Article on piloscopy...

[joachim]

Friends-You all must keep this in mind...
Dr Wesley has been so very busy consumed with updating and improving his Piloscopic instrumentation out in Utah,
plus also having to treat his many patients back in NewYork.
The regenerative aspects of his new 'Scarless' technology i.e. The 2013 phase test 'before&after' photos were INDEED breathtaking BUT, it certainly was and still is ANECDOTAL at this point in time.
Dr Wesley had said to me last Friday that the next Phase Testing timeframe may begin about September of this year. ( me being one of his patients)
Keep in mind that it was predicted to happen at the end of this spring or early this summer. It was of course an approximation. Medical science studies are what they are. The next Phase Test will tell us so much more.
(Sorry but I am at work this evening, responding via my iPhone )

artista, will dr wesley document within this next phase testing all before/after in fine detail to make an analysis possible regards regeneration, or is the phase testing more focused on the general tool handling and general practice?

do you except and track regeneration for yourself? is this also the reason why you are so eager to be part of the phase testing or is it just the interest in a scarless procedure?

[Artista]

Well yes of course he will document EVERY aspect of the next Phase Testings. There will be approximately up to 30 patients involved. I am excited to be a part of this important endeavor. I too will document my progress at home.

[FearTheLoss]

So the soonest this will be out now is 2015...How long is this phase test? and when will we be informed about regeneration or no regeneration?

[Artista]

Hey there Fear' I have no idea at this point. It's a medical process of course. There are always variables as you know,, sorry to say. Hang in there.

[FearTheLoss]

Okay, no worries. Are you going to be able to tell us if/what kind of regeneration you are getting while the test is still going on? or are we going to have to wait for the entire test to finish and data to be analyzed?

[Artista]

We, (Dr Wesley and I) have yet to have had a specific discussion regarding regeneration.
It has been very general when talking about that .. I feel VERY positive about it though.

[ShookOnes]

We, (Dr Wesley and I) have yet to have had a specific discussion regarding regeneration.
It has been very general when talking about that .. I feel VERY positive about it though.

I havn't been this excited in a long time!!!

[Javert]

I havn't been this excited in a long time!!!

+1

[Carlos Wesley, MD]

Regarding regeneration, there's some good science out there already in support of it. In my opinion, it's a matter of taking those well-structured studies and applying them to our field in the way they'll benefit patients most. I just posted an article on Twitter. That was quite an undertaking! I haven't figured out how to share that link yet, but you're welcome to check it out there or simply type it into your URL.

[hellouser]

Regarding regeneration, there's some good science out there already in support of it. In my opinion, it's a matter of taking those well-structured studies and applying them to our field in the way they'll benefit patients most. I just posted an article on Twitter. That was quite an undertaking! I haven't figured out how to share that link yet, but you're welcome to check it out there or simply type it into your URL.

Link to article:

http://drcarloswesley.com/T/06082014.pdf

[Arashi]

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

[joachim]

Regarding regeneration, there's some good science out there already in support of it. In my opinion, it's a matter of taking those well-structured studies and applying them to our field in the way they'll benefit patients most. I just posted an article on Twitter. That was quite an undertaking! I haven't figured out how to share that link yet, but you're welcome to check it out there or simply type it into your URL.

dr. wesley, a question regarding the bisection of the follicles:
in that article there is a picture showing how the hair is divided into lower and upper portion. is this also the way you will do it with your piloscopy device?
this would mean you would extract the whole bulb with your device and leave the hair shaft in the donor area. so, after the treatment, all donor hairs are still visible from outside, is that true? and then, depending on the success rate of the regeneration, the hair shaft will whether fall out after some days/weeks/months OR stay there if it was able to successfully regenerate the bulb.

can you confirm that or correct me in that theory, please?

[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.

[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

[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?