Article on piloscopy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Arashi
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3888

    #46
    Originally posted by ShookOnes
    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.

    Comment

    • Arashi
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2012
      • 3888

      #47
      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 ?

      Comment

      • joachim
        Senior Member
        • May 2014
        • 559

        #48
        Originally posted by 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 ?
        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.

        Comment

        • Arashi
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2012
          • 3888

          #49
          Originally posted by joachim
          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.

          Comment

          • ShookOnes
            Senior Member
            • Jun 2014
            • 209

            #50
            Originally posted by Arashi
            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.

            Comment

            • JJJJrS
              Senior Member
              • Apr 2012
              • 638

              #51
              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.

              Comment

              • FearTheLoss
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2012
                • 1581

                #52
                Originally posted by 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.
                hence, why Dr. Wesley is running another trial.

                Comment

                • Recidive
                  Member
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 56

                  #53
                  Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated

                  Comment

                  • Javert
                    Member
                    • Jun 2013
                    • 99

                    #54
                    Originally posted by Recidive
                    Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated
                    This.

                    Comment

                    • hellouser
                      Senior Member
                      • May 2012
                      • 4419

                      #55
                      Originally posted by Recidive
                      Any updates on the Pilofocus trial? Artista, please keep us updated
                      Probably just the usual delays, delays, delays for god knows what reason.

                      Sigh.

                      Comment

                      • Recidive
                        Member
                        • Sep 2014
                        • 56

                        #56
                        Originally posted by hellouser
                        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!

                        Comment

                        • Artista
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 2010
                          • 2070

                          #57
                          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!!

                          Comment

                          • hellouser
                            Senior Member
                            • May 2012
                            • 4419

                            #58
                            It's taking ridiculously long. Nothing to applaud.

                            However, I did find this one Google's patent search:

                            Systems and methods for extracting hair follicle from underneath an external surface of the skin are provided. The systems may include a first member and a counter pressure device. The first member may define a first bore and may have a longitudinal axis. A portion of the first member may be configured to be moved below an external surface of a skin. The first member may be configured to translate at least in a first direction along the longitudinal axis through a tissue and rotate about the longitudinal axis. The counter pressure device may be configured to interface with at least the external surface of the skin such that the tissue is disposed between the first member and the counter pressure device. The translation and rotation of the first member may result in cutting at least a portion of the tissue.


                            Note this from the patent:

                            Although this disclosure focuses on extraction of head hair for subsequent transplantation, the disclosed technology also applies to extraction of hair follicles from other parts of the human body, such as the arm pit and pelvic regions, for the purpose of permanent hair removal.
                            This is something I've raised a number of times but everyone's been dodging the question: what about using leg/arm hair from other areas?

                            The procedure is ridiculously fast for removing follicles, so why not take hair from the legs? I've got more than 10,000 follicles available. Combine that with follicles available in the scalp donor area and you've got a 'cure' so to say. That said, why the hell hasn't Dr. Wesley touched on this?

                            Comment

                            • joachim
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2014
                              • 559

                              #59
                              Originally posted by hellouser
                              It's taking ridiculously long. Nothing to applaud.

                              However, I did find this one Google's patent search:

                              Systems and methods for extracting hair follicle from underneath an external surface of the skin are provided. The systems may include a first member and a counter pressure device. The first member may define a first bore and may have a longitudinal axis. A portion of the first member may be configured to be moved below an external surface of a skin. The first member may be configured to translate at least in a first direction along the longitudinal axis through a tissue and rotate about the longitudinal axis. The counter pressure device may be configured to interface with at least the external surface of the skin such that the tissue is disposed between the first member and the counter pressure device. The translation and rotation of the first member may result in cutting at least a portion of the tissue.


                              Note this from the patent:



                              This is something I've raised a number of times but everyone's been dodging the question: what about using leg/arm hair from other areas?

                              The procedure is ridiculously fast for removing follicles, so why not take hair from the legs? I've got more than 10,000 follicles available. Combine that with follicles available in the scalp donor area and you've got a 'cure' so to say. That said, why the hell hasn't Dr. Wesley touched on this?
                              i think it's definitely possible to use the hairs of the legs, but would you really want that? is the hair structure of your leg hairs similar to the scalp hairs? i too have a lot of hairs on the legs but they are thinner and more curved compared to my scalp hair. so in my case, this would look relatively poor. for some people it could be a nice solution though.

                              Comment

                              • hellouser
                                Senior Member
                                • May 2012
                                • 4419

                                #60
                                Originally posted by joachim
                                i think it's definitely possible to use the hairs of the legs, but would you really want that? is the hair structure of your leg hairs similar to the scalp hairs? i too have a lot of hairs on the legs but they are thinner and more curved compared to my scalp hair. so in my case, this would look relatively poor. for some people it could be a nice solution though.
                                The leg hairs on me are actually as straight if not straighter than my scalp hair. Yes, they're fine, but there's enough of them for some pretty coverage if not at least filler.

                                Comment

                                Working...