GCs donor pic 24 days after 3000 grafts-donor density

[JJJJrS]

it simply does not look like 80% regeneration

didi, your picture is hard to compare because one part is curved like Arashi said. Still, there is no doubt that 80% of the extraction points regenerated hairs. Sometimes the hairs are thinner than before but they're regenerating from the extraction points.

This is the whole reason I did the analysis. The very same area that you're talking about has already been analysed so you can see exactly what was there before the procedure and what was there after.

From the donor side, the analysis I did gives you the complete picture from gc. Rather than isolating a small area with no context, it would be more productive to point out anything in the analysis that you have questions about or disagree with. I'm very confident in the accuracy of it though.

If you want the most complete story, you have to include the recipient and document a 50 graft test.

[clarence]

I'm no dr nigam when it comes to photoshopping, but here goes....

[didi]

I agree with JJJJrs analysis but if you do look at pic you will clearly see area on the left is just not as dense as area to the right,

Why nobody likes to acknowledge that fact?

Thing is when you take 3000 grafts over such a small area with 20% complete loss+30% partial loss...it will look depleted...and it does,

How come IM cant see that, normally hes got good eye when it comes to strips and FUEs but prefers to wear rosy glasses when it comes to HST

[534623]

How come IM cant see that, normally hes got good eye when it comes to strips and FUEs but prefers to wear rosy glasses when it comes to HST

That's easy to explain pipi, because I simply focus on the REGENERATION RATE in general - because that's everything what counts. Even if there would be just a clear visible regeneration rate of 20% identical grafts - it would be still better (NO REAL BIG SCARRING aside) than ZERO ZILCH NADA! With normal FUE, I know in advance that I will get exactly this - namely, zero zilch nada.

ops, I forgot I'm talking to pipi - so I have to start from scatch: 1+1= ...

[JJJJrS]

I agree with JJJJrs analysis but if you do look at pic you will clearly see area on the left is just not as dense as area to the right,

Why nobody likes to acknowledge that fact?

Thing is when you take 3000 grafts over such a small area with 20% complete loss+30% partial loss...it will look depleted...and it does,

gc's density is below average to begin with and you can see that in his early pictures from the 2nd procedure. That's why counting his hairs is relatively easy compared to some other cases or why other surgeons told him he could only extract 2500 grafts. In this case, any loss of density will be more easily noticeable.

In the end, I think the numbers speak for themselves - 20% of his extracted grafts were lost and another 30% are now thinner. I was the one that brought these numbers up but if you really want to provide context to them, than you have to include the recipient in the analysis. This is why I think analysing a 50-graft test procedure is the most important step going forward.

But I think Iron_Man brought up a good point. Imagine if every one of these extraction points were now hairless, or even worse, white dots. In other words, picture every single blue circle or green dot in my analysis as a white dot. This, more than anything else, illustrates the limitations of traditional hair transplants. IM has brought this point up often but the safe zone of the donor area is much smaller than most hair transplant surgeons let on. This is why, in my opinion, traditional hair transplants are a dead-end for most people, and especially why we need to push for new treatments which expand the donor and minimize scarring.

[hellouser]

gc's density is below average to begin with and you can see that in his early pictures from the 2nd procedure. That's why counting his hairs is relatively easy compared to some other cases or why other surgeons told him he could only extract 2500 grafts. In this case, any loss of density will be more easily noticeable.

In the end, I think the numbers speak for themselves - 20% of his extracted grafts were lost and another 30% are now thinner. I was the one that brought these numbers up but if you really want to provide context to them, than you have to include the recipient in the analysis. This is why I think analysing a 50-graft test procedure is the most important step going forward.

But I think Iron_Man brought up a good point. Imagine if every one of these extraction points were now hairless, or even worse, white dots. In other words, picture every single blue circle or green dot in my analysis as a white dot. This, more than anything else, illustrates the limitations of traditional hair transplants. IM has brought this point up often but the safe zone of the donor area is much smaller than most hair transplant surgeons let on. This is why, in my opinion, traditional hair transplants are a dead-end for most people, and especially why we need to push for new treatments which expand the donor and minimize scarring.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that everyones hair will regenerate differently? Some may lose 20% others may lose on 10%? Or perhaps some will grow hair just as thick in the recipient area as the donor?

No two people are alike so I'm going to say it should be safe to assume not every post-op case for regeneration and regrowth will be the same.

Having said that, if GC's donor was already poor and doesn't look patchy in post up then things look great. Also, was it not him that showed regeneration from grafts that were harvested TWICE? Someone posted images I remember and that was *really* encouraging.

[Winston]

As stated before, BTT intends to fully comply with Dr. Gho's request to discourage and moderate inappropriate, inaccurate, disparaging, intentionally argumentative and defamatory commentary related to discussions, concerning HST, his colleagues, and/or other available hair restoration techniques (FUE/FUT) in relation to HST or Dr. Coen Gho himself.

Also, in direct response to Dr. Gho's request, all baseless and false accusations or disruptive posts on both HST related threads and non Gho/HST threads will no longer be hosted on baldtruthtalk.com

[JJJJrS]

Would it not be reasonable to assume that everyones hair will regenerate differently? Some may lose 20% others may lose on 10%? Or perhaps some will grow hair just as thick in the recipient area as the donor?

No two people are alike so I'm going to say it should be safe to assume not every post-op case for regeneration and regrowth will be the same.

This is definitely true. Up to this point, nobody has come even close to documenting their procedure like gc has. So of course there's some generalizing going on simply because we don't have a large sample size.

I also keep mentioning the 50-graft test because I think it's very important to include the recipient for context so that we can see exactly how many hairs we start with and how many hairs we end up with, before and after the procedure, for both the donor and the recipient. Only then will we have a true multiplication rate.

Having said that, if GC's donor was already poor and doesn't look patchy in post up then things look great. Also, was it not him that showed regeneration from grafts that were harvested TWICE? Someone posted images I remember and that was *really* encouraging.

All of this is true and documented in the donor analysis I did.

I think gc has every reason to be very happy with his procedure. He's very close to covering his entire bald spot. His donor isn't showing any scarring and the depletion really isn't that bad when you do the before and after comparisons. Plus the guy has scarring alopecia which makes any hair transplant procedure much more difficult when you're dealing with scar tissue. I don't think he could have made a better choice and I'm really happy to see things working out for him.

[hellouser]

This is definitely true. Up to this point, nobody has come even close to documenting their procedure like gc has. So of course there's some generalizing going on simply because we don't have a large sample size.

I also keep mentioning the 50-graft test because I think it's very important to include the recipient for context so that we can see exactly how many hairs we start with and how many hairs we end up with, before and after the procedure, for both the donor and the recipient. Only then will we have a true multiplication rate.



All of this is true and documented in the donor analysis I did.

I think gc has every reason to be very happy with his procedure. He's very close to covering his entire bald spot. His donor isn't showing any scarring and the depletion really isn't that bad when you do the before and after comparisons. Plus the guy has scarring alopecia which makes any hair transplant procedure much more difficult when you're dealing with scar tissue. I don't think he could have made a better choice and I'm really happy to see things working out for him.

Man, I'm really happy for him. Guy must feel like $1,000,000 dollars. I keep thinking about how unfortunate I am to have to go through hair loss when noone in my family has gone bald, my grandfather started as a NW3 before he hit 30 years of age and stayed that way until he died at 77 years of age. I seem to have hit his stage of hairloss at the same time and at the same level but I'm hoping it doesn't progress, hence my usage of RU/Minox and soon to be CB. Regardless of the outcome with the meds I'm definitely going in for a treatment with Gho.

Congrats to GC, guy definitely deserves to sport a full head of hair.

[534623]

As stated before, BTT intends to fully comply with Dr. Gho's request to discourage and moderate inappropriate, inaccurate, disparaging, intentionally argumentative and defamatory commentary related to discussions, concerning HST, his colleagues, and/or other available hair restoration techniques (FUE/FUT) in relation to HST or Dr. Coen Gho himself.

Also, in direct response to Dr. Gho's request, all baseless and false accusations or disruptive posts on both HST related threads and non Gho/HST threads will no longer be hosted on baldtruthtalk.com

Is it still allowed to mention "Dr. Coen Gho"?
I mean, the name itself IS already an argument in the hair restoration field.

By the way "hair restoration" per se - would you consider someone as "colleague" who creates new problems to solve another problem? Can the latter also considered as "intentionally argumentative" or rather as fact?
And who is the judge in the whole line of arguments? Arguments, you know, it's something a discussion is based on.

Ahh, I can see - Winston doesn't have a real argument - he has a delete button!