The truth about shock loss

[John3534]

So I often see the claim that if a person is a victim of permanent shock loss (native hair a person has falling out and not returning) - then that hair was on its "last legs" and would have been lost anyway. I'm not convinced that this is evidence based, and it's much more likely that the native hair was damaged/transected during the transplant and that this person wasn't going to suddenly lose hair that was normal hair thickness (hair that hasn't become fine/transparent bum-fluff) even if they didn't have the transplant.

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary, because I see this as an excuse to avoid blame if there is a high transection rate.