Dr. Cooley and ACell

[debris]

Im not convinced by the photo.

Its hard to tell with certainity, but heres before and after picture where I show some guide lines.

If i understand it correctly the first procedure was done with the long hair, and the buzzed is after photo.

The angle is a bit different but I tried to draw a yellow line in the thinned areas and a red circle around the hair where theres more density.

[RichardDawkins]

Ah i forgot, its debris, the guy who rather like to come up with fancy peptides to buy and dismisses everything related to surgical procedures.

Plucked hair we have human results

Your fancy peptides we have no results or only mice pictures

[debris]

Ah i forgot, its debris, the guy who rather like to come up with fancy peptides to buy and dismisses everything related to surgical procedures.

Plucked hair we have human results

Your fancy peptides we have no results or only mice pictures

I'm not posting this to upset ppl. Im just posting what im seeing. I would wish the plucked hairs worked as well. Im balding the same as u guys are.

And no, I rly have nothing against surgical treatments. If done correctly they do give improvements and when combined with preservation of donor, they could bring us step closer to a nw7 cure.

[LarryDavid]

Dr. Cooley,
you plucked 3400 2 hair Grafts?
Is it not possible to pluck grafts with more than 2 hairs?

[UK_]

Im not convinced by the photo.

Its hard to tell with certainity, but heres before and after picture where I show some guide lines.

If i understand it correctly the first procedure was done with the long hair, and the buzzed is after photo.

The angle is a bit different but I tried to draw a yellow line in the thinned areas and a red circle around the hair where theres more density.

Rubbish, there is a clear difference, if this was applied to the entire scalp you would probably be reversing 3 - 5 years of hair loss, out of all those hairs he plucked and implanted, nobody here can tell me ALL were failures, some worked, and if some worked, then the process works, it just needs improving.

[debris]

Rubbish, there is a clear difference, if this was applied to the entire scalp you would probably be reversing 3 - 5 years of hair loss, out of all those hairs he plucked and implanted, nobody here can tell me ALL were failures, some worked, and if some worked, then the process works, it just needs improving.

im somehow glad that u see a difference. its better to be the only that is not convinced, than having another treatment that would not work that well as everyone thinks.

anyway, I appretiate what Dr Cooley is doing and hopefuly there will be more cases bringing a clearer evidence.

[plopp]

I honestly don't see any real difference. 3 months post op will hardly be enough for the plucked grafts to regenerate and grow 1/2 inch in length (not even counting the usual pre-growth telogen), which the picture would indicate if growth was evident. If there is any slight difference in density at all, it's likely just plucked hairs that haven't fallen out yet.

I think Rassman's findings are interesting. Plucking may very well be the way forward in HM, but Acell alone might be an insufficient delivery medium. I think it's safe to say that plucked grafts don't regenerate either because fibrosis prevents adequate perfusion and/or there isn't enough of a stimuli to cause SC migration to the area. In regard to the former, there are a couple of known agents that seem to inhibit fibrosis. Decorin is one of them, which I'd love to see being used in conjunction with Acell. SC migration shouldn't be a problem since the anecdotal success proves the inductive capability of the plucked grafts, but can, obviously, be improved, e.g. by enriching the delivery medium with SCs from a compatible population.

I'd really love to see further experiments with this method in any case, and not just to assume that the current Acell solution is as good as it gets.

[RichardDawkins]

At lest hair plucking works even in absence of Acell, so i say we need some stem cell cultivation liquids or stuff.

And there is a huge difference because it seems more euqal in patterns

[HairTalk]

Okay this is new to me, thanks.

So now instead of scarring your back or doing all of that strip stuff they use to do, they're doing plucking form the back. That's pretty cool. I thought they were doing plucking from the beard.

So you think that this will cost less than FUE and FUT?

What I don't get is, if it's plucked hairs that are being put on your front and top, how are these hairs going to keep growing healthy and thick? Like it's only the hair follicle that is being placed there, how is it going to keep growing. Is there something i'm missing here? I know for FUE and FUT they take more than just the hair follicle.

Sorry for the stupid question, i'm new to this. And how much longer for this to actually be out in the market? Or does Dr Cooley do this already. It sounds interesting.

Well to make you sound less stupid I wanna know what exactly is plucking?

The idea is, if plucked hairs grow with reliably high yield (I believe, in his initial work [the results of which he shared in 2010], Dr. Cooley found hairs taken from the back of the scalp gave higher yield than those taken from the beard) — at least comparable to that with which grow grafts in F.U.T. or F.U.E. — you have a surgical option wherein there's an unlimited donor supply (as plucked hairs should grow back).

As I said, I don't see how plucking — if it does pan out as a stand-alone option — should cost as much as F.U.E., let alone F.U.T. "Plucking" is simply the pulling out of a hair with a pair of tweezers. Sure, one must be careful to extract as much of the root as possible, and to not just produce a severed shaft, but there's no great time, skill, or invasion required. Once collected, plucked hairs could need to be grouped together microscopically, to imitate follicular units (as only individual hairs, and not a full units, could be tweezed), but this hardly would be as laborious as what's entailed in F.U.E. or F.U.T. I imagine ACell could be quite costly, and this dollar-value would need to be considered should it turn out the compound must be used to facilitate good results from plucking, but, otherwise, I believe "pluck-surgery" should reduce the cost-to-consumer of hair transplantation.

This sounds exciting but do we have a reason to be excited or is this gonna be another let down? So far so good but there is always something that ****s everything up. I'm not too sure but didn't someone -maybe a doctor- say plucking didn't work ?

Right now, I think none of us knows. The doctors trying this out must have the best idea, but I think even most of them (and there're not many: I know Drs. Cooley and Bernstein and working on it; no other prominent names come to mind) are waiting to see the results.

[HairTalk]

Rubbish, there is a clear difference, if this was applied to the entire scalp you would probably be reversing 3 - 5 years of hair loss, out of all those hairs he plucked and implanted, nobody here can tell me ALL were failures, some worked, and if some worked, then the process works, it just needs improving.

Well, I don't know that's true: If Dr. Cooley plucked 3,400 hairs, and 200 of them grow in, his yield would be ~6% — that's appallingly low compared with the 90+% most F.U.T./F.U.E. procedures are supposed to give, and, if this happens, I don't think anyone would want to seriously pursue ironing the "kinks" out of plucking. If, on the other hand, he gets upward of 70% growth, I do think it will be something remarkable, exciting, and promising.

I think, unfortunately, Dr. Cooley does a bad job presenting his work in photographs. I agree with Debris and Plopp in that, were I not guided to do so, I honestly would not find any difference in Dr. Cooley's before-and-after images posted on the first page of this thread. I very much hope the other patients of Cooley on whom he's been trying this method are Norwood VIIs, or close to, for on them one could clearly interpret growth and lack thereof, rather than just try to hunt for particular strands of hay in a somewhat-thinned haystack.

At lest hair plucking works even in absence of Acell, so i say we need some stem cell cultivation liquids or stuff.

And there is a huge difference because it seems more euqal in patterns

How can you claim to see a "huge difference"? The statement reminds me of the social experiment/prank wherein persons insist they can taste the grandeur of an expensive brand of bottled water, which ultimately is revealed to be collected from a garden hose.

Even if plucking works perfectly — let's say 100% yield — it's not believed to avoid the necessary ~four-month period in which grafts, initially shed, grow back (and are not seen). Dr. Cooley's "after" image was taken three months post-op.: how could those longer hairs be regrown grafts? Even with F.U.T. or F.U.E. — which are proved procedures — one rather more likely would not have visible evidence of re-growth at the three-month mark, would one?