HASCI - -How well does it work? Now we'll be able to find out!

[AlmostUndone]

Well it's better than 12%... or perhaps you meant 10,2% or what

H16 I'm not sure I agree with you there though, here it is: http://www.hasci-exposed.com/images/H16.jpg In the before I see 2 hairs and in the after I see 2 too (the left one is a lot thinner/lighter but in the after photo but it's there). Maybe your point is though that it was a 3 hair graft and the hair to the right of H16 in the before photo is part of the same graft ?

No, my point is that alternative angle which I included into my final update: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...mostUndone.jpg

Will look at your other points too now. But I didnt check alternative viewpoints so it's very well possible that some corrections indeed need to be made because of evidence shown in the alternative view.

The errors I suggested to you were just some random examples; I didn't check most of it.

In my own analysis, I did hopefully look at all of those slim alternative viewpoints into the neighbouring area which already existed in the "before" main image. But neither I ever looked into any of those additional "Alternative viewpoints"-files which you can find earlier in this thread.

[Arashi]

H2, H14, which can be better seen from alternative viewpoints within the same image file.

* H2 was a 4 hair graft IMHO and in the after photo I see 4 hairs too (the two to the right are very light/thin)
* H14 I noted as 3 hairs going to 2 hair graft but it might also be a 4 hair graft going to 2 hair graft (I think that's your explanation ?)

"Area I" in your analysis: 6 (the third hair can be seen from 2 or 3 different viewpoints in the image), 9 and 8.

I6: I see as 3 going to 1 hair graft, I think this is good ?
I9: agreed, should be -1, corrected it.
I8: agreed, should be -3, corrected it.

"Area 9" in your analysis: 76, 148, 141, and 139 (The secondary angle in the before-image reveals 2 hairs you must have missed).

*76: Yeah in 2nd view this actually seems to be a 5 going into 2 eh ! I changed it.
*139: Yeah 2nd view shows indeed that this should be -2, changed it
*141: Not sure what you're seeing here ? I do see 2 into 2, like I had it in my calcs (could even be 3 into 3 but that's not changing anything)
*148: agreed should be -1.

"Area 10" in your analysis: 24 and so on and so on.

I dont see an alternative viewpoint here ?

[Arashi]

Anyway, Almostundone, it isn't my goal to get to a 100% accurate picture. I'm sure, like you said (and demonstrated), by analysing 2nd viewpoints more errors can be found. I'm now at 1173 lost hairs, that's pretty close to your 1243 anyway. For regeneration to occur we'll need to see WAY more hairs than 1200 in your recipient. If we end up with 1300 hairs, then we might go over everything in the donor again, perfecting it and see if we can find those 1300. But even then, that would be trying to (dis)prove that 5% regeneration happened. Who cares about 5% regeneration, LOL. And then there are always other uncertainties like the amount of hairs going into sleeping state or the amount of hairs that was in resting state in the pre picture. So trying to prove 5% regeneration is pointless anyway if you ask me.

I'd say it's time to look at recipient

If we'd end up with 1500 hairs in recipient for example, then I think it would make sense to go over everything again, analyse 2nd view points etc. But I highly doubt that. It would make a lot of sense that you'd end up with roughly 1.3 * 800 = 1040 hairs in recipient (since 1.3 seems to be a normal hasci recipient density)

50% regrowth btw would mean that we'd need to see roughly 2400-2500 hairs in your recipient. Which already seems impossible cause that would mean an average of 3 hairs/graft !!! LOL

[AlmostUndone]

* H2 was a 4 hair graft IMHO and in the after photo I see 4 hairs too (the two to the right are very light/thin)
* H14 I noted as 3 hairs going to 2 hair graft but it might also be a 4 hair graft going to 2 hair graft (I think that's your explanation ?)
* I6: I see as 3 going to 1 hair graft, I think this is good ?
*141: Not sure what you're seeing here ? I do see 2 into 2, like I had it in my calcs (could even be 3 into 3 but that's not changing anything)

Jus saying there was a viewpoint added in one of my last updates which may have helped me. In the down-left corner:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81057175/right_side_final_98.jpg

I dont see an alternative viewpoint here ?

I know. I just decided to bring this one to your attention, when in fact it may be my mistake to mark it as a 5 going into a 4.

I'm sure, like you said (and demonstrated), by analysing 2nd viewpoints more errors can be found.

I think I managed to analyze them all myself. Here it's mostly just down to carelessness then. But I've had enough of the donor, for now. Kinda feel bad to keep you guys waiting a while for recipient stuff hmm

[HTsoon]

After you guys are done disproving donor regeneration, I got another task for you guys, disproving the Easter bunny LOL. Jk jk

[cocacola]

As someone who did an hst, my position was always innocent until proven guilty.

However, in the light of new evidence i must agree that to come up with some sort of acceptable regeneration figure we would need to see a very thick receipient. Something that i never seen with hasci.

At this point i think a class action becomes the most logical resolution as if we see no regeneration this becomes pure scam. I hope we have any documentation of 80% regeneration claims by hasci.

[Arashi]

Any updates ?

[AlmostUndone]

Any updates ?

Nada. I never got home in time to get the right amount of light from outside, and the next two weeks are gonna be pretty tight for me. Damn.

[Canucks]

Great job AlmostUndone and Arashi !
@ Arashi from the analysis do you think they're splitting the follicle or just removing the whole thing (i.e. an fue with smaller punch)?

[Arashi]

Great job AlmostUndone and Arashi !
@ Arashi from the analysis do you think they're splitting the follicle or just removing the whole thing (i.e. an fue with smaller punch)?

Most certainly they split it. It's what we saw from the petridish photo's before and it's what we see here: 3 hair grafts growing back as 1 or 2 hair graft is most common.

[Swooping]

Great job AlmostUndone and Arashi !
@ Arashi from the analysis do you think they're splitting the follicle or just removing the whole thing (i.e. an fue with smaller punch)?

He is using a smaller punch to partially split them in a vertical manner. Not manipulating the hair follicle structure itself further in vitro AFAIK.

If the hair follicle is split horizontally it can apparently regenerate and quite often too, however the hair follicle will grow back thinner (diameter decrease); http://drcarloswesley.com/T/06082014.pdf.

[Arashi]

He is using a smaller punch to partially split them in a vertical manner. Not manipulating the hair follicle structure itself further in vitro AFAIK.

If the hair follicle is split horizontally it can apparently regenerate and quite often too, however the hair follicle will grow back thinner (diameter decrease); http://drcarloswesley.com/T/06082014.pdf.

I remember Dr Nigam tried that, he failed. But he's an idiot so not sure what to think of it. I also remember that Dr Aaron Gardner said on this forum that he thought it would be possible to dissect the follicle under a microscope and make 2 out of 1 that way. He also said that it's not feasible to do so because of the man hours needed, I think he predicted 5 minutes per follicle, so 12 per hour, so rougly 100 hairs for 1 day of work, so that's not feasible unfortunately. Maybe with some machine/robot though...

But splitting them vertically, blindly, like HASCI does, that's not working for sure. Hopefully AlmostUndone has some time for us in the coming weeks, so we can see the results

[AlmostUndone]

I had huge plans to do it next weekend, but I was just booked there to a very occasional side-job o' mine. However.... the following next weeks look veeery promising.

I'm still probably gonna depend on daylight. So there's another variable.

[Arashi]

I had huge plans to do it next weekend, but I was just booked there to a very occasional side-job o' mine. However.... the following next weeks look veeery promising.

I'm still probably gonna depend on daylight. So there's another variable.

Ok good to hear the next weeks look promising ! Good luck !

[AlmostUndone]

Today I shot the recipient. Obviously it will take a while to make the necessary connections, and then we can see if we have enough pictures to answer the question in this thread's title