Why my doctor won't use ACell

[NTMANNN]

A couple weeks ago I contacted a local hair transplant doctor who was recommended to me by a couple of good friends (I'll keep names out of it because that's not relevant and I don't want to attack anyone, I just want your opinions). I asked the doctor if he was using Acell or if he was going to in the near future. His response what 'no' because the science wasn't there yet.

I've done as much research as possible, I'm not jumping on the Acell hype-wagon, but haven't Dr. Cooley and Dr. Hitzig shown that the science is there through their research? This isn't snake oil. Yes, there is much to learn still, but how can everything there is to know be learned quickly if only a couple of doctors are even willing to try it?

I'm all for hair transplant doctors being responsible. In fact, i wouldn't want an irresponsible doctor anywhere near my scalp. But isn't it also their responsibility to offer their clients a medicine which could have profound effects on the future of the industry? Even if it's only through a year of controlled clinical trials on select patients. Try it. Experiment. But give the patient all the facts before doing so and let them decide. Don't just brush it off.

[RichardDawkins]

Oh name your Doc please.

Acell imho should be the standard to use throughout "ordinary" transplants. The "SCIENCE" behind Acell is actually old news and well known if some docs would have read the ahem papers from the last decade

[UK_]

Cost??? No real controlled studies in its use for hair loss/HT's???

[NTMANNN]

Oh name your Doc please.

Acell imho should be the standard to use throughout "ordinary" transplants. The "SCIENCE" behind Acell is actually old news and well known if some docs would have read the ahem papers from the last decade

I understand you wanna know the name of the doc, but I'd rather not say for 2 reasons:

1.) I dont want to start a witch hunt on a single person. I intended my post to be a place people might discuss this issue in general because it is bigger than one doctor. It effects the entire industry.

2.) I wanna remain anonymous in case i ever get the operation with him. Same reason you don't tell the waiter they suck for fear of getting a loogie in your burger :-P

I won't mind if some else started a thread in which people could start a directory of doctors experimenting with Acell (maybe you could do it!). If everyone here called or emailed 5 or so doctors in their area, we could collectively get a great list going in a relatively short period of time! Let's use the power of the internet, people!

[NTMANNN]

Cost??? No real controlled studies in its use for hair loss/HT's???

Those are good concerns. I guess I assumed costs would be paid off by the consumer, though the initial investment might be substantial (how much does one of those PRP machines cost?). And if the doctor doesn't believe in the science, is it ethical to invest in it and pass off that cost to their clients?

I'm all for a controlled, FDA-approved study. Financially speaking, it would be wise for Acell as a company to do this because if Hitzig's/Cooley's results can be "officially" duplicated, more doctors might jump on board and Acell would BANK. I'm gonna assume/hope they're already doing this.

[RichardDawkins]

Ok then, lets stop all experimenting and tick with traditional stuff. I mean no one here needs Evolutions in the hair restoration field anyways.

I give Histogen etc a call to stop their stuff immediately because we need studies RIGHT now but on the other hand the people who want studies dont want them..... Paradox

[UK_]

I should have stated no real "completed" controlled studies yet lol

Bernstein clinic is currently beginning a phase I into plucking hair w/ Acell/PRP.

Has anyone noticed how quick cats recover from wounds? They're itching away a few days later even from bad wounds, they must have some powerful ECM or something.

I dont understand the lack of progress and urgency in this sector anyway, economically it just does not make sense, just look at how successful products like Propecia/Minox have been, even Alpecin, the caffeine shampoo literally exploded across Europe, millions of people are buying this stuff, dont people wanna make money? lol.

[RichardDawkins]

Thats simple to answer : Because we hairloss sufferer dont DEMAND it.

Till today there are still guys who went to dubios clinics for a 1 Dollar per Graft micromotor FUE or other people who go willingly to a FUT strip party to get things DONE.

[UK_]

Those are good concerns. I guess I assumed costs would be paid off by the consumer, though the initial investment might be substantial (how much does one of those PRP machines cost?). And if the doctor doesn't believe in the science, is it ethical to invest in it and pass off that cost to their clients?

I'm all for a controlled, FDA-approved study. Financially speaking, it would be wise for Acell as a company to do this because if Hitzig's/Cooley's results can be "officially" duplicated, more doctors might jump on board and Acell would BANK. I'm gonna assume/hope they're already doing this.

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

[UK_]

Thats simple to answer : Because we hairloss sufferer dont DEMAND it.

Till today there are still guys who went to dubios clinics for a 1 Dollar per Graft micromotor FUE or other people who go willingly to a FUT strip party to get things DONE.

If a shampoo containing something as common and simple as caffeine can produce such an uproar in the "hair cosmetic market" then just imagine what something that is even slightly better than minox could do - it just boggles the mind really - I think there may be something lacking in this industry, some dynamic other industries have a' plenty - you dont see the same competitive drive between smaller fragmented companies as you do in mainstream biotech - which is experiencing an explosion in output because of such conditions.

Biotech progress seems to be feeding on itself and getting faster year on year, the same cannot be said for treatments in this industry, which is why we keep hearing the same old "another 5 years, another 5 years", it could be a lack of demand , but I doubt it - everyone knows with the right reach and the right product a hair loss cure would sell as fast as a cure for any of the major diseases, it's the amount of companies working on something, there is no "race to the finish line". The reason I say this is that even with Dr Cooley et al coming forward and stating that they HAVE literally taken a plucked hair and grown/regrown in recipient + donor... only a handful of doctors, researchers and investors have come forward to research it and improve on the technique - why? The last mainstream publication in terms of progress was Follicas "stem cells in bald scalps" thats it - even then - still silence from within the industry.

[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.