's only the mean, it might be 10+10=20% if your hair spends 2 years instead of 6 years in Anagen.
06-01-2015 06:24 PM
AlmostUndone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
If 5% is dormant now and in 1 year, when you will do the comparison, another 5% is dormant, thats 10% difference. And that's only the mean, it might be 10+10=20% if your hair spends 2 years instead of 6 years in Anagen.
Oh yeah... sorry, I was thinking about something else. Must sleep.
06-03-2015 02:55 AM
ss1980
This has been debunked long time ago, its done and dusted.
Dean S ended up transplanting body hair due to depleted donor? It sums it up
06-03-2015 03:21 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss1980
This has been debunked long time ago, its done and dusted.
Dean S ended up transplanting body hair due to depleted donor? It sums it up
LOL yeah after 3 (free) HST's he went to a FUE clinic, who told him his donor was too depleted to do FUE. So they did a body hair transplant. After 3 HST's !! LOL
06-03-2015 05:29 PM
gc83uk
Congrats AlmostUndone.
Photos are perfect and I agree it should be easier that it ever was in my case to get a more accurate analysis.
Looking forward to seeing some early analysis showing how many total hairs have been extracted would be a good start out of those 800 FU's?
Good luck
06-05-2015 02:19 AM
caddarik79
Hey Gaz,
How is life? husband and dad, quite another game.
What about your result and update?
And please, tell us straight if you don't want to contribute anymore, so that we don't bother you in different threads asking for updates (and then at least, it's clear for every one and none of us wait and hope for it).
I was really following you case with big interest, found your result very convincing.
Cheers.
06-05-2015 07:47 AM
AlmostUndone
---EDIT: Photo software issues. Problem fixed---
06-05-2015 12:30 PM
Arashi
So how is it going AlmostUndone ? I was just thinking, previously I was talking about a year. That's the term that usually is used for a transplant. It's the time that the transplanted hairs in the *recipient* need to go through the cycle of shedding and regrowing. However I just thought of something. In their thesis, when talking about regrowth in the *donor* hasci isnt talking about a year, they're talking about 1 week to 1 months ! If you see picture 6a - 6d in their thesis, you see that most of the "supposed" regrowth happens in 9 days (!!) already and after a month every hair has 'regrown' in the donor. So, we dont have to wait a year, in 3 weeks we can do the final analysis already !!
As you can see, I haven't worked on the extraction holes any more than necessary in order to just get this idea, about how the photos oughta be used, - which ones, where, how much. And it's possible those extraction holes aren't 100% accurate. The red borders which split the images, however, should be very specific and hopefully very accurate, too.
Hmm, there are still a few better quality images, which I have not yet used, and which I would like to use.... But I need a big break right now! It's already taken much time and energy drinks to split the donor area into this many parts so far. (There's also an example there, I think on the right part of the donor, of how even a poor quality image may sometimes be useful only due to fact that it was shot from a completely another perspective. I saved a lot of poor quality images, as well.)
06-08-2015 09:12 PM
AlmostUndone
I am quite certain there is one piece missing from the file "right part", but ya know..... lots of things to keep track of.
06-17-2015 06:25 AM
Arashi
How is it going ? In one week you're at your 1 month point, right ? Most hair in donor should have grown back by then, according to HASCI, so we can do the analysis soon !
06-18-2015 03:51 PM
AlmostUndone
Arashi, it's way too early for the clippers; the skin of the donor is now somewhat "shiny" (still depigmented?) compared to the surrounding surfaces, and the hair may still look 'patchy'. Please understand, at this time there are eyes on me every day.
I think there is still some regrowth occurring. Sorry I don't have very fresh pictures, but here are some earlier ones:
By the way Arashi, did you look at the donor area photography? You see, I kept going through the material, and discovered many wonderful "before" -photos, which hadn't caught my attention earlier on. Photos which will be useful in getting a sharper view on a lot of the hairs. I'm pretty far ahead on sewing the photos together. Improvement suggestions are always welcome.
I have a very important question: Which image viewing software did you use for the photos?
06-19-2015 12:09 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
By the way Arashi, did you look at the donor area photography? You see, I kept going through the material, and discovered many wonderful "before" -photos, which hadn't caught my attention earlier on. Photos which will be useful in getting a sharper view on a lot of the hairs. I'm pretty far ahead on sewing the photos together. Improvement suggestions are always welcome.
I have a very important question: Which image viewing software did you use for the photos?
Well if you feel 1 month is too soon, you could do the analysis at 3 months. HASCI did do it too at 3 months. But they showed a photo for 1 month and most hair had 'regrown' (LOL) then.
About image viewing tool, I just used the normal windows tools (paint, image viewer). And I think I used some tool to rotate pics, not sure what it was called, I think it was 'irfanview"
06-20-2015 12:49 AM
AlmostUndone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
Well if you feel 1 month is too soon, you could do the analysis at 3 months. HASCI did do it too at 3 months. But they showed a photo for 1 month and most hair had 'regrown' (LOL) then.
Either way, in the study paper ("Donor hair follicle preservation by partial follicular unit extraction") there was no definite statement about how much hair had regenerated after 1 month. I'll see if hairs have grown thick enough that I can photograph them at 3 or 4 months; my current camera (the one I used for shooting the extraction points) is nowhere as good as the one I'm going to rent for documenting the final result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
About image viewing tool, I just used the normal windows tools (paint, image viewer.
Of course you did! Which is what you shouldn't use. Look at the comparison below. The first picture version is how the graphics look in the Mac OS viewer, Google's Picasa viewer, Photoshop, Gimp, and probably in all browsers as well. The second version is how it looks in Windows Photo Viewer / Photo Gallery.
(I'd bet this happens because of antialiasing. All photoviewers have antialiasing methods for making the picture look pleasant, when you zoom out. This antialiasing is not supposed to be there in a zoomed in image, but the Windows photo viewing software applies it indiscriminately. Or there might be some compression error in Windows.)
06-20-2015 02:29 PM
Arashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostUndone
Either way, in the study paper ("Donor hair follicle preservation by partial follicular unit extraction") there was no definite statement about how much hair had regenerated after 1 month. I'll see if hairs have grown thick enough that I can photograph them at 3 or 4 months; my current camera (the one I used for shooting the extraction points) is nowhere as good as the one I'm going to rent for documenting the final result.
Of course you did! Which is what you shouldn't use. Look at the comparison below. The first picture version is how the graphics look in the Mac OS viewer, Google's Picasa viewer, Photoshop, Gimp, and probably in all browsers as well. The second version is how it looks in Windows Photo Viewer / Photo Gallery.
(I'd bet this happens because of antialiasing. All photoviewers have antialiasing methods for making the picture look pleasant, when you zoom out. This antialiasing is not supposed to be there in a zoomed in image, but the Windows photo viewing software applies it indiscriminately. Or there might be some compression error in Windows.)
Hey, nice find, without anti aliasing it indeed looks a bit clearer, should make the analysis a bit easier ! Yeah I think the 3 month mark is the best to go for, cause they mention the results specifically for 3 months. So 2 more months. Yet you could do the analysis of the surgery already, research on how many hairs were extracted exactly
07-15-2015 07:43 AM
Arashi
Hey Almostundone, next week you're at 2 months I think ? Did you do the initial analysis already (comparing pre surgery to post surgery) ?
07-16-2015 08:36 AM
AlmostUndone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arashi
Hey Almostundone, next week you're at 2 months I think ? Did you do the initial analysis already (comparing pre surgery to post surgery) ?
Almost 2 months, yeah! Donor looks maybe a bit thicker than it did one month ago. Sorry, but you're gonna have to wait to September. Right now I have very, very much work. I might bring you the pre-op material sooner, but looks like whatever time-off I have goes into traveling etc. etc.
