K
karmenelec
Valued member
This is a post I co-opted from another forum. The writer makes interesting points:
"Recently, a Dutch authority decided for HSI, and that the Hair Science Institute definitely has the permission and the right for all their claims on their website.
Source: http://www.hasci.com
(Translation Dutch/English)
--------------------------
HSI wins lawsuit at the Reclame Code Commissie!
On 15 July 2010, the Hair Science Institute (HSI) could at the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) successfully defend a lawsuit by some hair transplant clinics due to false statements made by HSI. This lawsuit was the newest episode of a continuing series of efforts of these clinics to discredit HSI.
Reason for the lawsuit against HSI were the made claims by HSI of "hair multiplication" as a result of HSI s patented Hairstemcell Transplantation ® (HST), and that for the hair multiplication claims no evidence exists. The applicants were:
¢ Transhair BV
¢ Aesthetic Team BV
¢ Laser Surgery
¢ Prohairclinic
¢ Hairplus Medical Care
After a fair hearing of all affected parties and experts, finally the commission came to the decision, that HSI has just made plausible statements on their website and judged therefore the lawsuit for unfounded.
In addition, the claim the popular Dutchman Gerard Joling has HSI linked to his name was dismissed by the commission as irrelevant. In the attached PDF file, you can read the official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie.
This decision was truly no surprise for HSI and its clients. However, for HSI it is gratifying to see, that now the Reclame Code Commissie too has confirmed, that Hairstemcell Transplantation@ (HST) and its resulting unique statement of "hair multiplication" is fully justified.
We hope you enjoy reading!
Official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC):
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloa...tspraakRCC.pdf
--------------------------
So what?
Since April 2010, actually the whole HT field is aware of HSI s published scientifically peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388024
That means, normally EVERY FUE expert out there is really easy able to prove or to disprove this study. Where is the problem? Or aren t there any FUE-experts out there?
It seems not, because they presented and informed every year about their progress for this technique since 2007 (2008 and 2009 too) at the ISHRS congress, as for instance 2007 in Las Vegas:
http://ushairrestoration.com/follicu...plantation.php
In my personal opinion, all such guys and doctors, who claim the HSI technique is a scam , are the real scammers - besides the fact, that it seems that those ones don t even have the necessary scientifically knowhow in their own field. I can see this almost every day. And THIS is really sad!"
Well that last paragraph is a little harsh and unwarranted. But I should say that I have spoken personally with three different doctors at HSI, and have spent a total of well over an hour on the phone with them (the long distance charges sucked!). They were very patient with me, answered all my questions, criticisms and skepticism. They have also sent me clear close-up photos of before and afters showing donor regrowth after the procedure.
They started this new technique just a couple of years ago and the success they say is unquestionable. We just don't hear about it because we're across the Atlantic and doctors here will not give credit where its due because the procedure is patented -- let's face it, if the average prospective patient knew they could do an FUE procedure without loss of donor, they would take the option. (I asked Hairtech from SMG on these boards for comment on this procedure and he has been conspicuously silent -- despite being very active on these boards during the weeks prior.)
Yes, HSI admitted to me that the procedure was flawed in the early 2000s (causing much less donor regrowth), but Dr. Gho developed a much improved technique (splitting follicles laterally instead of horizontally) that guarantees at least 80% donor regrowth -- and he parted ways with his old clinic shortly thereafter to start HSI.
I asked HSI why they don't have photos on their site of NW6s transformed to NW1. They said the technique has only been around for a couple of years, you can only have approx 1500 grafts per procedure, and you have to wait at least 9 months between each one. So there hasn't been time for any drastic transformations yet. They admit their marketing sucks, but have said they really don't feel pressure to prove their naysayers wrong because they're booked through mid-2011 as it is. Clearly they're doing something right!
Between this and ACell, I really think limited donor concerns are ALREADY a thing of the past. Time to rewrite the textbooks.
"Recently, a Dutch authority decided for HSI, and that the Hair Science Institute definitely has the permission and the right for all their claims on their website.
Source: http://www.hasci.com
(Translation Dutch/English)
--------------------------
HSI wins lawsuit at the Reclame Code Commissie!
On 15 July 2010, the Hair Science Institute (HSI) could at the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) successfully defend a lawsuit by some hair transplant clinics due to false statements made by HSI. This lawsuit was the newest episode of a continuing series of efforts of these clinics to discredit HSI.
Reason for the lawsuit against HSI were the made claims by HSI of "hair multiplication" as a result of HSI s patented Hairstemcell Transplantation ® (HST), and that for the hair multiplication claims no evidence exists. The applicants were:
¢ Transhair BV
¢ Aesthetic Team BV
¢ Laser Surgery
¢ Prohairclinic
¢ Hairplus Medical Care
After a fair hearing of all affected parties and experts, finally the commission came to the decision, that HSI has just made plausible statements on their website and judged therefore the lawsuit for unfounded.
In addition, the claim the popular Dutchman Gerard Joling has HSI linked to his name was dismissed by the commission as irrelevant. In the attached PDF file, you can read the official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie.
This decision was truly no surprise for HSI and its clients. However, for HSI it is gratifying to see, that now the Reclame Code Commissie too has confirmed, that Hairstemcell Transplantation@ (HST) and its resulting unique statement of "hair multiplication" is fully justified.
We hope you enjoy reading!
Official decision of the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC):
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloa...tspraakRCC.pdf
--------------------------
So what?
Since April 2010, actually the whole HT field is aware of HSI s published scientifically peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388024
That means, normally EVERY FUE expert out there is really easy able to prove or to disprove this study. Where is the problem? Or aren t there any FUE-experts out there?
It seems not, because they presented and informed every year about their progress for this technique since 2007 (2008 and 2009 too) at the ISHRS congress, as for instance 2007 in Las Vegas:
http://ushairrestoration.com/follicu...plantation.php
In my personal opinion, all such guys and doctors, who claim the HSI technique is a scam , are the real scammers - besides the fact, that it seems that those ones don t even have the necessary scientifically knowhow in their own field. I can see this almost every day. And THIS is really sad!"
Well that last paragraph is a little harsh and unwarranted. But I should say that I have spoken personally with three different doctors at HSI, and have spent a total of well over an hour on the phone with them (the long distance charges sucked!). They were very patient with me, answered all my questions, criticisms and skepticism. They have also sent me clear close-up photos of before and afters showing donor regrowth after the procedure.
They started this new technique just a couple of years ago and the success they say is unquestionable. We just don't hear about it because we're across the Atlantic and doctors here will not give credit where its due because the procedure is patented -- let's face it, if the average prospective patient knew they could do an FUE procedure without loss of donor, they would take the option. (I asked Hairtech from SMG on these boards for comment on this procedure and he has been conspicuously silent -- despite being very active on these boards during the weeks prior.)
Yes, HSI admitted to me that the procedure was flawed in the early 2000s (causing much less donor regrowth), but Dr. Gho developed a much improved technique (splitting follicles laterally instead of horizontally) that guarantees at least 80% donor regrowth -- and he parted ways with his old clinic shortly thereafter to start HSI.
I asked HSI why they don't have photos on their site of NW6s transformed to NW1. They said the technique has only been around for a couple of years, you can only have approx 1500 grafts per procedure, and you have to wait at least 9 months between each one. So there hasn't been time for any drastic transformations yet. They admit their marketing sucks, but have said they really don't feel pressure to prove their naysayers wrong because they're booked through mid-2011 as it is. Clearly they're doing something right!
Between this and ACell, I really think limited donor concerns are ALREADY a thing of the past. Time to rewrite the textbooks.
Last edited: