Why my doctor won't use ACell

[Dr. Lindsey]

Because controlled scientific studies done in a reproducible manner have not been published.

Anectdotal results, whether from ECM proteins, laser light, and dietary herbs, are of little use until scientifically proven. That's not to say one can't go out and spend money on them and possibly get a result...one can. But until its shown to have some effect for good, in scientifically done studies, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal its all guess work.

Most doctors have large egos and would love to publish ground-breaking scientific information in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. So far lasers have been around a decade and I have yet to see a peer reviewed journal show a clinical result from them, hense I don't offer it. BUT, others do, and some people feel that they had success. Unfortunately in any given week I see 5 patients who have spent what they'd consider a fortune on unproven technology and all they have to show for it is a depleted bank account, not hair.

Finally, in the 4 years that I was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, most of my research was on the use of extracellular matrix proteins to repair facial defects. I would venture to guess that that makes me more knowledgeable about ECM than most folks, having published a number of papers on their use and having won a grant and Triological society research award for the topic, and being the first to report gene therapy to repair facial defects--in the world.

While I do not do basic science research now that I'm not at a university, I would say that to date, I've seen no evidence to suggest that ECM's have merit in hair surgery for the "average" patient. I do strongly support and look forward to scientific investigation into their potential help, but will refrain from offering it until the science is more suggestive of a clinical result.

For the record though, in the brief snippets that I've seen of Dr. Cooley's work, I do think he is on to something and I look forward to seeing his work continue and hopefully seeing these technologies change our field for the better.

William H. Lindsey MD FACS

[Gubter_87]

One thing I do not understand is why I cannot find a clinical peer reviewed study on A-cell anywhere, yet it is still approved by the FDA for human use?

Should not the study that the approval has been based on have been made public??

[Dr. Lindsey]

That is very common. For example, botox was approved for use in people with muscle contractures and spasms for years. Doctors first started using it for wrinkles in the face about 1992. Because of reported success, it became hugely popular...I've been treating people including myself, since 1995.

BUT, it was not approved by the FDA for use in wrinkles until about 2001 or so, and for a while, was only approved for the frown lines, not the forehead or crowsfeet. That is an example of "off label" use.

Conversely, chelation therapy uses chemicals which are approved for use in humans to supposedly remove cholesterol and other heart toxins from the body as an alternative to statin medicines or heart surgery. A fellow from my hometown made millions chelating people. This was never proven to work as an alternative to conventional therapy in scientific studies done in peer reviewed journals.

My uncle spent 10s of thousands on these treatments in spite of me being in medical school and suggesting he see a reputable cardiologist for a second opinion. He did, AFTER having a cardiac arrest and getting a 5 vessel bypass.

He later returned to the chelator for "preventative" care.

Some people never learn.

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

[Gubter_87]

Dr. Lindsey; Thank you for your reply. However I was referring to the original study for what A-cell was approved for, which I am guessing was wound healing?

I have not been able to found a single study published on it at all. Yet it has gained FDA approval for something, where is the study on that something?

[NTMANNN]

Thanks for your insight, Dr. Lindsey, I really appreciate it.

[HairTalk]

That is very common. For example, botox was approved for use in people with muscle contractures and spasms for years. Doctors first started using it for wrinkles in the face about 1992. Because of reported success, it became hugely popular...I've been treating people including myself, since 1995.

BUT, it was not approved by the FDA for use in wrinkles until about 2001 or so, and for a while, was only approved for the frown lines, not the forehead or crowsfeet. That is an example of "off label" use.

Conversely, chelation therapy uses chemicals which are approved for use in humans to supposedly remove cholesterol and other heart toxins from the body as an alternative to statin medicines or heart surgery. A fellow from my hometown made millions chelating people. This was never proven to work as an alternative to conventional therapy in scientific studies done in peer reviewed journals.

My uncle spent 10s of thousands on these treatments in spite of me being in medical school and suggesting he see a reputable cardiologist for a second opinion. He did, AFTER having a cardiac arrest and getting a 5 vessel bypass.

He later returned to the chelator for "preventative" care.

Some people never learn.

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

Dr. Lindsey, are you familiar with Dr. Gho's paper on multiplying follicular units by longitudinally transecting grafts during harvesting? If so, do you have an opinion of the merit (or lack thereof) of this proposal?

[Dutch_Dude]

I heard Gho did a HM procedure on Wesley Sneijder - whether this is true or not I cannot say, but his HT looks great, the thing is if this is TRUE HM why isnt it in the press/mainstream media? lol

It is true and it does look good...and Gho is very well known here in Holland, he comes on TV very often on sunday's during a show about beauty and stuff...but I really have my doubts about Gho. If you look at his website you would think they would have better results with a technique like that...

[UK_]

It is true and it does look good...and Gho is very well known here in Holland, he comes on TV very often on sunday's during a show about beauty and stuff...but I really have my doubts about Gho. If you look at his website you would think they would have better results with a technique like that...

There was a doctor in Ireland that was trying to pass off regular FUE as a HM procedure that claimed to grow back hair in donor, patients AFTER the surgery still believed the hair in the donor area would grow back because they were told so, they're gonna have a shock when they shave their head one day (maybe years from now) and look in two mirrors at hundreds of punch-hole scars scattered across their scalp.

Thats one thing that puts me off any HT - you cant shave your head once you eventually lose everything. You end up stuck in this abyss of forced acceptance of the classic 'NW6 - 7 crazed professor look', I think i'd commit suicide if it ever came to that.

[Dutch_Dude]

There was a doctor in Ireland that was trying to pass off regular FUE as a HM procedure that claimed to grow back hair in donor, patients AFTER the surgery still believed the hair in the donor area would grow back because they were told so, they're gonna have a shock when they shave their head one day (maybe years from now) and look in two mirrors at hundreds of punch-hole scars scattered across their scalp.

Thats one thing that puts me off any HT - you cant shave your head once you eventually lose everything. You end up stuck in this abyss of forced acceptance of the classic 'NW6 - 7 crazed professor look', I think i'd commit suicide if it ever came to that.

I started a thread about my solution (I think) to these problems...I thought...maybe if I would do a transplant for the hairline and the frontal part, and leave the crown relatively thin, so that I can keep my hair short and use toppik on the crown, you know...I think that nowadays that may be more reliable than Gho.

[UK_]

I started a thread about my solution (I think) to these problems...I thought...maybe if I would do a transplant for the hairline and the frontal part, and leave the crown relatively thin, so that I can keep my hair short and use toppik on the crown, you know...I think that nowadays that may be more reliable than Gho.

Thats a good idea, its very difficult to gain density in the crown area, hence why Aderans wanna use their protocols to build density in the crown giving more leverage to build the frontal part of the scalp.

Re: Gho, I always say anything that would be that revolutionary would be all over the newspapers.