Differences between In-Vivo and In-Vitro (SHD)!

[gc83uk]

Google >Dr. Cole on ACell - “That’s not science.”<

...and you will find more details about Dr. Cole's spicy ACell-science.

So what is the difference here with Dr Nigams ECM and the Acell ECM that Cole was using?

If there is such a difference, how is it Dr Nigam has success with 0% white dot scarring it and Dr Cole hasn't come close? Seems almost unbelievable doesn't it?

Perhaps Dr Nigam should extract 1000's of grafts from one of his patients/volunteers head, shave down to a zero and show us no white spots.

That would be worthwhile.

[UK Boy]

Yes TED,show this to the critics...at least if dr cole says they would believe it.
And its my prediction ,it may be proved wrong...that dr wesleys fue scarless technique will be about special equipmentation to avoid scar and use of such biological material to avoid scars in fue..
By the way ,i like dr cole...he is also an innovator and communicates freely.

Not sure if you're right about Dr. Wesley's procedure Dr. Nigam. Back in Jan he answered some people's questions here on the Bald Truth forums, I took the info below from that thread.

"The handful of patients participating in the phase one clinical trial would help determine if the two theoretical benefits of this surgical technique were, in fact, true: 1) the donor area from which the hair follicle was harvested would show no evidence of scarring (not even the punctate scarring pattern seen in FUE), and 2) the survival and growth of the transplanted hair follicles using this technique would be as good as “strip harvest” or follicular unit transplantation (FUT) and as good, if not better than follicular unit extraction (FUE). Currently there are no additional agents (e.g. PRP, ACell, etc.) being factored in to enhance one method over another."

[drnigams]

UK,
Yes we are waiting for dr wesley's disclosure of his hair harvesting technique for scarless procedure .
Specially after reading his quote....
(PiloFocus) has developed a new technology that is so simple, that it would take a true visionary to imagine it."

"When (I learned) about the procedure I (thought) why hasn't this been thought of before?! But like all other inventions throughout history...once you hear about something that improves something, you always say to yourself why didn't I think of that?! This technique proves that theory.".

"The handful of patients participating in the phase one clinical trial would help determine if the two theoretical benefits of this surgical technique were, in fact, true: 1) the donor area from which the hair follicle was harvested would show no evidence of scarring (not even the punctate scarring pattern seen in FUE), and 2) the survival and growth of the transplanted hair follicles using this technique would be as good as “strip harvest” or follicular unit transplantation (FUT) and as good, if not better than follicular unit extraction (FUE). Currently there are no additional agents (e.g. PRP, ACell, etc.) being factored in to enhance one method over another."[/QUOTE]

[drnigams]

GC,UK,
The scar is seen because of alignment of collagen in a different pattern than normal skin and also because of contracting effect.
These are few things by which no white dots will occur...
1)ECM has to be filled in with prp(areterial from 200ml blood for good concentration of growth factors for healing and not 10 ml venous blood used by majority) and growth factors for wound healing and scar prevention immediately after extraction before the clot is formed and the filler should be in semisolid or gel form.ECM is full of collagen.
The most important part to handle is activation of haparin sulfate,which will make sure no scarring.
2)Of course i have the advantage of adding epidermal and dermal stemcells ,which as u are aware has an important role in wound healing.
3)As drcole suggested ,do not go upto 4mm deep to extract graft in fue,as you go deeper into dermis ,chances of injury to more and more of dermis increases.Hence dr cole also utilizes the technique of tweezing and easing out follicle without going deep into the dermis.Injuring epidermis will not lead to visible scarring,as more and more deep you go into dermis ,the chances of white dot and scarring increases.
I have presented 4 cases till now..and u can watch the quick healing without any mark(look at nsn birth mark,where we have used manual fue punch)
By the way there are two papers on wound healing and regrowth to be presented by 2 scientists at international investigative dermatology conference from 8th to 11th MAY,2013 at edinburgh.

So what is the difference here with Dr Nigams ECM and the Acell ECM that Cole was using?

If there is such a difference, how is it Dr Nigam has success with 0% white dot scarring it and Dr Cole hasn't come close? Seems almost unbelievable doesn't it?

Perhaps Dr Nigam should extract 1000's of grafts from one of his patients/volunteers head, shave down to a zero and show us no white spots.

That would be worthwhile.

[HARIRI]

I also asked Dr. Nigam about the difference between Dr. Gho's HST In-Vivo and his SHD In-vivo, he answered me the following:-

HST invivo extracts complete follicle with bulb, as can be seen in their Petri dish of 200 grafts sample, Dr. Nigam's In-Vivo does not extracts complete follicle but partial follicle without bulb as per the pics of his partial follicle extracted in Vivo are posted on his thread of NW7 case in TBT.

HST claims that they break the stemcell portion at the donor and because they soak their extracted follicle in preservation medium they claim that they can multiply follice, which he doubts is true.

At Dr. Nigam's, he extracts partial follicle at the level of dermal papilla so that even the partial follicle has some portion of dermal papilla, which has capacity to regenerate into a complete follicle

At Dr. Nigam's, he has access to progenitor stemcells from lab,growth factors to boost the partial follicle growth.

Also why he modified the technique to In-Vivo from In-Vitro is to avoid total extraction of graft. They both have their role depends on case to case

However both great techniques of Gho's HST and Nigam's SHD are scarless. There is no wastage of grafts with Dr. Nigam's SHD..as you can see with HST 200 grafts test they had to throw away 50 grafts.

HST claims donor regeneration of 80% while Dr. Nigam's claims regeneration of 100%. However recipient regeneration claim by both is same. Also the price is cheaper due to the location probably.

Finally unfortunately Dr. Umar, Dr. Rassman and Dr Rahal doubt HST saying that they extract one follicle out of 2 follicles and implant at the recipient.

After all I respect both surgeons Dr. Gho and Dr. Nigam and believe that they are trying hard to bring FUE and Hair doubling to another level. Im just a messenger guys so take it easy on me.

[Boldy]

I also asked Dr. Nigam about the difference between Dr. Gho's HST In-Vivo and his SHD In-vivo, he answered me the following:-

HST invivo extracts complete follicle with bulb, as can be seen in their Petri dish of 200 grafts sample, Dr. Nigam's In-Vivo does not extracts complete follicle but partial follicle without bulb as per the pics of his partial follicle extracted in Vivo are posted on his thread of NW7 case in TBT.

HST claims that they break the stemcell portion at the donor and because they soak their extracted follicle in preservation medium they claim that they can multiply follice, which he doubts is true.

At Dr. Nigam's, he extracts partial follicle at the level of dermal papilla so that even the partial follicle has some portion of dermal papilla, which has capacity to regenerate into a complete follicle

At Dr. Nigam's, he has access to progenitor stemcells from lab,growth factors to boost the partial follicle growth.

Also why he modified the technique to In-Vivo from In-Vitro is to avoid total extraction of graft. They both have their role depends on case to case

However both great techniques of Gho's HST and Nigam's SHD are scarless. There is no wastage of grafts with Dr. Nigam's SHD..as you can see with HST 200 grafts test they had to throw away 50 grafts.

HST claims donor regeneration of 80&#37; while Dr. Nigam's claims regeneration of 100%. However recipient regeneration claim by both is same. Also the price is cheaper due to the location probably.

Finally unfortunately Dr. Umar, Dr. Rassman and Dr Rahal doubt HST saying that they extract one follicle out of 2 follicles and implant at the recipient.

After all I respect both surgeons Dr. Gho and Dr. Nigam and believe that they are trying hard to bring FUE and Hair doubling to another level. Im just a messenger guys so take it easy on me.

its great that nigams and gho spare the Donor but,


Both are nothing compared to what already is posible in a culture dish, take 10 dermal papilla's, culture them for 10 weeks and you'll get +- 95367431640625 dermal papilla's each able to grow a healthy hair folicle, if placed near epithelial cells, or injected with epithelial cells.



Why go under the knife, if my mentioned method ****ing easy to do. , But I guess its less profitable, since the cells need allot of care and time to culture them right.... HT's are more profitable!, end conclusion, its all about the F**ing money, and not about the best cure.

sorry for my negativity, but its the truth.

I wish you all the best.

Boldy

[Arashi]

please delete this

[Arashi]

I also asked Dr. Nigam about the difference between Dr. Gho's HST In-Vivo and his SHD In-vivo, he answered me the following:-

HST invivo extracts complete follicle with bulb, as can be seen in their Petri dish of 200 grafts sample, Dr. Nigam's In-Vivo does not extracts complete follicle but partial follicle without bulb as per the pics of his partial follicle extracted in Vivo are posted on his thread of NW7 case in TBT.

HST claims that they break the stemcell portion at the donor and because they soak their extracted follicle in preservation medium they claim that they can multiply follice, which he doubts is true.

At Dr. Nigam's, he extracts partial follicle at the level of dermal papilla so that even the partial follicle has some portion of dermal papilla, which has capacity to regenerate into a complete follicle

At Dr. Nigam's, he has access to progenitor stemcells from lab,growth factors to boost the partial follicle growth.

Also why he modified the technique to In-Vivo from In-Vitro is to avoid total extraction of graft. They both have their role depends on case to case

However both great techniques of Gho's HST and Nigam's SHD are scarless. There is no wastage of grafts with Dr. Nigam's SHD..as you can see with HST 200 grafts test they had to throw away 50 grafts.

HST claims donor regeneration of 80&#37; while Dr. Nigam's claims regeneration of 100%. However recipient regeneration claim by both is same. Also the price is cheaper due to the location probably.

Finally unfortunately Dr. Umar, Dr. Rassman and Dr Rahal doubt HST saying that they extract one follicle out of 2 follicles and implant at the recipient.

After all I respect both surgeons Dr. Gho and Dr. Nigam and believe that they are trying hard to bring FUE and Hair doubling to another level. Im just a messenger guys so take it easy on me.

Ok this is too much for me. I'm going to forward this to HASCI and show them how Dr Nigams is trying to damage their good name with these countless and blunt lies.

[drnigams]

BOLDY,
For me it is not just about money.
Doubling is only the interim option given to patients ...till... as u correctly said...dp culture plus epithelial injections is available hopefully in coming months ...when we can stop doubling and offer only HAIR MULTIPLICATION.

its great that nigams and gho spare the Donor but,


Both are nothing compared to what already is posible in a culture dish, take 10 dermal papilla's, culture them for 10 weeks and you'll get +- 95367431640625 dermal papilla's each able to grow a healthy hair folicle, if placed near epithelial cells, or injected with epithelial cells.



Why go under the knife, if my mentioned method ****ing easy to do. , But I guess its less profitable, since the cells need allot of care and time to culture them right.... HT's are more profitable!, end conclusion, its all about the F**ing money, and not about the best cure.

sorry for my negativity, but its the truth.

I wish you all the best.

Boldy

[Boldy]

Dear nigams,

It was not the intention to point to you regarding its about the money, but to all HT clinics in general!. the dp procedure is known for more than 25 years, and until today, everyone is still playing around with old school surgical techniques since it pays well enough.

regarding your current donor saving / doubling procedure, of course its better then a normal HT, lets be clear about that.