update HASCI, Arashi?

[JJJJrS]

The fact that they won't offer the 50 graft test, no matter how much money you give them, tells me everything I need to know.

Before a patient commits to a procedure like this, they have every right to undergo a small patch-test to evaluate things before making such a commitment. It doesn't even have to be 50 grafts. Why not 10-20 grafts to test the suitability of a candidate? That HASCI would refuse to preform a small test procedures like this indicates to me that they know the procedure doesn't work like they claim.

[Arashi]

Pffffffffffft .... come on - should I post some of your "Nigam-fan-posts"??

Sure, go ahead and show me posts where I confirmed that Nigam was for real. Good luck with that !

where is your so-called "proof" at all, when there is soooo much proof that it doesn't work? Let me and others know ..

Just to summarize some of the facts that we know now:

1) Gaz analysis showed regrowth to be in the 0-38% range, where 0% was equally possible as 38%.
2) They dont want to do a 50 graft test, even if offered 3000 euro
3) They 'magically failed to show usable photo's for their previous 50 graft test, even after we made a checklist for dummies and even the second time !
4) After all these years we've seen NO result that couldnt be achieved with simple FUE
5) None of the celebs went there for more than a couple times
6) They even advise a max of 3 HST's per patient and then evaluate if they can go on. If 80% regrowth was true the average patient could go even more than 25x times and donor would still look untouched.
7) No other clinic ever could repeat what they claim to do. Even Nigam, who tried to copy cat them and used a microscope to achieve more accurate splitting (gho does it blind), failed miserably. But there were other doctors looking into this, none ever repeated success. While their technique is actually very simple and very well described in their publication.
8. They tell NW2's with GOOD donor (their own words) not to go beyond 25 gr/cm2 on the temples cause supposedly there's not enough hair in donor. If 80% regrowth were true, that wouldn't be a problem at all.

It's mostly 'cirumstancial' proof, just like we had from Nigam. But it has piled up now in the recent year to the point that it seem highly unlikely that there's something real here.

[Arashi]

The fact that they won't offer the 50 graft test, no matter how much money you give them, tells me everything I need to know.

Before a patient commits to a procedure like this, they have every right to undergo a small patch-test to evaluate things before making such a commitment. It doesn't even have to be 50 grafts. Why not 10-20 grafts to test the suitability of a candidate? That HASCI would refuse to preform a small test procedures like this indicates to me that they know the procedure doesn't work like they claim.

Yup of course. They don't want you to see if it really works. You just have to take their word for it. Which obviously is enough for Ironman. But anyone with at least some ability of critical thinking knows what that means.

[Arashi]

BTW, their biggest argument in our dicussion was "We dont need to prove anything, cause we already have posted proof in the British Journal of Dermatology which is much more relevant than a single case".

I was just re-reading it again. This is the whole paper: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/N..._treatment.pdf

They posted the 'proof' in figure 6 on page 8, in the form of pre-op, post-op and 1 year post op photo's (of just a single case, LOL). I was just trying to match grafts but man it's impossible. These photo's are way too blurry. Gho told me "Yeah the people from that Journal looked very well at the photo's and concluded it was real". Man I would love to talk to those people ! Cause from these blurry photo's it's impossible to conclude ANYTHING at all. I can't even say for sure it's the same area !!

It's amazing to me. Gaz shot 10x better photo's with a $100 cheap ass cam. His photo's were very usuable to do an analysis. But the British Journal of Dermatology accepts these kind of blurry shitty and useless photo's ? What a joke ! And where are the recipient photo's anyway ? This is Dr Nigam standard. Who is btw going to do 2 presentations at WCHR 2014. I'm sure after that he'll claim: I dont need to prove anything anymore, they let me talk at WCHR 2014 ! If anything all this proves is that organizations like this can be tricked easily. Which was also confirmed btw with that stem cell scandal 2 weeks ago ! Exactly the same thing !

[Arashi]

http://stemcellbioethics.wikischolar...+Hwang+Woo-Suk

"He lost his university position and his two important papers on embryonic stem cell research had to be retracted from the journal Science"

It's my opinion that it's time they retract Gho's papers too. How the hell they can accept blurry pictures like those is really beyond me. Just wanted to post the above link to show that it's obviously not impossible to trick scientific journals and post fake results. Another striking similarity: after the publication of that stem cell paper collegue's tried to repeat it and they all failed. Exactly like everybody else failed at regenerating follicles in donor by taking part of the FU away. How the hell is it possible that something so simple and which forms a cure for hairloss, NOBODY could repeat ? A lot of doctors tried it (nigam, Mousseigne, Mwamba etc), they all failed. And there are other FUE clinics (even Turkish ones) using 0.6 mm bores as a standard, same as HASCI. This should yield regen too. However NOBODY ever repeated success.

And same thing: what the hell is Nigam even going to do presenting at WCHR 2014 !?!?! How can they even accept him there ?

[534623]

The fact that they won't offer the 50 graft test, no matter how much money you give them, tells me everything I need to know.

Yeah, exactly the same thoughts when somebody is asking JJJJrS for some zoomable photos, which just show JJJJrS's hairloss problem ...

You guys will never see any - and that tells me everything.

[534623]

Sure, go ahead and show me posts where I confirmed that Nigam was for real. Good luck with that !

lol - that is NOT what you said - and that's also not what I claimed.

Just to summarize some of the facts that we know now:

1) Gaz analysis showed regrowth to be in the 0-38% range, where 0% was equally possible as 38%.

Really? I'm not aware about such an "analysis" and such numbers - and such fictitious numbers (out of your anus) are what you call "facts"???

2) They dont want to do a 50 graft test, even if offered 3000 euro

Perhaps they just don't want a psychiatric guy as test candidate (they know it, I know it), because they didn't have any problems with other test-candidates like James Bald?

3) They 'magically failed to show usable photo's for their previous 50 graft test, even after we made a checklist for dummies and even the second time !

Yeah, that's THE ultimate proof that the HST technique doesn't work. Sure ...

4) After all these years we've seen NO result that couldnt be achieved with simple FUE

Untrue. gc83uk can show today around 5000 HST grafts within his former slick bald scalp area, instead of the around 2500 pluggy looking FUE grafts (same looking as in James Bald's case!) other clinics could do for him with normal FUE. And gc's case is definitely NOT over concerning donor resources!

But just in case you actually meant there are no "wow-results" during the past years with 9 or more HSTs:
That's true! You're the living proof that 1) many guys are unable to buy not even a 2nd procedure because 2) guys like you always told them that it doesn't work anyhow. So how and why could you ever see any "wow-results"??

5) None of the celebs went there for more than a couple times

Yeah, but THEY DID IT a couple of times!
So perhaps they are already satisfied with what they got so far?

6) They even advise a max of 3 HST's per patient and then evaluate if they can go on.

3 HSTs create already around 1300 hairless gaps - simply because 80% is NOT 100%; so if I would be a guy like Dean Saunders, who likes to shave his head down to the bone - around 1300 hairless gaps, could be already a problem for me...

If 80% regrowth was true the average patient could go even more than 25x times and donor would still look untouched.

Really? Around 11,000 hairless gaps (~440 per HST x 25) would still provide an untouched donor????????????
ops, I forgot: 80% is for Arashi = 100% lol

7) No other clinic ever could repeat what they claim to do.

hmmm, Dr. Gho must be very pleased!
In fact, a few years ago, a guy named James Bond (not James Bald!) interviewed Dr. Gho once again, and Dr. Gho predicted that within just a few years some others in this field will catch up - seems he failed with his prediction ...

8. They tell NW2's with GOOD donor (their own words) not to go beyond 25 gr/cm2 on the temples cause supposedly there's not enough hair in donor.

Interesting. Seems you installed bugs in their clinics?

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

So, all the points you listed above is the proof that the HST technique doesn't work???

CONCLUSION:
http://youtu.be/GPz-j3bfq3E

[Arashi]

Really? I'm not aware about such an "analysis" and such numbers

I know you only read things you like and you live in your own world of lies, but the facts are there.

Untrue. gc83uk can show today around 5000 HST grafts within his former slick bald scalp area, instead of the around 2500 pluggy looking FUE grafts (same looking as in James Bald's case!) other clinics could do for him with normal FUE.

Average hair/graft with HST is 1.3, even you agreed to that, so 5000 HST grafts = 5000*1.3/2.5 = 2600 FUE grafts. You agreed to that. So gaz got the equivalent of 2600 FUE grafts. And his donor is depleted now (generally accepted at 125 hairs/cm2, he's way below that). And that's your proof HST can do something FUE cant ? There are guys out there who got over 10.000 FUE grafts ! That's 4x more !! Having your donor depleted after 2600 grafts, that's generally considered to be a bad donor. The average donor has 4000 available for depletion.

Yeah, but THEY DID IT a couple of times! So perhaps they are already satisfied with what they got so far?

HASCI confirmed that they've given the HST's for free away to the celebs. After the free sessions they stopped.

Really? Around 11,000 hairless gaps (~440 per HST x 25) would still provide an untouched donor????????????

Hairless gaps ? Average donor has 4000 grafts available for transplant. That equals to 4000 * 2.5 / 1.3 = 7700 HST grafts. 80% should grow back so they can have 5 times that amount = 38460 grafts. Per session average is about 1600 grafts, so yes, that's 24x times. And after that donor looks untouched (still above 125 hairs/cm2). IF 80% regrowth were true. Of course in this calculation grafts are being used more than once, but even if that wouldnt happen, they at least can use the WHOLE donor once. Yet, HASCI advises to evalute after 3 sessions. That's pretty much admitting that it doesn't work. Cause even if there were NO regrowth, then pretty much everybody could go at least 3x times, before donor depletion, and people with good donor could go even about 7 times to HASCI before donor depletion and that's WITHOUT REGROWTH

Interesting. Seems you installed bugs in their clinics?

Nope, Kristel simply mailed that to me if you want I can post her quote ? You can then email her and ask her if that was her quote. Deal ?

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

There are serveral guys who have enough money to go several times here. Gaz, Caddarik, me for example.

So, all the points you listed above is the proof that the HST technique doesn't work??

Exactly. You're getting there finally.

[Arashi]

btw - do you actually know HOW MANY HAIRS a NW5 - NW6 needs to get a REALLY GOOD coverage (especially those with rather finer hairs) without any compromises, in fact, a "re-construction" of his former hair situation? Most guys out there 1) can't afford this anyhow and 2) even IF they can, they don't want to spend that much money for hair. But all this doesn't mean, that the procedure per se doesn't work.

I was already planning to make it a yearly event ! Money is no problem to me. Then Kristel mailed me and said it was impossible ! While they even said my donor was good, they said it was impossible to go beyond 25 hairs/cm2 for the whole scalp. Do you want me to post that email ? You may then email her to verify that was her quote, ok ? Cause really, effectively THAT was already admitting their HST doesnt work as advertised. Cause if 80% regrowth was true, the AVERAGE person could get 38460 grafts. That's 770 cm2 at 50 grafts/cm2 LOL enough to give 3 people a nice head of hair.

Instead they advise a max of 3 times and evalute after that. That only adds up in Ironman world.

[JJJJrS]

http://stemcellbioethics.wikischolar...+Hwang+Woo-Suk

"He lost his university position and his two important papers on embryonic stem cell research had to be retracted from the journal Science"

It's my opinion that it's time they retract Gho's papers too. How the hell they can accept blurry pictures like those is really beyond me. Just wanted to post the above link to show that it's obviously not impossible to trick scientific journals and post fake results. Another striking similarity: after the publication of that stem cell paper collegue's tried to repeat it and they all failed. Exactly like everybody else failed at regenerating follicles in donor by taking part of the FU away. How the hell is it possible that something so simple and which forms a cure for hairloss, NOBODY could repeat ? A lot of doctors tried it (nigam, Mousseigne, Mwamba etc), they all failed. And there are other FUE clinics (even Turkish ones) using 0.6 mm bores as a standard, same as HASCI. This should yield regen too. However NOBODY ever repeated success.

And same thing: what the hell is Nigam even going to do presenting at WCHR 2014 !?!?! How can they even accept him there ?

Getting a paper published doesn't mean a whole lot anymore. There's so many journals out there, it's not too hard at all to get published. I've come across a number of plagiarized/fabricated papers and have heard plenty of first-hand horror stories about some of the bs that goes along with the process. So trust me on that, it really doesn't mean much at all.

What matters is the quality of the specific paper. Given that nobody has been able to reproduce Gho's claims (95% donor regeneration) and that the paper produces absolutely no convincing photographic evidence, you can make your own conclusion.