Dr Nigam agrees to doubling slick NW6/NW7

[Arashi]

OR we could just forget about this test and leave it up to dr Mwamba to to all the investigation?

mwmaba will fly all his techs to Mumbai, its safe to say that he knows what to look for

While I do believe in Mwamba, a test like this, IF performed correctly, is much more interesting than Mwamba's words.

[JJJJrS]

Yeah these microscopic images are USELESS. We don't want any of those this time. Just macro pictures but this time in MUCH better detail than the ones he shot of Tom's case. We really need to be able to count hairs and in Tom's case this was barely possible.

What I'd suggest is to place some ink spots on several places of the shaved donor before shooting the pictures. This way you could divide the donor in for example 5 pieces (or more if needed) and easily link them together to form 1 complete image of the donor, in good enough detail to see every single graft and tell how many hairs there are.

There's no need to count hairs. If he can manage to extract 5-7k grafts from a NW6-7 without any visible depletion and growth in the recipient, that's proof enough. The key things I would enforce:

1) The patients must shave their heads throughout the process. This will allow us to have a closer look at the donor and it will be obvious whether there's regeneration or scarring. Like you mentioned, concealers don't work very well at that length either.
2) High quality photos must be taken of the donor and recipient. That means consistent lighting, poses, no blurriness.
3) Newspapers to prove the dates.
4) The patients must be NW6-7, slick bald. Not diffuse thinners but patients at the most advanced stages hairloss.

OR we could just forget about this test and leave it up to dr Mwamba to to all the investigation?

mwmaba will fly all his techs to Mumbai, its safe to say that he knows what to look for

Both tests are interesting and have never been done before. I wouldn't prioritize one over the other when both of them will show us different things.

[Arashi]

There's no need to count hairs. If he can manage to extract 5-7k grafts from a NW6-7 without any visible depletion and growth in the recipient, that's proof enough.

I disagree. What if Nigams just splits grafts and places 1 hair out of each graft into recipient. In that case even if he'd do 7k grafts, that would equal 7k hairs loss in donor, which would equal an average 2800 regular grafts FUE (at 2.5 hair/graft). 2800 grafts COULD be taken without too much visible deplation. Sure, recipient would look a bit thinner than usual, but my point is: we'd still be discussing !! With good quality pictures the discussion just ends cause the proof would be in front of us, in the pictures.

Just get this case done correctly, WITH good photo's of donor !!

[One]

This must be the way of presenting the case. We do not want amateur photos, or other random poses.

The details of the transplant (procedure, total count grafts, grafts number single, double, triple, etc.) shall be discussed immediately and clearly.

Here's an example of a clinic port, which is the standard for a transplant clinic that respects:




ASMED Hair Treatments - Dr Koray Erdogan


3124 FUE grafts extracted with manual punch in titanium, diameter 0.7 - 0.9 mm.


Engravings by: custom made blades, lateral slit


412 Single grafts

911 Double grafts

1801 Multiple grafts

[JJJJrS]

I disagree. What if Nigams just splits grafts and places 1 hair out of each graft into recipient. In that case even if he'd do 7k grafts, that would equal 7k hairs loss in donor, which would equal an average 2800 regular grafts FUE (at 2.5 hair/graft). 2800 grafts COULD be taken without too much visible deplation. Sure, recipient would look a bit thinner than usual, but my point is: we'd still be discussing !! With good quality pictures the discussion just ends cause the proof would be in front of us, in the pictures.

Just get this case done correctly, WITH good photo's of donor !!

As far as I'm aware, the whole point of this exercise is to restore a NW6-7 to a NW1-2. That isn't possible with splitting. If it's equivalent to 2800 FUE grafts like you say, that will be obvious both in the recipient and donor for a NW6-7.

If you want to monitor a small area in the donor, that's fine. It won't say a whole lot, but it's reasonable. But monitoring large areas for counting, with that many grafts, isn't feasible, and you'll find that out with gc's case.

[Arashi]

As far as I'm aware, the whole point of this exercise is to restore a NW6-7 to a NW1-2. That isn't possible with splitting. If it's equivalent to 2800 FUE grafts like you say, that will be obvious both in the recipient and donor for a NW6-7.

If you want to monitor a small area in the donor, that's fine. It won't say a whole lot, but it's reasonable. But monitoring large areas for counting, with that many grafts, isn't feasible, and you'll find that out with gc's case.

The main reason we want a nw7 slick bald is indeed that the result should be visible with counting. Just saying if you really want a firm case we need good pictures of donor too

[534623]

The main reason we want a nw7 slick bald is indeed that the result should be visible with counting. Just saying if you really want a firm case we need good pictures of donor too

Sure, and you're the one who is able to count approximately 4000-7000 grafts - in the recipient and donor area. Sure, definitely ...

[greatjob!]

Sounds good, but I'll wait until sept 15th comes and goes before I get excited.

Also I would just rather see graft numbers and results that aren't possible without doubling, than trying to count 4000-7000+ extraction and incision sites, I've got better shit to do, and I would hope all of you do as well.

[clandestine]

Gc to remind him that dr nigam photos and videos to be only available by Full HD with a professional machine







Same light, the same angle, the same length. Absolutely nothing suspicious.

If not again becomes useless.

This; this, this. THIS.

Edit: this.

[Arashi]

Sure, and you're the one who is able to count approximately 4000-7000 grafts - in the recipient and donor area. Sure, definitely ...

Sure. You dont need to match. Just count. Its easier to count 10000 grafts than to match 100