ACell, a Current Review of Applications in Hair Transplant Surgery

[UK_]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8586752

Quote : "......The results showed that the number of hairs decreased in the axilla with each session using the blend method: permanent hair removal was achieved in an average of 26.8 weeks or 9.9 sessions. However, the number of hairs did not decrease in the axilla after plucking........"

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709819
Plucking during telogen induces apoptosis in the lower part of hair follicles. Interesting because you can see what immediately happens when you pluck a hair (reorganisation occurs besides obvious "cell death")

Firstly, the above articles are irrelevant; as in the context of our discussion the plucking process is more akin to a complete follicular extraction than a typical eyebrow pluck. Also, the above studies do not analyse the type of hair regeneration when you pluck hairs with the sole intention of (1) re-growing them in other areas of the scalp and (2) with approximately 80 - 90% of the follicle attached to the hair. They cannot be used to support your overly optimistic and buoyant views that anything in this process even works , and by that I mean everything, consistently, the Acell, the plucking, the auto-cloning, the re-growth, everything.

The reason I put emphasis on the issue of the type of re-growth is that my sole contention throughout this exchange has been to convince you that (1) there is absolutely no evidence that the plucked hairs (in this process) grow back at the same diameter as the preceding hair. (2) There is NO EVIDENCE that anything close to the concept of auto-cloning even occurs and (3) there is absolutely no evidence to support any claim of a 75% survival rate (but my heart of hearts tells me you have grown to accept this, just as you will grow to accept the stark truth that this procedure and concept has utterly fallen on its arse). I also do not believe you can convince me in any way that by plucking c4000 FOLLICLES in THIS MANNER that you will not contribute toward a degree of degradation in terms of diameter, thickness and cosmetic appearance of both the donor and recipient areas.

We clear?

Anyway I gotta hand it to ya - Nice one pulling up some articles on how plucked hairs do return, how many of those hairs do you feel will be viable for auto-cloning? 20%? 50%? None? All of them? lol I rest my case.

[RichardDawkins]

No witty comments UK?

[RichardDawkins]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8586752

Quote : "......The results showed that the number of hairs decreased in the axilla with each session using the blend method: permanent hair removal was achieved in an average of 26.8 weeks or 9.9 sessions. However, the number of hairs did not decrease in the axilla after plucking........"

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709819
Plucking during telogen induces apoptosis in the lower part of hair follicles. Interesting because you can see what immediately happens when you pluck a hair (reorganisation occurs besides obvious "cell death")

[UK_]

Ok just listen one time

1) If you pluck your eyebrows and white tissue is around, what do you have?

2) If you pluck scalp hair and white tissue is around, what do you have?

In both cases you pluck H-A-I-R-S which have the undoubtful benefit of substitute that what people generally consider a FOLLICLE ( FUE or FUT Graft)

In other words when you pluck a hair, you pluck a hair with enough sufficient tissue(stem cells included) to actually transplant them.

You could take a FUE or FUT follicle and stripe off all the tissue like it resembles a plucked hair and it still can be transplanted. But in the case of FUE or FUT you have bigger tissue around it because you stance them out, but you soulc easily pluck those hairs out of the stanced out follicle and the hair would still grow.

But that is the exact issue I am trying to convey to YOU. You are proposing that you can take a plucked hair as close as possible to a fully extracted follicle, grow the plucked hair in the recipient area and magically have a cloned regenerated hair in the donor area aswel, without the possibility of ANY impact on shape, size and growth of both the regenerated hair and the recipient hair EVEN if you pluck 1 hair or 4,000 hairs - or should I say 4,000 follicles? Lol. Let me tell you, that contention is a VERY VERY VERY optimistic one; if this were the case, then why didnt it work 10 years ago? What has happend since then? Ill tell you what, the introduction of ACELL, and Acell has FAILED to provide any documented evidence of enhancing the efficacy of this procedure. This is why I have been asking for the past 10 posts: SHOW ME THE SCIENCE.

It's all well and nice for you to sell your belief and faith in this procedure to the audience through your overly optimistic and idealistic conjecturally predisposed comments, but the issue is simple; Acell is the only reason we are here, Acell held the promise, and Acell has clearly failed to deliver. You're like a gambler chasing big losses, all hyped up on a process that has no science or promise, step back and realise that until the professionals in the field can provide you with documented evidence regarding both safety and efficacy you have NOTHING.

[RichardDawkins]

Ok just listen one time

1) If you pluck your eyebrows and white tissue is around, what do you have?

2) If you pluck scalp hair and white tissue is around, what do you have?

In both cases you pluck H-A-I-R-S which have the undoubtful benefit of substitute that what people generally consider a FOLLICLE ( FUE or FUT Graft)

In other words when you pluck a hair, you pluck a hair with enough sufficient tissue(stem cells included) to actually transplant them.

You could take a FUE or FUT follicle and stripe off all the tissue like it resembles a plucked hair and it still can be transplanted. But in the case of FUE or FUT you have bigger tissue around it because you stance them out, but you soulc easily pluck those hairs out of the stanced out follicle and the hair would still grow.

[UK_]

Pie-in-the-sky technique? Ok i will stop to discuss with you because you dont want this to work, you just wanna bash it, thats it.

And we are running around in circles, so i wait for the next update, which will come

Indeed we shall see, I have a strange feeling we will be told to wait longer - that's the thing you see, you cant use the "woman plucking eyebrow hairs model" to justify your blind belief in this procedure, why? Because they are plucking hairs whilst you are plucking follicles.

[RichardDawkins]

Pie-in-the-sky technique? Ok i will stop to discuss with you because you dont want this to work, you just wanna bash it, thats it.

And we are running around in circles, so i wait for the next update, which will come

[UK_]

@UK : i said everything i said to you. Yes i can compare plucking eyebrows with plucking nose hair and scalp hair, cause their charateristics in term of how they work are amost THE SAME.

Otherwise it would even be possible to transplant beard hair.

WHAT damage to donor hair follicles. You dont even know what the follicle is do you?

You are missing the real meat of what I am trying to convey here; you say you can compare plucking beard hairs, nose hairs an toe hairs to scalp hairs? Firstly, if you wish to refute what Dr Cole stated by using this as your modus operandi then you have failed before you have even begun. Secondly, it is not just what is being extracted but how and why it is being extracted which leads to your next 'question'.

"WHAT damage to hair follicles"

In order for the plucked follicle to be viable it must retain a certain amount of the follicle on the plucked hair, this links to the damage I have been referring to during my past posts. For you to extract a viable hair follicle via this procedure you must induce damage in the donor region, that, I am afraid is just how it is. 'Dr Cole's' fundamental argument here is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that a donor area large enough used for this pie-in-the-sky plucking procedure will retain 100% of its original characteristics. Indeed, many women pluck hairs but how many pluck with the intention of extracting 90% of the hair follicle? Do not attempt to dissuade my discussion here, I am merely agreeing with Dr Cole’s statement, and nobody here has proven it to be misguided in any way and there is no reason even in the further future that anyone shall do so.

[RichardDawkins]

HairTalk, there is a difference between talking everything down and only quote a doctor and what you do. You raise concearns and we can discuss them but the other thin, what UK does is just downtalk everything to the point where it seems to be rubbish science or so.

Also he ignored the fact that someone had plucked hairs transplanted to his scar and many grew. He just ignores this and this is nothing where you should discuss any further.

And i diasagree, hair plucking is hairplucking. Its grabbing hairs with a tweezer and pull them, thats it. Sometimes there is tissue on it and sometimes not.

But this doesnt matter the hair with tissue and the one without will always come back the same way they did before and before and before.

Just tweeze some of your hairs, it doenst matter where and look closely at them, when they have white soft stuff around them, congratulations you plucked a hair which could have been transplanted to your scalp.

After that just watch how long it takes till this hair has grown back.

@UK : i said everything i said to you. Yes i can compare plucking eyebrows with plucking nose hair and scalp hair, cause their charateristics in term of how they work are amost THE SAME.

Otherwise it would even be possible to transplant beard hair.

WHAT damage to donor hair follicles. You dont even know what the follicle is do you?

Here : Just look for the word HAIR FOLLICLE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skin.jpg

Iam not saying you should be more positive. I say you should get your head to finally think and not to copy and paste some statements because you dont have any other ideas.

Acell is not grow factor, its an ECM it keeps tissue from healing and therefore animates the body to create exactly what was there before.

So then tell me buddy, why hasnt Dr Cole commented till now?

Btw can you give a date when Dr Cole did say this?

[UK_]

Do you really think Dr. Cole's motivation for starting this thread was fear of seeing his "F.U.E. territory" being infringed upon? Doesn't Dr. Cooley, too, perform F.U.E.? And, if plucking worked out, would Dr. Cole be barred from profiting from it?.

Exactly, I didnt even wish to reply to such a ridiculous comment, would Dr Cole not simply adopt the plucking procedure if were to work? Do you not think this procedure would expand the market a little? lol.

[UK_]

Ahm i belive that Dr Hitzig also stated that they have to carefully look if the follicles (plucked hairs) are usable.... but why am i repeating this to you.

Of course they have the same charateristics, have you ever plucked your eye brows or nose hair? Its coming back exactly the same way as you plucked it. Hair doesnt forget about its characteristics only because you pluck it

You should ask this pvtpoint2000 guy cause he also stated that the plucked hairs grow in his scar.

Why should i prove that it works? Why doesnt Dr Cole prove that it didnt work?

No i wont copy and paste anything, thats your job, i refrain from doing so and share my personal believings.

But where is the evidence? And you have failed to address the substance of my post, you cannot apply the concept of plucking eyebrow hairs and nose hairs to scalp hair, really, this isnt that straight forward. You also failed to address the issue of damage to donor hair follicles, how can you sit there and assume some porcine growth factor can repair c2000 torn apart hair follicles and not expect some degree of irreparable damage to occur resulting in a cosmetic dilemma. Also, you are throwing into the mix here the potential failure rate of transplanted plucked hairs, including also potential failure of extracted plucked hairs due to again, damage rendering the plucked hair useless.

"No i wont copy and paste anything".

Thank you, at long last we are getting somewhere; you cannot copy and paste anything because you have nothing to show, the statement that plucking has a 75% success rate has not been replicated in any further study you have nothing backing this. You can sit here and scream at me all day: "be more positive" "it could happen" "we have porcine growth factors on our side now" yadda yadda yadda the fact remains that Dr Cole's statement remains entirely true, you came here to argue my use of that statement, I am asking you to refute the statement with evidence, something you cannot do, so the statement remains an accurate one, and I shall use and stand by it until I see actual bullet-proof evidence that this procedure works.

[gmonasco]

Please, please don't quote the entirety of an 18-paragraph post just to pose a single comment or question. It really makes the board tough to read.

[HairTalk]

I have to agree but the worst part imno is, that Dr Cole has manged to perfectionize one important part of the puzzle but its wasted because of "sour grapes" or so.


I do believe that even with CIT in combination with Acell it is possible to ganin infinite donor with a FUE procedure.

And thats the sad part, that instead of aying " ahhhh come on i give it a shot" people get back to "this wont work so why pursue this anyway"

And i often ask myself if those docs think, if they would do someting like this and everyone could do it, that people would rush to other docs.

I say hell NO, i would always prefer to go to the doc who did it first because he has THE experience.

But i dont think this would change, the worst part right now is not "Will this work" its more the "Why not pursue this goal as a community"

Cells are in some way "stupid" if you like it or not, they do what they are told to do, nothing more. And thats why autocloning works, the do what their direct neighbor does.

In a strange way you just override their "characteristics". And lets face it, autocloning is just the transplant form of something like Histogen etc.

Because in every case its a shifting or "modification" of genetic material.

Thats the benefit here, even Propecia as a small and stupid pill can slow down hairloss, even a stupid shampoo can do so, they can slow hairloss down and get some regrow sometimes. And these are topicals and/or "primitive" pills.

But what if you can directly shift genetic material with the code for "DHT resitent" to a place where hairs are not resitant?

Even your average hair transplant goes like this, it plants genetic material on another place. And those transplanted hairs shed, so it seems that they cyce anew in a dht agressive place. and even those planted follicles are not affected from dht, even after some years they stay permanent because they bring along their genetic material.

The human body has the tendency to overwrite negative characteristics with positive ones.

If you got pox, your body creates antigenes etc etc.

And just look at negative genetic impacts like radiation etc. This is another example that genetics are only solid to certain point but with enough "force" you can manipulate them.

And as you said stem cells are stil existing, but what if you use their existence and overwrite them with dht resistance? right they will be resistant.

It sounds as if you're saying what's done in hair-transplantation, currently, is a form of gene-manipulation. Correct me, if I'm misinterpreting.

[HairTalk]

UK, please stop wasting our time with this "where is the controlled study science" nonsense. Yes, in a perfect world, Dr Cooley would have the millions of dollars in funding for such experiments like Merck and Pfizer does. But he doesn't. All he has is his observations and his word, which, based on his years of stellar reputation, we should all trust implicitly.

By your rationale, most hair transplant techniques should not be taken seriously either. You think there is "science" up to your standards for any other hair transplant procedures? You think there's double-blind controlled "science" behind tricho closures, certain FUE/FUT methods or the like? NO. There are only HT doctors across the world who share their knowledge and experiences and try to improve on them. What you and Dr. Cole are trying to do, I believe, with the greatest respect, is slow down the rate of progress and enthusiasm involved with plucking as it's only a matter of time before it becomes the new standard. Dr. Cole spent years and years to perfect his FUE technique, only to have it replaced by this new easier, less invasive system that provides for unlimited donor. In a way, I feel for him. But not so much after his blatant attempts to quash progress in the field to the benefit of his pocketbook and the expense of prospective patients.

Do you really think Dr. Cole's motivation for starting this thread was fear of seeing his "F.U.E. territory" being infringed upon? Doesn't Dr. Cooley, too, perform F.U.E.? And, if plucking worked out, would Dr. Cole be barred from profiting from it?

I agree gigantic studies require lots of time and money and that hair-transplant surgery historically has not had these resources. I think, however, the "anecdotal" method of discovery often has been terrible for both the industry and for patients. Yes, it's unlikely we'd "be where we are" were it not for doctors' just trying things out, but look at the horribly ugly road that's gotten us to this point. By the mid-1990s, transplants could be performed such they were neither too detectable nor invasive, but, for the years until then, patients were just guinea-pigged in procedures that produced mediocre to awful cosmetic results, and often devastated one's donor area.

Neither regulation, nor the demand to see the science behind an idea about which people are becoming excited, are bad things.

Again, I agree there will be large financial restrictions in terms of what can be tried out in the field of surgical hair-loss intervention, but that doesn't suggest we should stop being alert — let's be open, but not so open we cease to think and to question.

A final point I find quite upsetting about hair-transplant research is how it is (in my view) so unfair to patients. It's one of the few areas of medicine, I believe, in which patients are asked to pay to be tested on; all elsewhere, the subjects are the ones who're given money for offering their time and bodies to medicine. The field of hair-transplantation seems altogether too aware of how eager and desperate its population is, and finds itself with a seemingly limitless number of heads on which to experiment. Actually charging to see if an idea you have will work — regardless of the oral and written disclaimers you give — is, I feel, unacceptable.

I'll step off my soap-box, now.

[RichardDawkins]

I have to agree but the worst part imno is, that Dr Cole has manged to perfectionize one important part of the puzzle but its wasted because of "sour grapes" or so.


I do believe that even with CIT in combination with Acell it is possible to ganin infinite donor with a FUE procedure.

And thats the sad part, that instead of aying " ahhhh come on i give it a shot" people get back to "this wont work so why pursue this anyway"

And i often ask myself if those docs think, if they would do someting like this and everyone could do it, that people would rush to other docs.

I say hell NO, i would always prefer to go to the doc who did it first because he has THE experience.

But i dont think this would change, the worst part right now is not "Will this work" its more the "Why not pursue this goal as a community"

Cells are in some way "stupid" if you like it or not, they do what they are told to do, nothing more. And thats why autocloning works, the do what their direct neighbor does.

In a strange way you just override their "characteristics". And lets face it, autocloning is just the transplant form of something like Histogen etc.

Because in every case its a shifting or "modification" of genetic material.

Thats the benefit here, even Propecia as a small and stupid pill can slow down hairloss, even a stupid shampoo can do so, they can slow hairloss down and get some regrow sometimes. And these are topicals and/or "primitive" pills.

But what if you can directly shift genetic material with the code for "DHT resitent" to a place where hairs are not resitant?

Even your average hair transplant goes like this, it plants genetic material on another place. And those transplanted hairs shed, so it seems that they cyce anew in a dht agressive place. and even those planted follicles are not affected from dht, even after some years they stay permanent because they bring along their genetic material.

The human body has the tendency to overwrite negative characteristics with positive ones.

If you got pox, your body creates antigenes etc etc.

And just look at negative genetic impacts like radiation etc. This is another example that genetics are only solid to certain point but with enough "force" you can manipulate them.

And as you said stem cells are stil existing, but what if you use their existence and overwrite them with dht resistance? right they will be resistant.