here’s why I’m a little bit skeptical of this, people…
FIRST, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the doctors involved. Dr. Cooley, I believe, was one of the very first PIONEERS in investigating the idea of Hair Multiplication, and he was one fo the very first to show that it could work… No, he never successfully followed through on those first experiments, but a lot of people have him to thank for paving the initial way…
Dr. Hitzig, I believe, is a widely respected and competent HT surgeon who has helped a lot of satisfied patients… No complaint there…
I don’t know who Dr. Ted Chaglassian is, I’ve never heard of him, but someone who is/was associated with Sloane Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in NYC (I have a cousin who works there and her mom was cared for there by great doctors…) AND Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center – well, these are the BEST names in American medicine so this guy has a lot of credibility. I’m not knocking any of that and am definitely willing to give these doctors the benefit of the doubt!
Now, on to my skepticism.
I don’t know how they can call this “hair cloning” when they admit it is not yet “reproducible”. They say in their own annoucement, that they want to make the procedure “reproducible”. NOT “more reproducible”, but just “reproducible”. Well, if it’s not reproducible as it is RIGHT NOW, how can they say it’s legitimate “hair cloning”??? A fluke maybe, but to say this is “hair cloning” seems stretching things A LOT. Will they disclose that the procedure is not reproducible to their patients? Will they disclose this in informed consent forms???
Look at the pictures! Only one set of Before/After photos was presented. Why only one? Because the procedure is still not reproducible (See my #1 above…) Also, in the Before shot, you see a lateral, curved scar (normal for a strip transplant skin excision), with bands of hairless skin on either side, above and below the scar. The band of hairless skin above the scar is the most pronounced and biggest, and seems to be completely denuded of hair. ARE THEY SAYING THIS IS NORMAL FOR HAIR AROUND A STRIP SCAR? How is it normal? Was that “shock fallout”, or is it bald only because it was shaved??? PLEASE DISCLOSE THIS!!! Also, wouldn’t you EXPECT that hair to grow back in fully? Isn’t that what most/all HT strip doctors tell their patients – that they expect that hair to grow back? Even when a patient with a brain tumor has brain surgery, scars are made cranium and scalp, and THEN THE HAIR GROWS BACK except for maybe a little bit over the scar. BUT YOU DON’T SEE LARGE BALD AREAS PERSISTING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SCAR IN POST-OP BRAIN SURGERY PATIENTS, 4 MONTHS AFTER SURGERY!!! Then why should you expect to see this kind of baldness on either side of a strip scar in a normal HT patient??? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!!
What exactly are they claiming??? That hair grew de novo, where there was only thin hair or complete baldness before??? THEN PLEASE PROVE IT!!! Please show evidence with clearly marked-off portios of scalp, with before and after HAIR COUNTS!!! I don’t see an of this kind of evidence in what they have presented here!
Normally, with a strip scar, PATIENTS ARE TOLD TO EXPECT THE HAIR ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SCAR TO GROW BACK IN. If the hair in the general donor area (in back of the head) appears thinner and the scar is visible after the strip excision, it is NOT supposed to be because of secondary baldness, it is supposed to be because the HEAR-BEARING SKIN WAS STRETCHED over a greater distance, thus causing the hair to look thinner.
So, the burden is on these docs to PROVE this is a real hair cloning, or hair mulitplication procedure. IF THEY CLAIM THIS, but cannot prove it with real medical evidence, then people will complain to the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and they may be sanctioned, fined or prosecuted for false advertising!!!
I respect these docs, but I’M JUST SAYIN’…
PEOPLE – DEFEND THE RIGHTS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE HAIRLOSS COMMUNITY!!!