update HASCI, Arashi?

[Arashi]

My mail to Kristel to ask why she said it was impossible to get a full head of hair at 60 grafts/cm2:

Verzonden: donderdag 29 november 2012 16:00
Aan: Kristel van Herwijnen
Onderwerp: RE: Vraagje

Dank voor het antwoord Kristel. Op de fora lees ik dat haartjes die hergroeid zijn in het donor soms iets scheef teruggroeien, waardoor het moeilijker is in sommige gevallen om ze te hergebruiken maar dat dit niet voor grote problemen zou zorgen. Als dat zo is, dan moet 60 grafts/cm2 toch haalbaar zijn voor het hele hoofd ? Mochten haartjes niet 2x te gebruiken zijn, waarom is dit dan ?

Her answer was:

We zien het verschil niet eens tussen de eerder gebruikte haren en de niet gebruikte. Bij multipele behandelingen krijgen we wel iedere keer ietsje minder grafts uit hetzelfde oppervlak. Dit is omdat de hergroei ongeveer 80 % is. 2e keer is altijd hetzelfde aantal als de eerst keer. Vanaf de derde behandeling zien de aantallen teruglopen met ongeveer 100 grafts per keer.

So basically she says an average person can get 1600 + 1600 + 1500 +1400 etc = 15.200 HST grafts. That equals to7904 FUE grafts. So that's 2x more than the average person can get with FUE.

Now tell me, if 80% would grow back every time, then why can people according to HASCI only get 7900 FUE grafts ? While the average donor has more than 14000 grafts ? Really, explain that to me dear Ironman ! REALLY looking forward to your answer !

[Arashi]

Or look at it simply this way: The average peron has about 14.000 grafts in his donor (70 grafts * 200 cm2). If HASCI were to use every graft ONLY ONCE, then 80% would grow back and donor would still have 56 grafts/cm2, thus would look untouched. So the average peron could get 14.000 grafts, donor would look untouched and then they would have used every graft only once ! Enough to give people a full head of hair = cured. Yet they admit they can't do that. And that equals to admitting that 80% regrowth is a lie.

[Arashi]

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.

Agreed. Or how Dr Rassman put it:

Dr. Gho reported that he did 1500 patients with his “cloning” procedure. If I had to give a score to the material he presented using a 1-10 scale for scientific credibility, I’d score it a 1, with 1 being the lowest possible. His science was pathetic, with slides that were blurred and blackened out so that there was really nothing to see. He claimed that his FUE technique cut the follicular units in half longitudinally, and that the part that remained regrew hair, but there was no proof of this in any of the material he showed. He did not show any patient results and certainly was never reviewed by any credible agency or physician.

http://www.baldingblog.com/2009/08/1...air-to-regrow/

But indeed, THE most important factor is that in all these years nobody could reproduce what Gho claims to do in his paper. That, plus the blurry pictures. Obviously all this doesn't matter to Ironman. But I'm sure it matters to anyone with a brain.

[gc83uk]

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.

5000 HST grafts at approx 1.35 hairs per graft = 6750 hairs
4218 FUE grafts at approx 2 hairs per graft, with only 80% recipient growth = 6750

That 80% figure I got from Mwamba.

From looking at the case results on this website, it's quite unusual to find anything above 2 hairs per graft average.

[Arashi]

4218 FUE grafts at approx 2 hairs per graft

The average hair/graft is scientifically accepted at 2.5, not at 2. Of course one could argue that with FUE most of the times they get a bit less than 2.5, maybe closer to 2 but that doesn't matter to my calcs. Fact remains that the average donor has 4000 follicles available at 2.5 hairs = 10.000 hairs avaible for transplant. At 1600 HST average with 1.3 hairs that is 4.8x a HST and even without regrowth, the donor would look untouched. Then WITH 80% regrowth this boils down to 4.8 x 5 = 24x HST's and donor would still look untouched !!

Whatever way you look at it: it just doens't add up. Nothing adds up when it comes to their regrowth claims.

[gc83uk]

The average hair/graft is scientifically accepted at 2.5

I'm not sure what that has to do with it? It's what FUE surgeons are extracting using ever decreasing needles. I'm going from the cases on this website. I think 2.5 is rare. FUT is different from what I can see.

[Arashi]

I'm not sure what that has to do with it? It's what FUE surgeons are extracting using ever decreasing needles. I'm going from the cases on this website. I think 2.5 is rare. FUT is different from what I can see.

What does FUE have to do with this ? I'm saying, that an average donor has 10.000 hairs available for transplant. If 80% regrowth was true, that would equal to 25x a HST for the average patient and donor would still look untouched. Yet HASCI advises to go 3 times and then evaluate after that to see if a patient can go more often. That does only add up in Ironman Land.

[cocacola]

Gc, will you post any updates on ur donor and recipient anytime soon? Really curious.

[gc83uk]

What does FUE have to do with this ?

Didn't you bring up FUE in one of your posts to show comparisons with HST?

[gc83uk]

Gc, will you post any updates on ur donor and recipient anytime soon? Really curious.

Yes mate, just been dead busy, but will do shortly.