ACell, a Current Review of Applications in Hair Transplant Surgery

[RichardDawkins]

Pie-in-the-sky technique? Ok i will stop to discuss with you because you dont want this to work, you just wanna bash it, thats it.

And we are running around in circles, so i wait for the next update, which will come

[UK_]

Pie-in-the-sky technique? Ok i will stop to discuss with you because you dont want this to work, you just wanna bash it, thats it.

And we are running around in circles, so i wait for the next update, which will come

Indeed we shall see, I have a strange feeling we will be told to wait longer - that's the thing you see, you cant use the "woman plucking eyebrow hairs model" to justify your blind belief in this procedure, why? Because they are plucking hairs whilst you are plucking follicles.

[RichardDawkins]

Ok just listen one time

1) If you pluck your eyebrows and white tissue is around, what do you have?

2) If you pluck scalp hair and white tissue is around, what do you have?

In both cases you pluck H-A-I-R-S which have the undoubtful benefit of substitute that what people generally consider a FOLLICLE ( FUE or FUT Graft)

In other words when you pluck a hair, you pluck a hair with enough sufficient tissue(stem cells included) to actually transplant them.

You could take a FUE or FUT follicle and stripe off all the tissue like it resembles a plucked hair and it still can be transplanted. But in the case of FUE or FUT you have bigger tissue around it because you stance them out, but you soulc easily pluck those hairs out of the stanced out follicle and the hair would still grow.

[UK_]

Ok just listen one time

1) If you pluck your eyebrows and white tissue is around, what do you have?

2) If you pluck scalp hair and white tissue is around, what do you have?

In both cases you pluck H-A-I-R-S which have the undoubtful benefit of substitute that what people generally consider a FOLLICLE ( FUE or FUT Graft)

In other words when you pluck a hair, you pluck a hair with enough sufficient tissue(stem cells included) to actually transplant them.

You could take a FUE or FUT follicle and stripe off all the tissue like it resembles a plucked hair and it still can be transplanted. But in the case of FUE or FUT you have bigger tissue around it because you stance them out, but you soulc easily pluck those hairs out of the stanced out follicle and the hair would still grow.

But that is the exact issue I am trying to convey to YOU. You are proposing that you can take a plucked hair as close as possible to a fully extracted follicle, grow the plucked hair in the recipient area and magically have a cloned regenerated hair in the donor area aswel, without the possibility of ANY impact on shape, size and growth of both the regenerated hair and the recipient hair EVEN if you pluck 1 hair or 4,000 hairs - or should I say 4,000 follicles? Lol. Let me tell you, that contention is a VERY VERY VERY optimistic one; if this were the case, then why didnt it work 10 years ago? What has happend since then? Ill tell you what, the introduction of ACELL, and Acell has FAILED to provide any documented evidence of enhancing the efficacy of this procedure. This is why I have been asking for the past 10 posts: SHOW ME THE SCIENCE.

It's all well and nice for you to sell your belief and faith in this procedure to the audience through your overly optimistic and idealistic conjecturally predisposed comments, but the issue is simple; Acell is the only reason we are here, Acell held the promise, and Acell has clearly failed to deliver. You're like a gambler chasing big losses, all hyped up on a process that has no science or promise, step back and realise that until the professionals in the field can provide you with documented evidence regarding both safety and efficacy you have NOTHING.

[RichardDawkins]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8586752

Quote : "......The results showed that the number of hairs decreased in the axilla with each session using the blend method: permanent hair removal was achieved in an average of 26.8 weeks or 9.9 sessions. However, the number of hairs did not decrease in the axilla after plucking........"

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709819
Plucking during telogen induces apoptosis in the lower part of hair follicles. Interesting because you can see what immediately happens when you pluck a hair (reorganisation occurs besides obvious "cell death")

[RichardDawkins]

No witty comments UK?

[UK_]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8586752

Quote : "......The results showed that the number of hairs decreased in the axilla with each session using the blend method: permanent hair removal was achieved in an average of 26.8 weeks or 9.9 sessions. However, the number of hairs did not decrease in the axilla after plucking........"

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709819
Plucking during telogen induces apoptosis in the lower part of hair follicles. Interesting because you can see what immediately happens when you pluck a hair (reorganisation occurs besides obvious "cell death")

Firstly, the above articles are irrelevant; as in the context of our discussion the plucking process is more akin to a complete follicular extraction than a typical eyebrow pluck. Also, the above studies do not analyse the type of hair regeneration when you pluck hairs with the sole intention of (1) re-growing them in other areas of the scalp and (2) with approximately 80 - 90% of the follicle attached to the hair. They cannot be used to support your overly optimistic and buoyant views that anything in this process even works , and by that I mean everything, consistently, the Acell, the plucking, the auto-cloning, the re-growth, everything.

The reason I put emphasis on the issue of the type of re-growth is that my sole contention throughout this exchange has been to convince you that (1) there is absolutely no evidence that the plucked hairs (in this process) grow back at the same diameter as the preceding hair. (2) There is NO EVIDENCE that anything close to the concept of auto-cloning even occurs and (3) there is absolutely no evidence to support any claim of a 75% survival rate (but my heart of hearts tells me you have grown to accept this, just as you will grow to accept the stark truth that this procedure and concept has utterly fallen on its arse). I also do not believe you can convince me in any way that by plucking c4000 FOLLICLES in THIS MANNER that you will not contribute toward a degree of degradation in terms of diameter, thickness and cosmetic appearance of both the donor and recipient areas.

We clear?

Anyway I gotta hand it to ya - Nice one pulling up some articles on how plucked hairs do return, how many of those hairs do you feel will be viable for auto-cloning? 20%? 50%? None? All of them? lol I rest my case.

[Bakez]

Whats the point arguing, this isn't an option for good quality treatment at the moment. What we need to do is wait for a Dr to post a proper unbiased non-speculative update. We will probably find out how succesful this has been in October this year.

I suppose it would be stupid not to just use ACell at the plucked hair sites like Dr Cole has been doing with his FUE. Now if he is getting *some*, a few, a small amount of hair regrowth from these extractions, I bet plucked hairs (even though they remove so much material) will fair better. If we got 75% regrowth from plucked hair sites, and 75% of those plucked hairs grew in the recipient area, then this is going to be an overwhelming success. But at the moment, we still have nothing.

[UK_]

Whats the point arguing, this isn't an option for good quality treatment at the moment. What we need to do is wait for a Dr to post a proper unbiased non-speculative update. We will probably find out how succesful this has been in October this year.

I suppose it would be stupid not to just use ACell at the plucked hair sites like Dr Cole has been doing with his FUE. Now if he is getting *some*, a few, a small amount of hair regrowth from these extractions, I bet plucked hairs (even though they remove so much material) will fair better. If we got 75% regrowth from plucked hair sites, and 75% of those plucked hairs grew in the recipient area, then this is going to be an overwhelming success. But at the moment, we still have nothing.

Agreed, yet there is nothing wrong in having and expressing your doubts in a procedure/drug, I am not stating that this will never work, that would make me a hypocrite, if you read back to my first post regarding this matter, I stated that Dr Coles comment remains true.

I have stated this before, let us wait for the professionals in the field to provide the evidence, until then, we have nothing!

Nothing I say on these boards is ever personal, I have nothing but respect for all the doctors and researchers engaged in this complex field, they are each others colleagues not competitors, and we are here to support and discuss the many angles of the ideas/processes they are using.

[RichardDawkins]

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)

I really begin to think that you are just "stupid" to understand that plucking is plucking and nothing more. What do you think Dr Hitzig does? Cut out skin and then pluck the hairs or what?

Pluck your own hair and you see it grows back and got white tissue around.

I think you have a problem with people not being negative like yourself, but dont point this on me, you wont get me to get a hairtransplant at your represented clinic buddy, no chance in heaven :-)

Btw why hasnt Dr Cole said anything yet? :-)

Explain to us what you think is the concept of auto-cloning, i thin kwe all are waiting for your definition of this ;-)

Where is the proof? Have you been to hairsite and just looked at some pictures lately then you should just know better. Also have you even looked at the endless presentations and pictures which have swirl around last year and early this year. Of course you havent because you were involved in selling some transplants to customers :-)

You absolutel mistaken FUE and plucking buddy, no drive to discuss this with you BUT its shows that you are a salesrep, they mostly (exceptions are of course here) dont know anything about hair.

All you are refering to is something from one person Dr Cole, where he didnt even pursue this criticism any further, i think he doesnt have the time for such stupidness and instead he is experimenting.

I wont give anything to you in return because to me it seems that you are a phoney person who only registered to discredit something and i never take those kind of people seriously because if you were actually a hairloss sufferer you would be more interested in HOW others could try it, instead of "Bashing the living Shit out" of something NEW (or old to some people)

I just cant take you seriously because you contribute nothing but hate. Bakez on the other hand has said Acell failed BUT he also tries to contribute something and shares his opinions as a hairloss sufferer and not a mindless hater.

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?