ACell, a Current Review of Applications in Hair Transplant Surgery

[UK_]

Hey UK you spoke exactly like someone who is in a relationshsip with some clinic :-) their reps always use the exact same words like you do.

Also you registered here in February 2011 and the first thing you do is attack a "new" technique :-) I rest my case here and let the reading users here to decide HOW we should deal with you.

You still ignore the fact about this pvtpoint2000 guy which shows clearly that you have a "special" agenda here :-)

Plucking btw is plucking even if you pluck yourself you will get some hairs with a bunch of tissue around it (big deal).

So name the clinic you are involved with, its so funny that those "newbies" always do the same mistakes.

1) Register a nick shortly after some discoveries
2) Dont believe anything and say everything is irrelevant but i dont wanna make it personal here

3) Spoke like a sales rep because "No i really want this to work but i attack everything anyway" "My respects to all researchers (of course not i hope the rot under a stone, how dare they to experiment with something what could possibly help hairloss sufferers)

You also failed to sow us HOW a plucked hair which in the recipient area grew longer could magically lost a good amount of diameter?

"So name the clinic you are involved with, its so funny that those "newbies" always do the same mistakes."

http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Index.aspx

I am clearly not getting through to you, and your repeated comments are now merely meager insipid ad hominem aimed at not grasping or accepting the fact that Dr Cole's comment remains an accurate one. Rather, one that is trying to convince me and those reading this that there is no difference in the method of plucking we may use on an everyday basis to that of the method being adopted by the doctors studying this technique.

This is indeed wrong, and you have NO EVIDENCE to rebuttal my contention that the method of plucking which is designed at extracting so much of a hair follicle (c80 - 90&#37 will have a cosmetic/aesthetic impact when applied to an area of c4000 follicles. You simply cannot make the assumption that it will work, especially by pulling up some old articles on a few women who plucked some armpit hair, did they measure the density or the hair? Did they measure the diameter of the hair? Did they look at biopsies of the follicles to see if the remaining 90% regenerated? NO! They didnt because this is an entirely different study! You need to realise fast - growing hair is as complex as me removing a limb and attempting to regenerate it. This is not just hair loss research, this is the core of regenerative medicine.

"All you are refering to is something from one person Dr Cole"

Only one person needed to say it - nobody on here can refute his comment, NOBODY and to this end, I will refrain from advancing this pointless discussion and await the results.

[RichardDawkins]

You put way too much effort in discredit this technique, which is strange because, why should a person do so.

Yes you got it right there is NO difference between plucking hairs by a doc and by plucking hairs yourself. As i said before you ignore the one user and you ignore the fact that you could easily test it yourself by plucking hairs yourself.

Is that your "clinic" ? Well then its no wonder you discredt new techniques :-) or did you wanna try to get me because of my atheist nickname? ;-)

Nevertheless, god wont bring you hair, science will.

You can also use a lot of "classy" and sophisticated vocabulary, it wont change the fact that you dont understand that there is no difference between plucking and plucking.

Well what remains accurate in Dr Coles statement? What exactly? Tell us. And i think with God on your side you can give me an answer why Dr Cole hasnt responded yet and his patients seem very happy with Acell in his forums ;-)

So tell me, why am i of course wrong with my plucking idea? Tell me. Plucking is plucking. Dr Hitzig didnt use a magic wand or a bible spell, he just uses a primitive and stupid "tweezer" and thats effin it. No magic hocus pocus, just plucking and usage.

If you would have read some pages before, you would have witnessed that i clearly described my observations with hair plucking.

I dont think that you understand how cells work bud. There has not to be 80 or 90% of tissue around, it is enough, if there is sufficient tissue around, as long as it has the valuable informations.

But the tissue is used as an indicator for the usage of this hair.

I dont make assumptions, I KNOW that this works.

And iam not one of those delusional positive thinking realism hating nutcases. You would have seen this when i clearly stated that this works but it is sad in the way that right now its not efficiant to use.

Which in my books is very pessimistic, because we have the final line in plain sight but the way to cross the line is full of obstacles. Or to put it in another words

"Lets say you have the best car in the world (BMW M6 or so) but you cant drive with it because there is a huge gap full of crocodiles and acid between you and the car"

This is really sad, also i mentioned several times that it sucks like nothing else that this kind of research has been done so "late" but in another way its good because i can guarantee you that if they had pursued something like this in the 80s, they would have abandoned it becaus there was no such thing as "Acell" around etc. I think you catch my drift here.

"old" articles? You know its even better if those articles are old by standards because, if with old techniques and knowledge the plucked hairs came back, then they will surefire do today (unless god decided to switch our genetic material :-) )

Well in this study they clearly showed that the hair number didnt decrease in the plucked area, so why are you bashing this study here ;-)

Growing hair is not as complex as you removing your limb and let it grew back. There is a difference between small and big scale. Because if you were right, this would mean that even when we got minor cuts, our body wouldnt be able to heal the area. But oh joy and wonder, the body does exactly this, in a very small scale almost scarless on a bigger scale with scars. Some not so christian people call this salamander effect ;-)

Or otherwise all normal hairtransplants wouldn work either, but they do to a certain ammount, even with cutting off all important hair vessels etc.

Good vishnu, thats the point, when you say regenerative medicine. What does Acell do? I give you a small hint, the word starts with re and ends with generation.

Acell in hair plucking just straighten out the odds for success.

I really dont know why you put so much effort in downtalking this? I was under the impression that other docs would do so, but its quiet from that perspective ;-) only here and there, a new registered user pops up and the rest is history in the making ^^

[UK_]

What is the point in your comments? I mean really - do you want me to believe that this works? Do you want me to outright proclaim that I believe this will be and IS an effective procedure?

How on earth someone like you maintains a username like that BOGGLES MY MIND - it is you that is taking the leap of faith in this context lol - thus in the words of Richard Dawkins himself; 'the onus is on YOU to prove to me that this theoretical position is accurate and factual'.

Why cant you understand that no matter how many posts you blurt out on this thread you CANNOT refute Dr Cole's statement (I can quote him again if ye wanna give it another shot), I am keeping this short, I could go into another critique of your previous comment, but 95% of it is utterly irrelevant.

P.S. You obviously didnt catch the funny side of my link to Joel Olsteen, but yes - I really am a sales representative for Joel Olsteen's church, I am working on the prayer side of research into regenerating hair follicles we dont have any evidence yet - BUT IT WORKS!!!! YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME!!!! BE OPTIMISTIC!!!! IT WORKS BECAUSE I SAY IT WORKS!!!! WE DONT NEED EVIDENCE!!!! WE DONT ANYTHING!!!!! IT WORKS!!!!!!

Good day!

[RichardDawkins]

I was under the impression you would to quote you "Ignore me now" i knew you couldnt resist :-)

Its utterly irrelevant? I think pvtpoint2000 thinks otherwise. You know what they say, Me thinky thou protest too much :-)

To quote one of James Bonds enemies " I dont expect anything from you"

I am not taking any leap of faiths here, i stick with the science and not with bashing new stuff by registering in a forum like you ;-)

I mean you are just a troll, i saw this post of yours with "Dooohhh" in it and then it was all pretty clear, you are hunting down every Acell related toppic to destroy it, so which clinic are you involvd again :-)

Well nope i didnt catch your funny side, because it wasnt funny at all and your lack of intelligence or comprehension overshadows everything useful. You see i actually handle you like what you are, a troll ;-)

Why i can surely say so?

1) Registered in february
2) First postings where bashing Acell related stuff
3) Ignoring all related studies
4) Ignore the fact that patients had this Acell thing done with plucked hairs
5) Write stuff like a typical rep for a clinic
6) Concentrate your postings only on one subject "Acell"
7) Stick to only one argument (which is by now standards old)
8) Ignoring all arguments against your "Acell sucks" agenda

I repeat again

- How can you explain that plucked hairs at pvtpoint2000´s scar did grew normally

- how is the Hitzig hairplucking different from normal plucking? When even by normal plucking, tissue can be seen at hairs?

- Why isnt Dr Cole answering here again to support your arguments?

- Why are other surgeons experimenting with Acell, if it is according to you "Crap and non working"?

- If Dr Coles statement remains "true" why doesnt he back those claims up now, i think he had time to prove or disprove this ;-)

- Why are some of Dr Coles patients in his forum strangely happy with Acell/PRP?

Its funny that you quote one doc, while i use multiple sources for plucking hairs and regrowth in donor area and you say those are irrelevant.

Guess what, at certain points even your beloved Histogen has to use studies, which have been done before them. What do you mean their work is based on, funny man.

What should i prove? There have been plenty of PDF Files with pictures for you to look at and there is one user ( i meantioned several times) you kep ignoring.

Ask this guy what he thinks and iam exited to get the answer :-)

[mlao]

I think it's great that this topic is being debated so vigorously on this forum. But nobody really knows exactly how well Acell will work at this time.
I don't have a medical or scientific background, but I think it has more potential than some of us might think. The reason I say this is because at least half a dozen doctors all members of the IAHRS have begun studying its use in their practice. I'm sure if they didn't see any benefit they would just continue doing FUT and FUE and make their living that way instead.
I have always felt that the problem with a lot of new hair loss therapies is that they were never tested by doctors who deal with hair restoration in their daily practice but rather by scientists in labs who get a hard on if they grow 10 hairs on a mouse.
I am cautiously optimistic about Acell and the only thing we can do is sit back and wait to see what Dr. Cooley and Dr. Bernstein (among others) come up with.
Now UK and RichardDawkins please play nice.

[UK_]

"- If Dr Coles statement remains "true" why doesnt he back those claims up now, i think he had time to prove or disprove this ;-)"

Back what up? The onus is not on the individual stating there exists no evidence to prove that there really is no evidence, the onus is on the researcher(s) conducting the study to prove that the evidence for its efficacy exists. Thats just how it works - why? Because it makes more sense to build the foundations of a house before laying its bricks. Dr Cole has nothing to substantiate.

I was under the impression you would to quote you "Ignore me now" i knew you couldnt resist :-)

Don't flatter yourself.

I am not taking any leap of faiths here, i stick with the science and not with bashing new stuff by registering in a forum like you ;-)

LMFAO... What science? Read Dr Cole's statement again (the one I quoted), what were the last four words of his statement?

I mean you are just a troll

A typical programmed response, not everyone lives in a fairytale world holding hands and leaping around in circles, yr attempt to also alienate me as some type of trolling outlaw newbie is falling on deaf ears - your strategies are weak, placid and platitudinous in every respect. You fail at coming to terms with the stark reality that your entire argument has hit the wall, only science, evidence and reasoning can save you - unfortunately you profoundly lack these, once again, for the fifth f****** time: SHOW ME THE SCIENCE.

Well nope i didnt catch your funny side, because it wasnt funny at all and your lack of intelligence or comprehension overshadows everything useful.

Pot calling the kettle black eh?

1) Registered in february - Irrelevant
2) First postings where bashing Acell related stuff - Irrelevant
3) Ignoring all related studies - There are no related studies I can assure you
4) Ignore the fact that patients had this Acell thing done with plucked hairs - Still does not refute Dr Cole's statement
5) Write stuff like a typical rep for a clinic - Irrelevant, senile doddering accusation
6) Concentrate your postings only on one subject "Acell" - Irrelevant
7) Stick to only one argument (which is by now standards old) - Old yet still relevant and not yet refuted
8) Ignoring all arguments against your "Acell sucks" agenda - What arguments?

I repeat again


*YAWN*

[RichardDawkins]

Hey UK_ this is interesting, fits your profile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...m-astroturfing

Very strange those similarities here :-)

[LarryDavid]

Sooner or later we will see whats really going on with Acell and weather it will be a game changer or not, no need to bash this thread with pointless posts.

[UK_]

Hey UK_ this is interesting, fits your profile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...m-astroturfing

Very strange those similarities here :-)

I am afraid that still fails to refute the statement made by Dr Cole, it remains an accurate one which is all I have been saying throughout this entire discussion.

[RichardDawkins]

Everyone who is interested to see UK_´s agenda in his prime. Just go to Dr DeYarman´s thread about Acell and you get the clear picture what UK_´s only purpose is.

I think that it would be highly recommendable to just block or ban this guy. All i see is a system behind it. He looks at every Acell related toppic and destroys it with his nonsense.