a case study of DONOR REGENERATION with the FUE-L Technique by Dr B. MOUSSEIGNE

[Mathieu]

Winston: understood. I'll take it into account for my future contributions. I see that you also deleted the corrected draft I had posted on this page; does that mean that you can't edit my post on the first page of this thread? I would really appreciate to have the miscounts corrected though...

[JJJJrS]

It's very encouraging to see more doctors experimenting and reporting success with donor regeneration. I wish Dr. Mousseigne all the success with his efforts.

I think the key is the recipient growth. The donor looks great but the recipient is the other half of the proof. Mathieu, you said that you can't yet comment on the recipient but that there is reason to be optimistic. Is it possible to elaborate on this at all? Have you tested your technique on other patients?

Do you think it will be possible, with this technique, to extract 2500+ grafts per session or will you be limited?

I also think it's great that Dr. Mousseigne seems to be willing to share his technique and that it may be offered in North America one day.

This is all very exciting and I can't wait to hear more in the future.

[534623]

IM, sure.
The main goal of these new techniques is to achieve (1) steady donor regeneration after FU's sane harvesting, and (2) steady regrowth in the recipient area after FU's transplantation. In other words, it aims at multiplying the donor potential as much as each patients' physiology allows it.

I'm asking this, because the METHOD per se (simply doing this, independent in what way or which "protocol" you use) is patented:

"(a) removing hair in the anagen phase from one or more donor areas in such a way that the hair stem cells which are responsible for hair growth are still attached to the hair removed;
and
(b) bringing the hair stem cells of the hair removed into contact with a medium which contains extracellular matrix components or substitutes there; and

(c) implanting the hair of step b) in the scalp."

It doesn't matter which tools or "vehicles" you use to accomplish these patent claims - simply using this method in general is patented. And THE reason, why such an approach is patentable at all, is, in fact, because if exactly doing that would be that easy and as simple as it sounds to accomplish all this (aka "this mythos") - we would have such procedures since hair transplants exists.

[FearTheLoss]

I'm asking this, because the METHOD per se (simply doing this, independent in what way or which "protocol" you use) is patented:

"(a) removing hair in the anagen phase from one or more donor areas in such a way that the hair stem cells which are responsible for hair growth are still attached to the hair removed;
and
(b) bringing the hair stem cells of the hair removed into contact with a medium which contains extracellular matrix components or substitutes there; and

(c) implanting the hair of step b) in the scalp."

It doesn't matter which tools or "vehicles" you use to accomplish these patent claims - simply using this method in general is patented. And THE reason, why such an approach is patentable at all, is, in fact, because if exactly doing that would be that easy and as simple as it sounds to accomplish all this (aka "this mythos") - we would have such procedures since hair transplants exists.

IronMan why do you give a shit about this? I'm starting to think you do, indeed, work for Gho. If you are a patient truly interested in the best for the hair loss industry you would be backing this instead of trying to tear it down. You aren't in the room with Dr. Mousseigne when he operates so don't be so quick to criticize. No one wants Mathieu to leave the forum because of your behavior.

[Winston]

Winston: understood. I'll take it into account for my future contributions. I see that you also deleted the corrected draft I had posted on this page; does that mean that you can't edit my post on the first page of this thread? I would really appreciate to have the miscounts corrected though...

The corrections have been made.

[534623]

The corrections have been made.

Sure, including deleting of my last post - without any logical reason.

[gc83uk]

I think I speak on behalf of most, but perhaps NOT all Hasci patients in these forums, that despite being tagged as 'Gho fan boys', we want the likes of Dr Mousseigne to succeed just as we want Gho to keep on succeeding and improving his technique.

There is no loyalty to one doctor from me certainly, despite what many seem to think!

[534623]

There is no loyalty to one doctor from me certainly, despite what many seem to think!

Contrary to you - I'm, and I will ALWAYS be, loyal to one doctor: It's Dr. Gho.

But if I would be such a "Gho fan boy" as many claim - why, for example, not having my first HST with Dr. Gho himself?

So what's THE reason for my "loyalty"?

Because without such guys like Dr. Gho as "weapon", such little copycats like Dr Mousseigne, wouldn't exist in this field. Otherwise perhaps with a delay of 10-20 years or so ....

Wars have always been very healthy for producing new weapons - and vice versa.

[gc83uk]

Contrary to you - I'm, and I will ALWAYS be, loyal to one doctor: It's Dr. Gho.

But if I would be such a "Gho fan boy" as many claim - why, for example, not having my first HST with Dr. Gho himself?

So what's THE reason for my "loyalty"?

Because without such guys like Dr. Gho as "weapon", such little copycats like Dr Mousseigne, wouldn't exist in this field. Otherwise perhaps with a delay of 10-20 years or so ....

Wars have always been very healthy for producing new weapons - and vice versa.

This is definitely your prerogative, each to their own I say!

Dr Gho has been a God-send for me and I will be re-visiting for my 4th procedure this year (so don't get me wrong)... However I'm not one to have blind faith eternally, I'll always keep asking questions and trying to seek something close to perfection.

As for the copy cat comments, I'm going to leave that discussion to you & Mathieu

[534623]

As for the copy cat comments, I'm going to leave that discussion to you & Mathieu

Actually, the discussion was already over before it started.