and how is Gaz doing?

[joachim]

A few years ago some competitors of HASCI sued HASCI, cause they, like us, were sure HASCI were frauds. HASCI won the case. For the dutch, you can read it here:

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/b...nederlands.pdf

The reasons why hasci won the case, according to the commission:

A) Scientific basis:
1) The publication in that magazine.
2) They said Prof Dr Neumann who supposedly is really somebody, allegedly helped Gho develop the method
3) Gho presented his method on the ISHRS congress 2008

B) ISO and supervision
1) HASCI follows ISO 9001:2000
2) HASCI is supervised by some commission in the Netherlands and they have to fill in some forms now and then.

C) practice
1) HASCI supposedly applied the method to 1200 patients and supposedly they follow up on each and every patient and document each case thoroughly and they saw huge regrowth in all cases

D) They have a patent

So the points above were reason why HASCI won. It's quite ridiculous if you ask me. Interestingly they say something about the magazine and their procedure:



So that's also extremely interesting !!! They just send out the article to 4 guys who read if and if they think it's a good read, they will publish it. So those 4 guys just saw the same photo's as we saw in the article !! And these photo's are shitty as hell, no way at all to verify if they're real !

So this is the core of hasci. All the other reasons above are a bunch of shit of course. Like the point that hasci thorougly reviews all of their patients results, what a joke, they just sent me some questions after a year and that was it ! And who cares that hasci follows some ISO rules ? Who cares that they every now and then fill in some checklists ? Who cares if some professor was somewhat involved in the method, for all we know he just claimed that stem cells can regenerate hair, just like we know now ! That doesnt mean shit. And the speach at a ISHRS congress ? Haha really ? Man those idiots should go there and see what an ISHRS congress really is, those idiots there still talk about FUT like it's THE best thing out there And really, who cares about a patent ?

All in all, what a joke. But at least we now KNOW how that magazine worked. Those 4 guys never saw the original photo's, they never could verify the photo's were real. They just got to read that same article and concluded it was scientific enough to be published.

o man, i so totally agree to all that. what a bullshit altogether. the peer reviewed article by use of this method means absolutely nothing in this case. the other points of course, are useless, too.
i can't believe how easy it is, even in the 21st century, to cheat people for such a long time. Gho is worse than Uri Geller, who also cheated for 3 decades and still does.

we really should create a huge shitstorm, and a big public scandal out of it, and get in touch with some newspapers or tv stations.
this case has to be revealed to the public. everybody has the right to know about it. i could imagine that Gho's patients even have the right to sue him in a big way. or create a big group lawsuit.

by the way, i'm always surprised about your investigative skills. you're like columbo, psych, and adrian monk in one person =)

[Arashi]

o man, i so totally agree to all that. what a bullshit altogether. the peer reviewed article by use of this method means absolutely nothing in this case. the other points of course, are useless, too.
i can't believe how easy it is, even in the 21st century, to cheat people for such a long time. Gho is worse than Uri Geller, who also cheated for 3 decades and still does.

we really should create a huge shitstorm, and a big public scandal out of it, and get in touch with some newspapers or tv stations.
this case has to be revealed to the public. everybody has the right to know about it. i could imagine that Gho's patients even have the right to sue him in a big way. or create a big group lawsuit.

by the way, i'm always surprised about your investigative skills. you're like columbo, psych, and adrian monk in one person =)

LOL thanks But yeah that would be the ultimate goal, have Gho pay for cheating on his patients. Although most probably the clinic would just burst and there won't be nearly enough money left in it to pay damages.

Anyway I'm going to think about it and probably will contact a few of those clinics who sued Gho back then to hear what they think and if they're interested in doing an undercover operation to expose Gho

[joachim]

So anyway how to continue from here ? Maybe it's an idea to contact those clinics that original sued hasci and see if they want to follow up now ? Maybe contact a dutch tv program and see if they're interested in a scoop ? Maybe they're willing to fund some people to go there and have everything photographed to expose hasci ?

The key is this: the only way to expose hasci is to send some undercover guys there, have EVERY graft photographed and have hasci do a small procedure and document everything. It's going to be a hell of a job and also cost quite a bit of money. So we'd need some parties motivated enough to input both. Maybe a tv program, maybe the original clinics who sued hasci. But either way, it's the only way in my opinion to expose them.

The article Gho published was based on only 5 test persons. So that's also exactly what we'd need: document 5 test persons.

i'm not sure if we really need undercover patients to document their cases.
we could create a lot of pressure towards Gho if we summarize all the facts, create a website (Gho exposed), get someone from the media involved who is interested in a big story, helping many many people by that. i also like the idea to contact the company which lost the lawsuit, for a possible follow up. the will definitely be in. if they see all the new facts from you and other members.

we can create so much pressure that Gho is forced to react on it. he has the chance to show proof, than everything is ok, or he has the option to admit that all the regeneration is bullshit.

anyway, even if we don't have a documented case (from an undercover patient), all the recent facts speak for themselves. and if they get published, then like mentioned, Gho has to react on it, otherwise he will lose many customers, once the story is out.

[Arashi]

i i also like the idea to contact the company which lost the lawsuit, for a possible follow up. the will definitely be in. if they see all the new facts from you and other members.

Agreed, ok will contact them and find out where they currently stand and what they think. They were motivated enough back then to both throw some time and money at it, so I'm expecting they're even more angry at hasci now than they were back then and might be willing to throw some more money and time at it to succeed where they failed last time.

[Arashi]

Ok, contacted the 1st clinic. I'm not sure if I can update you guys on what comes out of this and will surely treat the clinic's responses with respect, so probably wont publish it here. Anyway just wanted to let you guys know that I'm working on this

HASCI must pay for what they've done and are still doing !

[534623]

The key is this: the only way to expose hasci is to send some undercover guys there, have EVERY graft photographed ...

No less ridiculous than all others points and comments...

Basically, it's all about the possibility to make 2 or more fully functional hair follicles from 1:
YES or NO?

Of course YES, as tested and confirmed by lots of researchers and scientists in the past - like Dr. Gardner recently. BUT that doesn't mean that you always get (through "splitting") what you want, simply due to technical hurdles - and that's BASICALLY (needed special storage solutions etc aside) the fundamental main problem and why you not always (for each and every extraction/splitting) get 2 or more hairs from 1. Therefore, Dr. Gho found so far at least a pretty good compromise between SPEED (precise extractions would simply take to much time) and a classical 2 from 1 hair follicle procedure, which will ALWAYS work with "mixed" results - but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

But all the above is so-called "rocket science" and therefore for smart guys only.

[JJJJrS]

No less ridiculous than all others points and comments...

Basically, it's all about the possibility to make 2 or more fully functional hair follicles from 1:
YES or NO?

Of course YES, as tested and confirmed by lots of researchers and scientists in the past - like Dr. Gardner recently. BUT that doesn't mean that you always get (through "splitting") what you want, simply due to technical hurdles - and that's BASICALLY (needed special storage solutions etc aside) the fundamental main problem and why you not always (for each and every extraction/splitting) get 2 or more hairs from 1. Therefore, Dr. Gho found so far at least a pretty good compromise between SPEED (precise extractions would simply take to much time) and a classical 2 from 1 hair follicle procedure, which will ALWAYS work with "mixed" results - but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

But all the above is so-called "rocket science" and therefore for smart guys only.

The big problem with HASCI and Gho is the lack of transparency. Just do a simple 50 graft test and count the hairs before and after in both the donor and recipient. That way patients can have a strong idea of exactly what to expect. So far, HASCI has avoided that completely and they continue to mislead potential patients with this 85% figure they keep bringing up.

Clearly, if you avoid scrutiny at all costs like HASCI does, something is being hidden.

[Arashi]

but definitely with NO LOSS, as with all other HT procedures out there. And, it is very SAFE in general....

If they would market their procedure like that, everything would be fine. But they still keep telling all of their clients that 85% of the hairs will grow back !

[Vox]

All in all, what a joke. But at least we now KNOW how that magazine worked: those 4 guys never saw the original photo's, they never could verify the photo's were real. They just got to read that same article and concluded it was scientific enough to be published.

I don't know which is your scientific background but this is how it works all the time in applied sciences and biology, where you have extremely complex process and very often model simulations. The referees will see the results and based on their experience and knowledge, they will assess the appropriateness of the paper for publication. They cannot verify if the results are 100% correct or not, unless there are glaring errors or something going against their knowledge and intuition.

If someone disagrees, he has to prove that the paper is wrong. It happened before (and it still happens) so many times in applied sciences. I know such a recent case in geophysical modeling. If someone picks up the error, all he has to do is to present arguments and repeat some numerical (or clinical, or whatever) experiments in order to prove his point. He can then publish his results. The reaction of the journal regarding Gho's paper is quite natural. This is simply how it works.

Only in mathematics the situation is different. In that case you provide mathematical proofs of your claims (lemmas, propositions, theorems) with enough elements, so that any expert in the field can verify them. This practically eliminates the ambiguity about correctness but again, only mathematics have this luxury.

[Arashi]

I don't know which is your scientific background but this is how it works all the time in applied sciences and biology, where you have extremely complex process and very often model simulations. The referees will see the results and based on their experience and knowledge, they will assess the appropriateness of the paper for publication. They cannot verify if the results are 100% correct or not, unless there are glaring errors or something going against their knowledge and intuition.

If someone disagrees, he has to prove that the paper is wrong. It happened before (and it still happens) so many times in applied sciences. I know such a recent case in geophysical modeling. If someone picks up the error, all he has to do is to present arguments and repeat some numerical (or clinical, or whatever) experiments in order to prove his point. He can then publish his results. The reaction of the journal regarding Gho's paper is quite natural. This is simply how it works.

Only in mathematics the situation is different. In that case you provide mathematical proofs of your claims (lemmas, propositions, theorems) with enough elements, so that any expert in the field can verify them. This practically eliminates the ambiguity about correctness but again, only mathematics have this luxury.

Sure but that's not how Gho made it look when I talked about it with him. He told me that they really investigated everything thoroughly. They didnt, they didnt even check if the pictures were real or not. It all makes a lot of sense now anyway.