» If you look closely you’ll find it there. it’s barely visible but it’s
» there.
» Similar situation but the other way around (mole visible on left and
» almost invisible on right) can be found a bit up and left of the upper
» tattoo
Debris:
Thanks for replying. I have had a very interesting look at these photos blown up in photoshop. At first I was convinced they were not before/after photos because I’m still not convinced about the mole issue.
But then I started playing around with overlaying, opacities, and transforms and found something very interesting. When I lined up just the left side, I got matches of before/after hair at key points. But this caused the right side hair to not line up any more. But when I lined up the right side hair, the key points matched. So it is very possible that the photos are taken from slightly different angles causing the hair to not overlay exactly between photos, but when I account for this angulation, the hair lines up.
It seems quite possible to me that these are before/after photos as both photos show a level of scarring that is consistent between the photos and when the photos are overlayed the hair matches up at key points. However, there is still the issue with the mole as demonstrated below:
If this is in fact a case of before/after photos then clearly stimulation of existing follicles is taking place because when I overlay and match on key points, the after photos have larger diameter hair shafts.
I’m currently leaning toward this being a before/after image but I can’t explain the mole thing (look at it blown up in photoshop, and you will see what I mean). Perhaps the pigmented area in the after photo is the result of pigmentation cysts or something similar?
I’d say it’s just ingrown hair. or a follicle where the regeneration did go little wrong. Or a leaked tatoo.
As you can see, in the supposedly before photo, there is a little darker spot pretty much at the same position where the mole you are talking about is. in fact you have now marked it with arrows. This spot is imho a follicle (vellous follicle).
I believe that the two photos show stimulation of follicles. And the one near the tatoo, went somehow wrong and ended up as ingrown hair.
Other possibility is that the tatoo leaked to the vellous follicle (via blood stream?). This might be very probable as well. What do you think?
BTW I tried to do the GIMP work myself as well and I wanted to post pretty much what you did. I noticed the rotation but I somehow found myself unable to rotate it correctly (my GIMP skills are very poor) and gave up
In my opinion it is before and after photo (probably the best case guy of the 103% or what the number was :)), from this we could conclude that the 103 is a percentage of new pigmented hair measured relative to the state in the before photo. 103 would then mean that basically the guy had slightly more than twice the hair.
Another thing that I conclude from the photos is that it shows that mostly the the technique is rejuvenating hair. I can not see any significant signs of new hair formation there. Pretty much all the new hair spots correspond to a place in the before photo where you can find a darker spot as well. These darker spots are imho pores from where the vellus hair grows out on the balding head.
Another thing that I believe is precisely what you pointed out. The before and after photos are slightly rotated relative to each other and scale may play a role as well. Also I’d keep in mind that this was in vivo and skin is elastic, so I’m not surprised at all if sometimes some of the spots seem to be moved slightly. This may well be because of the follicle growth (it grows and well, it grows at some direction, so at the after photo it’s appearance may be moved slightly in that direction). Erector pili muscle can move hair as well.
The key to read the image is in my opinion the relative formation of the follicles. I looked at the images the way that I found some non trivial pattern on left and and then searched the area on right to try to identify and verify the existence of the same pattern.
Every time I did so, I found the images matching each other.
Hmm it looks to me that there is more than 103% of growth. So maybe the logic that it’s relative to the before base count is flawed or their definition of terminal hair is really strong.
Can anyone count the terminal hair?
Also in the before photo, there are just few terminal hair visible. and mostly the pores seem to be pretty much empty (the vellus hair must be really thin??)
On the after photo, there seems to be a lot of terminal hair growing out of the pores. But also it seems that some pores grew just vellous hair (some did more than one).
What is really weird are that noticeably better results on the right side of the area. It looks like the doc did something differently there. Maybe intentionally, maybe just luckily. Maybe it’s the stimulation. or maybe he just did that area first, then took a break and changed angle his hand was holding the injection who knows
It would be nice if they could give the results visible on the right side of the area consistently. that would be WOW result
Could anyone guess the size of the circle? is it 1 inch or 1cm?
» What is really weird are that noticeably better results on the right side
» of the area. It looks like the doc did something differently there. Maybe
» intentionally, maybe just luckily. Maybe it’s the stimulation. or maybe he
» just did that area first, then took a break and changed angle his hand was
» holding the injection who knows
As I recall, the percent increases were given in phase II and in phase I Kemp said he got 66 new hairs, that was about average for those that responded, but some people got a lot more hairs. This photo is probably of the best responder in phase I.
I find it difficult to “count new hairs” because this appears to be stimulation so new hairs are really old hairs. IOW, the existing hairs are much thicker in the after photo because they have been stimulated. I take it that new hairs are hairs that were not previously cosmetically beneficial but were stimulated to grow thick and pigmented. In this case, the result is well over 100% percent change.
As far as the better result being on the lower half, Gho had similar results in that the most bald portions of a particular scalp didn’t necessarily stimulate better or worse, but some areas tended to stimulate better than others. So I think this is going to be how stimulation protocols tend to work. Fortunately, Gho found that increased procedures lead to increased thickening of the hair. So we might end up seeing a need for multiple treatments over large areas.
ICX says they will only do about a thousand injections per treatment, but I think the scalp could probably handle several thousand in a day if it were over a large area. You would have to let the hair grow out, assess the regrowth, and perform subsequent injections to thicken up the treated area. This might explain why ICX is yacking about initially targeting men who are just starting to thin or using the treatment to supplement HT.
One last thing, it appears that TRC is heavily slanted toward stimulation, but based on the patent where the cells fill up the needle track, it makes sense that new follicles are also being formed as the DP cells will come into direct contact with the dermal/epidermal junction.
I count 42 ±3 viable hairs prior to treatment and 141 ±6 viable hairs after treatment. So we have an increase of about 100 viable hairs. This is about what I would expect from Kemp’s description of the best response in phase I. However, this seems to be a lot better response than phase II as it represents an increase of well over 300%.
» Here’s the math :
»
» I took a ruler and it measures around 78mm for the diameter of the circle
» and 0.5mm for the diameter of the hair.
»
» Then it takes 160 hairs side by side for the diameter of the hair. 1 hair
» has a average of 50x10exp-6 meter.
»
» Then 160*( 50x10exp-6 ) = around 0.8cm then you can guess 1cm
I’m not sure I follow that. I think the red square below represents about 1cm^2. If you fill in imaginary hair then a non-balding scalp would take about 12 to 15 hairs to span across my red box. I.E 144 to 225 hairs cm^2. Maybe I’m being too conservative, but it seems to me if the entire circle were a cm^2, the density would not line up to real life.
My previous estimate might be too conservative. But it still looks to me like the radius of the circle would take a good 12 hairs to span its length. So if Area = pi * radius^2, then 3.14 * 12^2 = 452, which would represent over 2cm^2 area of balding scalp by normal density standards.
Thus, I think it is up to speculation as to how much area is represented, but the key seems to be how far you think the hairs would be spaced on a normal non-balding scalp and then doing the circle math.
» I count 42 ±3 viable hairs prior to treatment and 141 ±6 viable hairs
» after treatment. So we have an increase of about 100 viable hairs. This is
» about what I would expect from Kemp’s description of the best response in
» phase I. However, this seems to be a lot better response than phase II as
» it represents an increase of well over 300%.
which is little weird isn’t it? In phase I they were focusing on safety with limited dose. and got better results than in phase II ?
I agree with ya, it’s very strange. And don’t forget that almost 2 years elapsed between end phase I and beginning phase II. I would have expected way better results in phase II. I’m sure they changed things and maybe wasn’t for the best in real human test, oh well, we have to wait 3 months to find out.
» » I count 42 ±3 viable hairs prior to treatment and 141 ±6 viable hairs
» » after treatment. So we have an increase of about 100 viable hairs. This
» is
» » about what I would expect from Kemp’s description of the best response
» in
» » phase I. However, this seems to be a lot better response than phase II
» as
» » it represents an increase of well over 300%.
»
» which is little weird isn’t it? In phase I they were focusing on safety
» with limited dose. and got better results than in phase II ?
» » which is little weird isn’t it? In phase I they were focusing on safety
» » with limited dose. and got better results than in phase II ?
Hmmm, on second thought the actual increase is closer to 2x than 3x. It’s easy for me to confuse total with increase. At any rate, “weird” is an accurate description of the results. Perhaps phase II is targeting slick bald areas as opposed to partially hairy patches so the results are different. If so, that doesn’t say much for a response rate of 100%.
It’s looking like perhaps multiple treatments will be necessary, and the hairline will need some HT help. I agree that there’s not much one can do but to wait for more concise data from the phase II study.
» Can you guess if the hair on the picture is normal thicnkness? sometimes
» even pigmented hair are thin way too much to provide total coverage
I can’t tell for sure. It looks like stimulation to me as not only are the hairs in the before picture thicker in the after picture, the new hairs are evenly spaced. I don’t think this would happen with neogenesis, but based on ICX’ patent there could be some neogenesis happening as well.
If it is stimulation, then you will be at the mercy of how well your old follicles respond to the treatment. It looks like the guy in this photo has some hairs that are normal thickness, some that are hyper-thick, and some that are hypo-thick. I suspect subsequent injections would thicken up the thinner hairs but it is entirely possible that the thinner hairs will thicken up as time goes on without having to do anything further.
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.
