Why my doctor won't use ACell

[t-bone]

I started about a yr.ago w/PRP than waited till 4mo.Than another PRP than about 7 mo. later I had PRP+ACELL.

I keep head shaved on #1.Now it looks really tight! It takes time but I swear every day it looks a little better! I went to Dr.De Yarman in SD.He is very no nonsense.Highly recommend!

[RichardDawkins]

why is it that Dr. Cole always turns into a punching bag in this forum? Is it really a big deal that he calls his method of FUE CIT? They're his instruments, it's his technique, he can call whatever he wants, right? If you don't like what he's selling, don't buy it.

His Acell article doesn't even mention CIT once, only FUE. I dont understand why the conversation isn't focused more on the 54% regrowth, rather than some silly black/white photos and CIT.

Same thoughts here. If he can imrpove the regrowth rate any further, i simply wouldnt care about his black and white pictures because there is regrowth, and thats the only thing that actually matters.

But one thing is for sure, Cole should use smaller extraction needles this would absolutely increase the regrowth rate

[wilymon]

But one thing is for sure, Cole should use smaller extraction needles this would absolutely increase the regrowth rate

That's my thought exactly. If 54% can be reached by accident (or with normal techniques), then I think it stands to reason that changes can be made to increase this number to 80 or 90%.

[RichardDawkins]

That's my thought exactly. If 54% can be reached by accident (or with normal techniques), then I think it stands to reason that changes can be made to increase this number to 80 or 90%.

Exactly this 54% are just a result by accident, correct. Cole did say this even in his little study that he assumes that if you extract them in a smaller scale its more likely to regrow.

So i say Cole should maybe take a look at what Gho is using to extract the follicles and then use those instruments.

Yes of course changes can be made, i mena even with constant 54% a NW7 could be fully restored BUT its always better to have a higher regrowth rate, just in case, because you never know if maybe some day you burn your scalp or get into an accident with a huge scar.

Maybe Spencer should also Interview Cole as a sceptic ;-)

[Follicle Death Row]

Anyone know if Dr. Feller is looking into regrowth of donor with Acell? If he is investigating its potential you can be sure he'll tell it as it is.

The following articles really made me have a rethink about the future of FUE. Hopefully in the future (I'm thinking maybe 3 years from now) Acell will go hand in hand with FUE if these figures can be verified and repeated consistently. It certainly shows some promise. I don't know why there has been no buzz about this 54% regrowth.

Towards the end of the second article they talk about donor depeletion of 50% by FUE. Sounds a bit extreme. From what I've read 30% is the upper limit in practice. I might be wrong.

[RichardDawkins]

You can deplet it by 50% but the hair characteristics are important then.

But nevertheless i guess right now the FUE specialists have their finest hour because they bet on the right horse, against all odds. Who would have guessed it a few years ago. Kudos to them. Especially when it comes to terms of being a specialist. My bet is that any doc who performs FUE since some years, will have the absolute advantage over the others when it comes to FUE multiplication.

But we should not forget one thing here, Gho was right with his studies about regeneration, if we like it or not. But how he performs it today is another pair of socks.

What those docs have to do now is simple, the ones who got regrowth have to work to get the regrowth rate higher

-----USE A SMALLER EXTRACTION TOOL FOR CHRISTS SAKE BECAUSE THE TRANSECTION HERE IS IN COMBINATION WITH ACELL HARMLESS AND FORCES REGENERATION-----

And the other ones should begin to get in touch with Regenerative medicine at all.

I am only glad that the time of repair patients will finally be over with a new standard

[Follicle Death Row]

Yeah FUE will get cheaper. It had some stigma attached to it in the early days because it was pretty much just a refined smaller scale punch graft procedure which we all associate with the old plug look.

Well Kim had already shown that transection could lead to multiplication; it was just horribly inconsistent. Now I didn't see Gho's slides and presentation when Rassman wrote him off and gave his science behind the technique 1/10 but I think Rassman was quite skeptical of Woods and his FUE work back in the day but Rassman nonetheless worked out FUE himself. Bernstein is looking into this whole autocloning after Cooley and Hitzig got cracking on it so you have to believe there's something to it. Seems like the growth cultures or ECMs could really change things. I'd imagine they're all having a look at it at this stage. Everyone would want to claim the technique for themselves. Tough to say where things will go from here and what time scale we're looking at but if practices don't evolve they'll get left behind.

URFUT is still the gold standard but if they can get a handle on regeneration then the numbers game becomes irrelevant and we can say goodbye to strip scars. Let's hope it becomes a reality in the not too distant future.

[HairTalk]

why is it that Dr. Cole always turns into a punching bag in this forum? Is it really a big deal that he calls his method of FUE CIT? They're his instruments, it's his technique, he can call whatever he wants, right? If you don't like what he's selling, don't buy it.

His Acell article doesn't even mention CIT once, only FUE. I dont understand why the conversation isn't focused more on the 54% regrowth, rather than some silly black/white photos and CIT.

Oh, please. If you're referring to my comments, I've hardly made Dr. Cole into a "punching-bag." On-line fora such as this are places where people can come to discuss the good, the bad, and everything in between. As I see it, expressing annoyance at Cole's gimmicky salemanship about F.U.E. is just fine, and hardly is substituted by one's right to "not buy."

As for "54% re-growth," that's a separate conversation, and it is being quite thoroughly had, as well. One dialogue does not detract from the other.

[HairTalk]

You can deplet it by 50% but the hair characteristics are important then.

But nevertheless i guess right now the FUE specialists have their finest hour because they bet on the right horse, against all odds. Who would have guessed it a few years ago. Kudos to them. Especially when it comes to terms of being a specialist. My bet is that any doc who performs FUE since some years, will have the absolute advantage over the others when it comes to FUE multiplication.

But we should not forget one thing here, Gho was right with his studies about regeneration, if we like it or not. But how he performs it today is another pair of socks.

What those docs have to do now is simple, the ones who got regrowth have to work to get the regrowth rate higher

-----USE A SMALLER EXTRACTION TOOL FOR CHRISTS SAKE BECAUSE THE TRANSECTION HERE IS IN COMBINATION WITH ACELL HARMLESS AND FORCES REGENERATION-----

And the other ones should begin to get in touch with Regenerative medicine at all.

I am only glad that the time of repair patients will finally be over with a new standard

I feel one ought to be careful when advocating the use of smaller excisions: as far as I understand, with narrower diameters comes an increased likelihood of damaging the follicular unit, which can decrease both the probability of hair re-growth and the likelihood that re-grown hair will be of good quality.

[RichardDawkins]

Yeh but i am sorry, i dont care for any stuff here except regrowth rate in the donor area. The rest i dont care. I give a flying **** how Cole is calling FUE. He could name his technique Shitpickle do da Shizzle and i wouldnt care.

So hairtalk if you wanna stick to this whole "bla bla cry cry why is he calling it CIT instead of FUE" stuff then feel free to go, because here we are only interested in how to increase the regrowth rate