Article on piloscopy...

[Artista]

Hello everyone,
Im back (again). There are two reasons why I have not been active on our Forum for quite a while.
First of which being , my regular life and my work-life both got 'in the way'
and as Spencer Kobren has basically said many times in the past, It is good to step back once in a while and not get too 'wrapped-up' in the hairloss conversations.
For some it can become very emotionally DRAINING...possibly damaging for our youth.
Especially since new forms of future hair treatments can and do take time to evolve (to come forth gradually)
The term 'Patience is a Virtue' isn't just a word-play.
Now to update,
I have not heard from Dr Wesley in quite a while but that IS NOT a bad thing!
You must remember that Dr Wesley is so VERY BUSY with what he has been doing.
I meant to contact him approx 3 weeks ago but as Ive said,,my life got in the way also,
I know that Dr Wesley WILL contact me at the appropriate time.
As soon as Im done here I will send him an email but we all must be patience.

I DO realize just how desperate some of us can feel to be, especially our younger guys.
Stay strong my forum brothers!!

[Recidive]

Probably just the usual delays, delays, delays for god knows what reason.

Sigh.

There a some things that Dr Wesley should clarify by now. It is not related to Intellectual property at all. First, it is not clear whether he already submitted his medical device for FDA clearance. If he did so, why he has to do new clinical trials? It does not make sense.
If he hasn't submitted his device to FDA, then he should say this and give us a realistic time estimate. They way he explains things is intricate, and honestly it induces to think that he is using this as a marketing tool to enhance his business.

Btw, the same goes with Dr Mwamba and the other French guy who said they were working on regeneration and then vanish. They need to update us as they promised!

[hellouser]

Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated

Probably just the usual delays, delays, delays for god knows what reason.

Sigh.

[Javert]

Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated

This.

[Recidive]

Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated

[FearTheLoss]

The studies by the Italian researchers and Dr. Cooley, which Dr. Wesley has cited in the past, are interesting but are they really relevant? Maybe I'm missing something, but both are over 5 years old and neither work has really led to any major breakthrough yet. In addition, both studies apply completely different approaches (transecting follicles vs. applying ACell).

I think if someone wants to prove donor regeneration is occurring, the best thing they can do is present some actual evidence rather than citing studies from other researchers which may or may not be effective/applicable.

hence, why Dr. Wesley is running another trial.

[JJJJrS]

The studies by the Italian researchers and Dr. Cooley, which Dr. Wesley has cited in the past, are interesting but are they really relevant? Maybe I'm missing something, but both are over 5 years old and neither work has really led to any major breakthrough yet. In addition, both studies apply completely different approaches (transecting follicles vs. applying ACell).

I think if someone wants to prove donor regeneration is occurring, the best thing they can do is present some actual evidence rather than citing studies from other researchers which may or may not be effective/applicable.

[ShookOnes]

Gotta agree with JarJarbinx on this one (wow, that's a first ! lol). If you turn 3 hairs into 4 hairs but only at 75% of original thickness, you're not going to make much of a change for a patient in terms of better coverage.

yes but 3000 hairs is 4200, 5000 hairs is 7000, and 10,000 hairs is 14,000.
There's still potential because 75% is still quite a bit. I could still be wrong but I would imagine the pictures of large scale operations will be great to see.

[Arashi]

but he still messed up everything he worked on.

Yeah Nigam is just too stupid for it, he can't even do a normal hair transplant. So it's interesting that a capable doctor like Dr Wesley is now working on it.

[joachim]

I really think the key to success here lies in dr Aaron Gardner's statement (follicles need to be dissected instead of just transected: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post176631 ). Like Dr Aaron Gardner noted, this might not be a commercial viable solution at first sight, since dissecting each follicle would take about 3 minutes, so about 20 follicles an hour, giving rise to 40 follicles an hour. A full 8 hours day would then give rise to 320 follicles, so a week work on a patient would only yield approx 1600 follicles. However, once proven this works as dr Aaron Gardner thinks it should work, I'm sure this could be automated somehow: a robot should be able to dissect a follicle much quicker than a human. I'm really hoping a capable doctor, like dr Wesley, would jump onto this idea, cause I really think this is the key to succesful hair regeneration at this point.

And even without a robot: if you have a team of 10 people, dissecting follicles, you could get somebody over 3000 follicles per day ! Of course this would be expensive, but man, tons of people willing to pay good money for REAL hair regeneration !! What's worth a brand new convertible 911 if you cant drive it because your hair piece will be lost in the wind ?

that's true. actually, i don't see why it has to be that extremely expensive. even if you would have to pay 100 dollar per man-hour, this would result in 10.000 dollars for 100 hours of work. in contrast to today's anyway much overprized hair transplants (e.g. Gho) this doesn't make a very large difference. at least it would be a cure for which many people would like to pay good money.

however, i have a feeling that it's not as easy as Dr. Gardner explained. he talks about removing the surrounding tissue etc.
not sure what that means, and if really both halves regrow consistently then, with thick hairs.

but it would be definitely interesting to see if this really works. if only some of those researcher would be willing to try it.
if the only hurdle is, like Dr. Gardner says, time and money, then i don't see why this shouldn't be a solution.

in fact, this is what nigam tried, but his dissection technique was different than what Dr. Gardner told us. generally nigam's idea wasn't that bad, but he still messed up everything he worked on.

[Arashi]

I really think the key to success here lies in dr Aaron Gardner's statement (follicles need to be dissected instead of just transected: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post176631 ). Like Dr Aaron Gardner noted, this might not be a commercial viable solution at first sight, since dissecting each follicle would take about 3 minutes, so about 20 follicles an hour, giving rise to 40 follicles an hour. A full 8 hours day would then give rise to 320 follicles, so a week work on a patient would only yield approx 1600 follicles. However, once proven this works as dr Aaron Gardner thinks it should work, I'm sure this could be automated somehow: a robot should be able to dissect a follicle much quicker than a human. I'm really hoping a capable doctor, like dr Wesley, would jump onto this idea, cause I really think this is the key to succesful hair regeneration at this point.

And even without a robot: if you have a team of 10 people, dissecting follicles, you could get somebody over 3000 follicles per day ! Of course this would be expensive, but man, tons of people willing to pay good money for REAL hair regeneration !! What's worth a brand new convertible 911 if you cant drive it because your hair piece will be lost in the wind ?

[Arashi]

would be great for high norwoods with limited donor. And 75% of original thickness really isn't too bad if you have multiple ones forming a natural hairline

Gotta agree with JarJarbinx on this one (wow, that's a first ! lol). If you turn 3 hairs into 4 hairs but only at 75% of original thickness, you're not going to make much of a change for a patient in terms of better coverage.

[ShookOnes]

If the two hairs are thinner than the one original hair that means that coverage with the two thin hairs might only be equal to the coverage of one thick hair, and this means NO improvement.

if it becomes "1.4 hairs" as arashi said, won't it still be thicker than that 1 hair?

[ShookOnes]

That's very interesting Dr Wesley. So if I understand correctly, you make from 1 hair 0.727 + 0.692 = 1.4 hair ? And those hairs are approx 75% of original thickness. So one could argue that you generate 0.75 * 1.4 = 1.05 hair tissue from 1 hair tissue ? Although very interesting and I can understand the advantage of having 2 thin hairs instead of 1 thick hair, still it doesn't sound THAT much of an improvement ?

Anyway, unlike Dr Gho you seem to be for real, so I'm really happy you're working on this.

Also, not sure if you followed Dr Aaron Gardner here on this forum, he works with Jahoda's research group. He said that in order to do this correctly, the follicle needs dissecting. I think that's something worth experimenting with, right ? Here's a summary of what he said: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post176631

would be great for high norwoods with limited donor. And 75% of original thickness really isn't too bad if you have multiple ones forming a natural hairline

[nameless]

That's very interesting Dr Wesley. So if I understand correctly, you make from 1 hair 0.727 + 0.692 = 1.4 hair ? And those hairs are approx 75% of original thickness. So one could argue that you generate 0.75 * 1.4 = 1.05 hair tissue from 1 hair tissue ? Although very interesting and I can understand the advantage of having 2 thin hairs instead of 1 thick hair, still it doesn't sound THAT much of an improvement ?

Anyway, unlike Dr Gho you seem to be for real, so I'm really happy you're working on this.

Also, not sure if you followed Dr Aaron Gardner here on this forum, he works with Jahoda's research group. He said that in order to do this correctly, the follicle needs dissecting. I think that's something worth experimenting with, right ? Here's a summary of what he said: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/thread...l=1#post176631

If the two hairs are thinner than the one original hair that means that coverage with the two thin hairs might only be equal to the coverage of one thick hair, and this means NO improvement.