Thanks again for your replies.
So you have grown 5 brand new, terminal hairs, plus some colorless vellus hairs. Well, this improves the picture because there is hope for even better outcome (these vellus could still turn into terminals). Or maybe just finetuning the protocol could make that these colourless vellus hairs are terminal instead.
Do you know approximately how many injections or scaffolds did they give you in each of these 2 areas? I mean… don’t tell me details, I just want to know the yield (injections per new hair. e.g if you got 10 injections and got 5 terminal hairs, yield would be 50%). Just tell me the approximate yield (%), if you feel you may tell this.
Its a pity that the areas are not totally bald. The experiment would have been much more meaningful.
I have so many questions, but I don’t want to push you, as this could jeopardize your participation, I mean, if ARI gets upset they could expell you from the experiment, and we all would lose.
Keep in touch. We will ask you things little by little, and I think this way it will be ok.
» Spanish Dude.
» I never had any TOTALLY bald areas… just thinning.
» There are two test areas on my scalp.
» Both are showing the same results.
» The researchers don’t tell me the results. I’m just going by my own
» observations with a mirror and a magnifying glass.
» One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.
» That’s actually a 25% increase.
» I also notice these very small colorless hairs created (like peach fuzz)
» that I’m not counting yet. Hopefully they’ll develop too.
» My name was revealed on ANOTHER website. So I won’t be talking about
» techniques at all… just results. And pix are strictly forbidden.
» But your right results are irrelevant at this stage in terms of working
» out the effectiveness of the end product. Not least because we dont even
» know how many injections have been administered. Lets say 100 injections
» were given and all of them gave great terminal hair. Cosmetically it would
» look crap, even though the results were perfect (ie. 100% of the injections
» successful). On the other hand, if you gave 100,000 injections and got 100
» great terminal hair (ie.0.1% of the injections successful) the hair would
» look the same but the trial results would be terrible.
»(Edit: Sorry just
» realised Spanish Dude made the same point more succinctly!)
No problem. In fact, I am happy that someone else made this question.
It is the “yield”, hairs/injection ratio. This is the important figure.
We don’t know if they are simple injections or scaffolds, but in any case, the best result would be 1 hair per injection/scaffold. (yield=1.0=100%).
Histogen is different. Each Histogen injection spreads across a wide area (several centimetres wide) and could potentially produce many hairs per injection in that area.
Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based protocols, a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll see if they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20% increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
» Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based protocols,
» a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a
» valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll see if
» they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20%
» increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
So no one is bothered that he only grew 5 (!) new hairs? You cant assume 20 % is the percentage for all patients regardless of number of hairs. I believe the number of hairs (5) is more likely to be the result even if you 100 hairs in the same area.
» » Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based
» protocols,
» » a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a
» » valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll see
» if
» » they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20%
» » increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
»
» So no one is bothered that he only grew 5 (!) new hairs? You cant assume
» 20 % is the percentage for all patients regardless of number of hairs. I
» believe the number of hairs (5) is more likely to be the result even if you
» 100 hairs in the same area.
That’s not what he said. He said he grew a hair for every 4 he had. That’s a huge yield, particularly for those who have thinning hair. The issue will be consistency.
» » » Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based
» » protocols,
» » » a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a
» » » valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll
» see
» » if
» » » they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20%
» » » increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
» »
» » So no one is bothered that he only grew 5 (!) new hairs? You cant
» assume
» » 20 % is the percentage for all patients regardless of number of hairs.
» I
» » believe the number of hairs (5) is more likely to be the result even if
» you
» » 100 hairs in the same area.
»
» That’s not what he said. He said he grew a hair for every 4 he had.
» That’s a huge yield, particularly for those who have thinning hair. The
» issue will be consistency.
It’s possible that the yield will be dependent on the number of existing hairs. However, given the fact that we don’t know their protocol or the exact dosage given to Halftruth, we also have to accept the possiblity that it was an absolute (independent of original hairs) amount of growth that just happened to be a 25% increase.
» I never had any TOTALLY bald areas… just thinning.
» There are two test areas on my scalp.
» Both are showing the same results.
» The researchers don’t tell me the results. I’m just going by my own
» observations with a mirror and a magnifying glass.
» One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.
» That’s actually a 25% increase.
» I also notice these very small colorless hairs created (like peach fuzz)
» that I’m not counting yet. Hopefully they’ll develop too.
» My name was revealed on ANOTHER website. So I won’t be talking about
» techniques at all… just results. And pix are strictly forbidden.
How do you know that those new hair are brand new hair if you got those injections to thinning areas? maybe some old hair rejuvenated and started to grow again? or the worst case - maybe those “extra” new more hair what you see there now game out from resting phase (telogen)? this means those are old hair which started new cycle again (anagen phase). i have read/heard something that hair are in resting phase (telogen) about 2 months.
thats why I said that it is better to test completely bald areas. In fact, ARI’s advertisement was looking for people with “prominent” balding. I expected prominent=very bald.
Thinning areas are not good for testing this. Rejuvenated hairs, hairs coming out of resting phase, etc. And counting hairs is more difficult.
Maybe they do it on purpose so that the trialist is not able to study what is happening. But the problem is that the experiment is not done in the ideal conditions and could be slanted.
» » I never had any TOTALLY bald areas… just thinning.
» » There are two test areas on my scalp.
» » Both are showing the same results.
» » The researchers don’t tell me the results. I’m just going by my own
» » observations with a mirror and a magnifying glass.
» » One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.
» » That’s actually a 25% increase.
» » I also notice these very small colorless hairs created (like peach
» fuzz)
» » that I’m not counting yet. Hopefully they’ll develop too.
» » My name was revealed on ANOTHER website. So I won’t be talking about
» » techniques at all… just results. And pix are strictly forbidden.
»
» How do you know that those new hair are brand new hair if you got those
» injections to thinning areas? maybe some old hair rejuvenated and started
» to grow again? or the worst case - maybe those “extra” new more hair what
» you see there now game out from resting phase (telogen)? this means those
» are old hair which started new cycle again (anagen phase). i have
» read/heard something that hair are in resting phase (telogen) about 2
» months.
» thats why I said that it is better to test completely bald areas. In fact,
» ARI’s advertisement was looking for people with “prominent” balding. I
» expected prominent=very bald.
»
» Thinning areas are not good for testing this. Rejuvenated hairs, hairs
» coming out of resting phase, etc. And counting hairs is more difficult.
» Maybe they do it on purpose so that the trialist is not able to study what
» is happening. But the problem is that the experiment is not done in the
» ideal conditions and could be slanted.
»
»
» » » I never had any TOTALLY bald areas… just thinning.
» » » There are two test areas on my scalp.
» » » Both are showing the same results.
» » » The researchers don’t tell me the results. I’m just going by my own
» » » observations with a mirror and a magnifying glass.
» » » One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.
» » » That’s actually a 25% increase.
» » » I also notice these very small colorless hairs created (like peach
» » fuzz)
» » » that I’m not counting yet. Hopefully they’ll develop too.
» » » My name was revealed on ANOTHER website. So I won’t be talking about
» » » techniques at all… just results. And pix are strictly forbidden.
» »
» » How do you know that those new hair are brand new hair if you got those
» » injections to thinning areas? maybe some old hair rejuvenated and
» started
» » to grow again? or the worst case - maybe those “extra” new more hair
» what
» » you see there now game out from resting phase (telogen)? this means
» those
» » are old hair which started new cycle again (anagen phase). i have
» » read/heard something that hair are in resting phase (telogen) about 2
» » months.
Completely bald testing areas are unquestionably better, but if the sample size is great enough, the variance due to the natural hair cycle should be negligible.
It’s also possible that they are carrying out two separate tests - one for completely bald areas and one for “thinning” areas.
» » » Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based
» » protocols,
» » » a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a
» » » valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll
» see
» » if
» » » they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20%
» » » increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
» »
» » So no one is bothered that he only grew 5 (!) new hairs? You cant
» assume
» » 20 % is the percentage for all patients regardless of number of hairs.
» I
» » believe the number of hairs (5) is more likely to be the result even if
» you
» » 100 hairs in the same area.
»
» That’s not what he said. He said he grew a hair for every 4 he had.
» That’s a huge yield, particularly for those who have thinning hair. The
» issue will be consistency.
quote “One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.” Still excited?
» » » » Given the pathetic, hit-or-miss results of current pharma-based
» » » protocols,
» » » » a consistent 20% increase in hair-count is a fantastic result and a
» » » » valuable tool to use in tandem with established treatments. We’ll
» » see
» » » if
» » » » they can deliver it consistently, and at what price. For me, a 20%
» » » » increase in hair would would return me to a true head of hair.
» » »
» » » So no one is bothered that he only grew 5 (!) new hairs? You cant
» » assume
» » » 20 % is the percentage for all patients regardless of number of
» hairs.
» » I
» » » believe the number of hairs (5) is more likely to be the result even
» if
» » you
» » » 100 hairs in the same area.
» »
» » That’s not what he said. He said he grew a hair for every 4 he had.
» » That’s a huge yield, particularly for those who have thinning hair.
» The
» » issue will be consistency.
»
» quote “One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.” Still
» excited?
He said both of his testing sites show the same results. Now, this isn’t conclusive, of course. But, it’s definitely better than one testing site that grew 5 terminal hairs.
» »
» » quote “One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.” Still
» » excited?
»
» Absolutely. That’s a 25% increased yield, if its due to the ARI protocol.
» That’s a huge improvement.
huge? then Minoxidil and Propecia are also huge!
I would call it a promising starting point.
The good thing is that this trialist is not “the best, handpicked, case” like it happened with Histogen. Well, Histogen can argue that they are in Phase I, low dose, and ARI is in Phase II, so Histogen still has more potential to improve…
I don’t know, I feel that this is going to be a looong journey towards the cure.
» » »
» » » quote “One small area originally had 20 hairs. Now it has 25.” Still
» » » excited?
» »
» » Absolutely. That’s a 25% increased yield, if its due to the ARI
» protocol.
» » That’s a huge improvement.
»
» huge? then Minoxidil and Propecia are also huge!
» I would call it a promising starting point.
» The good thing is that this trialist is not “the best, handpicked, case”
» like it happened with Histogen. Well, Histogen can argue that they are in
» Phase I, low dose, and ARI is in Phase II, so Histogen still has more
» potential to improve…
»
» I don’t know, I feel that this is going to be a looong journey towards the
» cure.
They say when ARI phase II is going to be completed?
»
» huge? then Minoxidil and Propecia are also huge!
» I would call it a promising starting point.
» The good thing is that this trialist is not “the best, handpicked, case”
» like it happened with Histogen. Well, Histogen can argue that they are in
» Phase I, low dose, and ARI is in Phase II, so Histogen still has more
» potential to improve…
»
» I don’t know, I feel that this is going to be a looong journey towards the
» cure.
Show me data that Propecia or Rogain consistently grows 20% new hair. Even if they did, they do so through different mechanisms, so this is ANOTHER 20% that can be had. Most would be ECSTATIC about a new protocol that will add another 20% to their head.
Take a pic of your thinning bald spot, get it into photoshop, and darken the area by 25%. That’s a BIG improvement for anything working outside the typical methods. That’s real.
Or you could imagine it this way: Take a HT recipient area that has had 4000 grafts implanted, and magically turn it into 5000 grafts. No additional hormone effects, and no loss of the regained hair as soon as any daily medication regimens are stopped.
If you guys can’t see the progress this represents then you’re not being realistic about near-term HM. We haven’t ever seen jack sh*t in terms of visible results from any other kind of HM project like this. And nobody is saying this result is the final product of ARI’s project, either.
Sorry cal but its not as easy as that… 25% more hair is not the same as 25% darker area of coverage in photoshop. Saying that would mean that a person with 8 hairs on his head has 25% darker coverage with 10 hairs? Hair count and coverage do not have a linear correlatation.
Also the 25% improvement seems to be in areas of thinning hair, so on a 5000 graft transplant i dont think the 25% applies to the transplanted hair but rather to the thinning original hair, which might well be a far smaller procentage.
» Take a pic of your thinning bald spot, get it into photoshop, and darken
» the area by 25%. That’s a BIG improvement for anything working outside the
» typical methods. That’s real.
»
» Or you could imagine it this way: Take a HT recipient area that has had
» 4000 grafts implanted, and magically turn it into 5000 grafts. No
» additional hormone effects, and no loss of the regained hair as soon as any
» daily medication regimens are stopped.
»
»
»
»
» If you guys can’t see the progress this represents then you’re not being
» realistic about near-term HM. We haven’t ever seen jack sh*t in terms of
» visible results from any other kind of HM project like this. And nobody is
» saying this result is the final product of ARI’s project, either.
»
» I am pleased by the sound of this.
» Sorry cal but its not as easy as that… 25% more hair is not the same as
» 25% darker area of coverage in photoshop. Saying that would mean that a
» person with 8 hairs on his head has 25% darker coverage with 10 hairs? Hair
» count and coverage do not have a linear correlatation.
»
» Also the 25% improvement seems to be in areas of thinning hair, so on a
» 5000 graft transplant i dont think the 25% applies to the transplanted hair
» but rather to the thinning original hair, which might well be a far smaller
» procentage.
»
»
» » Take a pic of your thinning bald spot, get it into photoshop, and
» darken
» » the area by 25%. That’s a BIG improvement for anything working outside
» the
» » typical methods. That’s real.
» »
» » Or you could imagine it this way: Take a HT recipient area that has
» had
» » 4000 grafts implanted, and magically turn it into 5000 grafts. No
» » additional hormone effects, and no loss of the regained hair as soon as
» any
» » daily medication regimens are stopped.
» »
» »
» »
» »
» » If you guys can’t see the progress this represents then you’re not
» being
» » realistic about near-term HM. We haven’t ever seen jack sh*t in terms
» of
» » visible results from any other kind of HM project like this. And nobody
» is
» » saying this result is the final product of ARI’s project, either.
» »
» » I am pleased by the sound of this.
Good point, but having 25% more hair in a thinning region, that can be used for a HT would be critical for many people.
Bottom line is that if 25% increase in thinning areas is offered by ARI, assuming that it’s not going to be outrageous in price, would be more than useful for balding men.
» It is the “yield”, hairs/injection ratio. This is the important figure.
» We don’t know if they are simple [CELL] injections or [AND] scaffolds, but in any case,
» the best result would be 1 hair per injection/scaffold. (yield=1.0=100%).
The colored text explains, WHY they did not always inject in completely bald areas. That means, in this case (test person), they test/check both:
in labs tissue engineered scaffolds (hair follicle shaped/created);
plus just (stem-)cells, to try to reactivate already natural existing “scaffolds” (follicle bulbs);
Tissue engineered scaffolds? (<-- Link to PDF)
You could (pretty cheap) produce such scaffolds with modified inkjet printers by “printing” them in 3D layer by layer, as some other “Frankensteins” already do so.
Why modeled hair bulb scaffolds? Because cells need them to know “ah, we should create a hair follicle!” - und that is no joke. Human cells need scaffolds, because they are not as clever as salamander cells. BTW - That explains, why e.g. ACell products are able to regenerate tissue, because in the powder or sheet there are 3D tissue scaffolds.
So do your own homework, go out, and build tissue engineered scaffold plants, because we have ENOUGH cells, but currently not enough different and cheap scaffolds - not just for hair follicle bulb scaffolds …
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.