+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 233
  1. #1
    Senior Member Arashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,888

    Default Debunking HASCI“s regeneration claim - an open letter.

    To whom it may concern,

    HASCI's 85% donor regeneration claim has been the subject of debate on internet forums for a long time, mostly fueled by the fact that HASCI never presented an independent patient case for verification and analysis. As (potential) patients wanted to find out if their therapy works as advertised, forum members started to shoot before and after pictures themselves. Without a doubt, the most famous case on the internet is that from forum member 'GC83UK' who went for several HST procedures in a row and documented them, each time in more detail, as our understanding and information of what was important increased.

    The research started with people trying to monitor random extraction points and trying to count in how many extraction points hair grew back. It was big news when people found out that this happened in 87% of the extraction points. This was supposed to be evidence HASCI's procedure worked as claimed.

    However, intrigued by these results, forum poster 'jjjjrs' started looking at the case in more detail. He found that in quite a few extraction sites, not all hair grew back. It turned out that in quite a few instances, 2 hair grafts grew back as 1 hair grafts. Taken this hair loss into account, he calculated that the regeneration rate was not 87% but only 65%. However, he concluded that 'real' regeneration rate might have been way lower, maybe even 0. Because what wasn't taken into account was recipient growth (always assumed to be 100% thus far) and failed extractions.

    Now these 'failed extractions', he reasoned, potentially might have skewed this number a lot. If follicles weren't even transplanted and hair was just transsected, of course the hair would just grow back. This of course has nothing to do with regeneration, since it's just transsected hair growing back. If this happened a lot, then the 65% hair growing back might just have been transsected hairs growing back, while the real regeneration rate might be way less than that.

    To find out about this, we'd needed to find how many extraction points there were. Unfortunately this was impossible because we simply didn't have all the photo's. However it was reasoned that the failed extraction rate would be pretty much equal amongst sessions. So if we could find out how many times an extraction point wasn't a real extraction, in his new case, we could use that number to draw conclusions in his previous case.

    On september 10, forum member gc83uk went for his latest HST procedure. On that day he got 1300 grafts. Most of the extractions were done by Rolf, who´s rated as HASCI´s best technician. After counting all extraction points, it turned out there were 2316 extraction points. So only 56% of the times an extraction was successful. HASCI always claimed that hair from failed extractions always grew back. This means that in 44% of the extraction points, all hair would grow back. But this would not be regeneration, this would simply be transsected hair growing back.

    Let's see what this percentage means ...

    Let's assume 2 hairs/graft (it doesn't matter for the calculations). Let's assume all grafts grow in recipient. Having had 1300 grafts during his procedure, this would mean the patient now got 2600 extra hairs in recipient.

    We saw 2316 extraction sites. In his previous procedure, we concluded that in a random exrtraction site, 65% of the times hair grew back. So we're expecting a loss of 35% * 2 * 2316 = 1621 hairs in donor.

    So, the patient gave up 1621 hairs in his donor to get 2600 hairs in recipient. In other words, from the 2600 hairs that got extracted, 978 regenerated. This is a regeneration rate of 37.6%

    We assumed all hairs grew in recipient, so this really is a best case scenario. We will have to investigate how hair in recipient grows, but judging by the number of transsected hairs we saw in petridish photo's, it's save to assume quite a bit won't be able to grow in recipient. So it's quite possible regeneration turns out to be 0%. But let's not speculate here and let's assume the best case scenario. How come HASCI always promises us 85% regeneration while it now turns out it's only 37.6% at best, and possibly even way lower ?


    P.s

    Attached are the results of the extraction sites counting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m06tjcp1rztfd6u/gaz.zip
    The _LAYOUT.jpg is an overview of how all pictures link together. It's the back of the scalp. Pictures starting with H are the highest part of the scalp, with M the middle and L is the lower part. The Z picture is the part above the ear, closest to the right eye (so the outer edge). The calculations spread sheet contains all the grafts per area.

    I'm confident that it's pretty accurate. The only trouble I had was linking L3_190347 to M4_190341. It's not correct. But the part that's not correct is relatively small, it are only a few extractions so I didn't really bother to get to the bottom of it. I'm pretty sure all of the other pictures are linked perfectly together and it´s accurate within 5%.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arashi View Post

    How come HASCI always promises us 85% regeneration while it now turns out it's only 37.6% at best, and possibly even way lower ?
    Hmmm, maybe people like you can't read and calculate accurate?

    So simply try to re-read it in black and white - page 9 ...

    http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/N..._treatment.pdf

    **********************************
    Multiplication of the hairs

    If we assume that the number of hairs left behind in the donor area (Table VI, column b) were

    - the visible hairs directly after the extraction (Table II, column d)
    - plus the visible hairs in the unsuitable incomplete follicular unit grafts (Table I, column g),

    the number of hairs which are multiplied varied between 169 and 271 hairs (mean 212.4 hairs) (Table VI, column f). This means a multiplication rate between 83.2% and 102.1% (mean 93.3%) (Table VI, column g).
    **********************************

    So, what? lol

  3. #3
    Senior Member Arashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 534623 View Post
    Hmmm, maybe people like you can't read and calculate accurate?

    So simply try to re-read it in black and white - page 9 ...

    http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/N..._treatment.pdf

    **********************************
    Multiplication of the hairs

    If we assume that the number of hairs left behind in the donor area (Table VI, column b) were

    - the visible hairs directly after the extraction (Table II, column d)
    - plus the visible hairs in the unsuitable incomplete follicular unit grafts (Table I, column g),

    the number of hairs which are multiplied varied between 169 and 271 hairs (mean 212.4 hairs) (Table VI, column f). This means a multiplication rate between 83.2% and 102.1% (mean 93.3%) (Table VI, column g).
    **********************************

    So, what? lol
    I miss your point. You reiterate that hasci claims "a multiplication rate between 83.2% and 102.1% (mean 93.3%)". We found that it can't be higher than 37% (most probably much lower). What's your point now ?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arashi View Post
    I miss your point. You reiterate that hasci claims "a multiplication rate between 83.2% and 102.1% (mean 93.3%)". We found that it can't be higher than 37% (most probably much lower).
    Yeah, sure - you found a ridiculous fictive percent number without analyzing each and every extraction point/site as well as implantation point/site!

    In simple words - all of your claims are just out of your ass and USELESS!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Arashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 534623 View Post
    Yeah, sure - you found a ridiculous fictive percent number without analyzing each and every extraction point/site as well as implantation point/site!

    In simple words - all of your claims are just out of your ass and USELESS!
    The numbers speak for themselves. If you think something is wrong, then please show us. If not I'm not going to ignore your posts as usual. This thread was created so people could forward it to HASCI and we can await their response.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arashi View Post
    The numbers speak for themselves. If you think something is wrong, then please show us.
    No - YOU're the one who promised since weeks to make an accurate analysis! That means, you have to analyze each and ever extraction site (not just counting extractions site!) as well as each and every implantation site to get an accurate number for the YIELD of gc's 4th HST. In simple words ...

    Tell not me - tell the "people" out there an accurate HAIR MULTIPLICATION RATE of gc's 4th HST! Everything beyond is useless SHIT ...

    Only THESE numbers would "speak for themselves". Your extraction site counting shit speak for idiots only ...

  7. #7
    Senior Member Arashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 534623 View Post
    No - YOU're the one who promised since weeks to make an accurate analysis! That means, you have to analyze each and ever extraction site (not just counting extractions site!) as well as each and every implantation site to get an accurate number for the YIELD of gc's 4th HST. In simple words ...

    Tell not me - tell the "people" out there an accurate HAIR MULTIPLICATION RATE of gc's 4th HST! Everything beyond is useless SHIT ...
    To get the final number, which will most probably be much lower than this 37%, we'll have to wait 12 months to get to GC's final result and then compare before and after for all the 500 grafts they did on Day 2 of his procedure. That still is the plan. However that doesn't mean that we can't make a good and valid prediction. GC was treated by Rolf, who is known as their best technician. If he couldn't get to a better succes to total extraction rate of 56%, why would it have been completely different the other times ? It seems highly unlikely. Even more since other people have been reporting similar numbers.

    So, based on these numbers, it seems highly unlikely regeneration is going to be higher than 40%. You can repeat a thousand times it all means nothing and it's worthless, but the numbers speak for themselves.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    495

    Default

    as IM said, I am not sure that the homemade study is accurate even if done with loads of efforts with the material you've got.


    That's why I had this reaction on Gho bashers... your own counter studies are foggy a bit.

    So I think you made yourself clear in the letter, the link posted by IM with their results is also eloquent, so why not believing this?

    ANW, I have forwarded your link, I hope they will bring answers, so that people like you and me, who got a first HST and started to doubt because of these threads where everything and its contrary is said, can keep going on HST and trust it or leave it behind them and wait patiently for the next gen of treatment.

    Gho is still the one proposing the best... but the best I took the train for and gave 10.000 euros, was 85% regen, not 37 or less.

    I can't believe we are still talking about it.

    And no matter all this, I don't know but i'm rather confident on GC results, they took 1800 with no problem, and his donor is great to me!!!

  9. #9
    Senior Member Arashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caddarik79 View Post
    as IM said, I am not sure that the homemade study is accurate even if done with loads of efforts with the material you've got. That's why I had this reaction on Gho bashers... your own counter studies are foggy a bit.
    If you're not sure it's accurate, you can just verify it. I've posted everything in my first post, you can download the documents and analyze them. You can also verify jjjjrs research. I don't know how much more 'open' we can make it for you, if everything is in front of you. So I'm not really sure what you mean with 'foggy'. It's as transparant as can be.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arashi View Post

    Even more since other people have been reporting similar numbers.
    Sorry, but who are the "other people" and which accurate and verifiable "numbers" did they report, post etc ...?

    I'm not aware about such "people".

Similar Threads

  1. HASCI false claim on BHT
    By didi in forum Techniques in Possible Donor Regeneration and Multiplication
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2013, 02:54 PM
  2. Jakarta clinic to open on 1st Jan 2013!!!
    By didi in forum Techniques in Possible Donor Regeneration and Multiplication
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2012, 12:50 AM
  3. DHI Claim to have invented a procedure of their own?
    By thinkingaboutit in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 12:16 PM
  4. Man reveals how HT was so impressive it inspired him to open his own clinic
    By gmonasco in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 02:57 PM
  5. BBC - Experts claim to discover 'cause' of male baldness
    By ziggomatic in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 06:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

1800 graft repair case results by Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Navigating the German Job Market as a Kenyan Citizen
11-04-2023 06:31 AM
Last Post By Keegan212
Yesterday 03:51 AM
DR HAKAN DOGANAY/ 4500 GRAFTS / Implanter Pen+FUE
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
Last Post By Hakan Doganay, MD
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
The Mane Event for Thursday, June 15th, 2023
06-15-2023 02:59 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
03-26-2024 08:05 AM