| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
» The problem seems to be that they are making claims without utilizing the
» scientific method, which calls for marking off the exact same areas for the
» before and after shots, shaving the hairs down to about 1 centimeter or 0.5
» centimeter, and then paintsakingly doing hair counts.
In this industry, the scientific method seems to be optional.
» » The problem seems to be that they are making claims without utilizing
» the
» » scientific method, which calls for marking off the exact same areas for
» the
» » before and after shots, shaving the hairs down to about 1 centimeter or
» 0.5
» » centimeter, and then paintsakingly doing hair counts.
»
» In this industry, the scientific method seems to be optional.
They say that they have grown hair in donor AND recipient area. So why are they mainly talking about growing hair on scars??? Are there more people with strip-scars than people with balding heads??? I think its pipe-dream …look at his homepage, where heshows 3 pics…the head is gitting bigger on every “after-photo”.
I dont think that they have anything…
» » » Ask him why he released a press release claiming a hair cloning
» » » “breakthrough”, then backed away from those claims the very next day.
» »
» » can you tell us where did they back away?
»
» Listen to the bald truth interview. Despite a press release stating that
» they had made a “hair cloning breakthrough”, he is totally ambiguous,
» avoiding Kobren’s direct questions. He plays up the scar repair ability,
» downplays the hair multiplication aspect (despite hyping it in the
» release).
okay, I believe you. I will listen to the interview later if I have time.
i dont fully understand how it works…
heres what i gather
first you wound the skin and then apply matristem. then the hair grows back?
but it sounds like from what ive read it only works in the donor area because it can cause scaring?
if its only limited to the donor area then this sucks cause its not gonna help me…
im not going to lie this acell thing confuses me
»»
» 
I admit, these photos confuse me. I can still see the scar in the second photo. It just looks like they’ve combed a few hairs down from above the scar to cover it. Hair counts would be one thing, but I don’t even understand what we’re supposed to be seeing in the photos, let alone worrying about hair counts!
Also, I’ve been here a loooong time and Hitzig’s reputation is extremely poor, even for a HT surgeon. A few years back he employed an unqualified tech whose only skills seemed to be that he also worked on his local deli counter. Some posters also complained that his experiments with “plucking” hairs and then transplanting these plucked hairs led to infections as the new hairs didn’t take and the body treated the new hairs (and remember we’re talking hairs here, not follicular grafts with all the meat and supporting systems) were treated as foreign bodies. And I seem to remember (although I admit, I could be wrong on this) that he experimented with BHT several years ago, but he was using strip to get the grafts!
In some ways I suppose it shows that he has a fascination with HM and is willing to look at different methods of achieving it. But experimenting on patients in such a way still strikes me as deeply, deeply unpleasant.
will it work to regrow hair on eyebrows too? so its more naturaul than what is currently done? such as length? or is it only limited to scalp hair? i dont even know y i ask the question i highly doubt it will be answered.
» i dont fully understand how it works…
»
» heres what i gather
»
» first you wound the skin and then apply matristem. then the hair grows
» back?
Primarily - correct.
We talking here about of fully REGENERATION of a part of your body (e.g. skin with hairs, pores etc), similar like salamanders do.
» will it work to regrow hair on eyebrows too? so its more naturaul than what
» is currently done? such as length? or is it only limited to scalp hair? i
» dont even know y i ask the question i highly doubt it will be answered.
Hahahaaaaaaaa, just stop man. If all you did was shave your eyebrows, they are going to grow back.
Spending all this time on a hair loss website planning to mutilate your face is probably not a good idea. In fact, I would wager any of these do-it-yourself HM experiments are going to HURT your chances of getting your eyebrows back.
So, in the meantime, buy an eyebrow pencil and do something else.
Although… I wasn’t going to tell you this, but I read recently that semen (but NOT your own) is really good for growing eyebrow hair.
» here is another case:
»
»
» www.acell.com/files/Surgical_Site_Wound.pdf
Hello all! It has been years since I posted on here and this is probably the first time I have been checking out what is going on for 2 years. Seems the same old stuff only new product names, with the exception of Aderans? Anyway this is some interesting stuff but the hair regrowth potential looks minimal or non existant. You have to be skeptical when the photos are taken at different angles (check the position of the guys ear in the photo found in posts above) and with the various methods that are used to “reveal” the regrowth. This stuff may have a use as a growth enhancer in conjunction with autologous stem cells seeded in a scaffold - kinda like Miracle-Gro for plants.
» will it work to regrow hair on eyebrows too? so its more naturaul than what
» is currently done? such as length? or is it only limited to scalp hair? i
» dont even know y i ask the question i highly doubt it will be answered.
I did ask, no experiment on eyebrows yet, so nothing conclusive can be drawn. In theory and “ASSUMING” Acell can indeed do all those wonderful things that we have heard about, there is no reason why it cannot regrow eyebrows.
» » will it work to regrow hair on eyebrows too? so its more naturaul than
» what
» » is currently done? such as length? or is it only limited to scalp hair?
» i
» » dont even know y i ask the question i highly doubt it will be answered.
»
» I did ask, no experiment on eyebrows yet, so nothing conclusive can be
» drawn. In theory and “ASSUMING” Acell can indeed do all those wonderful
» things that we have heard about, there is no reason why it cannot regrow
» eyebrows.
THANK YOU!!! SO MUCH HAIRSITE THAT WAS VERY NICE OF YOU
I am with you, dastardly.
The exposed area in the after photo is well above the scar.
Thus, it is possible that the scar is combed-over with the hair above.
So it seems a pretty poor photographic manipulation.
If there was something really good, Hitzig would have taken care to show things clearly. Oviously he is not interested to show the truth.
» »»
» »
»
» I admit, these photos confuse me. I can still see the scar in the second
» photo. It just looks like they’ve combed a few hairs down from above the
» scar to cover it. Hair counts would be one thing, but I don’t even
» understand what we’re supposed to be seeing in the photos, let alone
» worrying about hair counts!
»
» Also, I’ve been here a loooong time and Hitzig’s reputation is extremely
» poor, even for a HT surgeon. A few years back he employed an unqualified
» tech whose only skills seemed to be that he also worked on his local deli
» counter. Some posters also complained that his experiments with “plucking”
» hairs and then transplanting these plucked hairs led to infections as the
» new hairs didn’t take and the body treated the new hairs (and remember
» we’re talking hairs here, not follicular grafts with all the meat and
» supporting systems) were treated as foreign bodies. And I seem to remember
» (although I admit, I could be wrong on this) that he experimented with BHT
» several years ago, but he was using strip to get the grafts!
»
» In some ways I suppose it shows that he has a fascination with HM and is
» willing to look at different methods of achieving it. But experimenting on
» patients in such a way still strikes me as deeply, deeply unpleasant.
» 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 totally agree with you, roger_that!!
By the way …
The Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) in The Netherlands is the equivalent authority like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States - and vice versa.
» » 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 totally agree with you, roger_that!!
»
»
» By the way …
»
» The Reclame Code Commissie (RCC) in The Netherlands is the
» equivalent authority like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the
» United States - and vice versa.
OK good work.
Now doctors won’t show us their experiments until after they’ve done a zillion trials and lawyered up.
Just great of you.
To really be sure, they should:
(1) Mark off a very clearly delineated rectangle of scalp. Plot the EXACT COORDINATES of this rectangle on the head, measuring distances from various landmarks such as the border of the pinnus of the ear, the mastoid bone, the atlas bone, etc.
(2) Count the number of growing, terminal hairs in that rectangle PRIOR TO TREATMENT.
(3) Administer treatment and wait.
(4) Count the number of growing, terminal hairs in that rectangle AFTER TREATMENT.
Any other set of “Before and After” photos is dubious.
» Photo posted with permission from Dr. Hitzig. We will also be talking to
» Dr. Hitzig about his Acell MatriStem experiment, feel free to raise any
» questions here.
»
»
» We are growing new hair in prior donor scar sites as well as
» duplicating (growing multiple hairs from a single transplanted beard or
» donor hair) in the bald recipient area" states Dr. Ted Chaglassian, a Board
» Certified Plastic Surgeon and former Chief of Plastic Surgery at Memorial
» Sloan-Kettering Hospital and Attending Physician at Columbia Presbyterian
» Medical Center in NYC."
»
»
» To really be sure, they should:
»
» (1) Mark off a very clearly delineated rectangle of scalp. Plot the EXACT
» COORDINATES of this rectangle on the head, measuring distances from various
» landmarks such as the border of the pinnus of the ear, the mastoid bone,
» the atlas bone, etc.
»
» (2) Count the number of growing, terminal hairs in that rectangle PRIOR TO
» TREATMENT.
»
» (3) Administer treatment and wait.
»
» (4) Count the number of growing, terminal hairs in that rectangle AFTER
» TREATMENT.
»
» Any other set of “Before and After” photos is dubious.
Besides that …
Basically, James Bond is right: Where is the scientifically PROOF ?
» » I admit, these photos confuse me. I can still see the scar in the
» second
» » photo. It just looks like they’ve combed a few hairs down from above
» the
» » scar to cover it. Hair counts would be one thing, but I don’t even
» » understand what we’re supposed to be seeing in the photos, let alone
» » worrying about hair counts!
Hair grows at less than a half-inch a month.
Any new hair in that photo is about a half-inch long or longer.
Add to that how long it takes to grow a new follicle from cells + Acell, and I don’t think you could grow new follicles and have hair as long in four months.
HOWEVER, as you said, there is a big question as to what that photo is supposed to show and whether it is meant to go along with the snippet of text shown with it.
I’m guessing the photo is meant to show scar revision, and not hair growth, and that the photo somehow got confused with text talking about Acell’s ability to form new follicles.
Ahab, the same photo is in Hitzig’s site:
http://www.nyhairloss.com/acell.htm
-The undertitle claims very clearly that there is new hair at 4 months after.
"New hair growth in donor scar 4 months later.
-As you say, it is surprising that new hair could be that long at just 4 months (resting period is normally 3 months or more).
That combed-over hair, looks like old hair, not new hair.
-I have drawn little yellow dots to show what I think it is the correspondence between 2 photos (approximately). In the after photo, it looks like there is a hairless area as wide as in the before photo. There is a gap in the before photo, in the upper portion of the scar, that indeed looks covered in the after photo. But as there is adhesive there, you can’t see it well.
-I don’t see the redness that Cooley has shown in the slides (due to new blood vessels being formed).
-Conclusion: no new hair (except in the uper portion), and same scar width. It looks to me that very little has been done.
This photo is a total calamity. Cooley is credible, Hitzig is not. But curiously, Hitzig is the alleged mastermind.
» » » I admit, these photos confuse me. I can still see the scar in the
» » second
» » » photo. It just looks like they’ve combed a few hairs down from above
» » the
» » » scar to cover it. Hair counts would be one thing, but I don’t even
» » » understand what we’re supposed to be seeing in the photos, let alone
» » » worrying about hair counts!
»
» Hair grows at less than a half-inch a month.
»
» Any new hair in that photo is about a half-inch long or longer.
»
» Add to that how long it takes to grow a new follicle from cells + Acell,
» and I don’t think you could grow new follicles and have hair as long in
» four months.
»
» HOWEVER, as you said, there is a big question as to what that photo is
» supposed to show and whether it is meant to go along with the snippet of
» text shown with it.
»
» I’m guessing the photo is meant to show scar revision, and not hair
» growth, and that the photo somehow got confused with text talking about
» Acell’s ability to form new follicles.
» Ahab, the same photo is in Hitzig’s site:
» http://www.nyhairloss.com/acell.htm
»
» -The undertitle claims very clearly that there is new hair at 4 months
» after.
» "New hair growth in donor scar 4 months later.
»
» -As you say, it is surprising that new hair could be that long at just 4
» months (resting period is normally 3 months or more).
» That combed-over hair, looks like old hair, not new hair.
»
» -I have drawn little yellow dots to show what I think it is the
» correspondence between 2 photos (approximately). In the after photo, it
» looks like there is a hairless area as wide as in the before photo. There
» is a gap in the before photo, in the upper portion of the scar, that indeed
» looks covered in the after photo. But as there is adhesive there, you can’t
» see it well.
»
» -I don’t see the redness that Cooley has shown in the slides (due to new
» blood vessels being formed).
»
» -Conclusion: no new hair (except in the uper portion), and same scar
» width. It looks to me that very little has been done.
»
» This photo is a total calamity. Cooley is credible, Hitzig is not. But
» curiously, Hitzig is the alleged mastermind.
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
» » » » I admit, these photos confuse me. I can still see the scar in the
» » » second
» » » » photo. It just looks like they’ve combed a few hairs down from
» above
» » » the
» » » » scar to cover it. Hair counts would be one thing, but I don’t even
» » » » understand what we’re supposed to be seeing in the photos, let
» alone
» » » » worrying about hair counts!
» »
» » Hair grows at less than a half-inch a month.
» »
» » Any new hair in that photo is about a half-inch long or longer.
» »
» » Add to that how long it takes to grow a new follicle from cells +
» Acell,
» » and I don’t think you could grow new follicles and have hair as long in
» » four months.
» »
» » HOWEVER, as you said, there is a big question as to what that photo is
» » supposed to show and whether it is meant to go along with the snippet
» of
» » text shown with it.
» »
» » I’m guessing the photo is meant to show scar revision, and not hair
» » growth, and that the photo somehow got confused with text talking about
» » Acell’s ability to form new follicles.
Well, whatever.
I wouldn’t make too much out of two bad photos.
Plus I’m more interested in what Cooley has to says.
After hearing the BT interviews of Cooley and Bernstein, I think this is a MAJOR breakthrough.
The big question, of course, will be whether the hair will cycle.
We should be able to have a pretty good idea in a few months, as soon as some doctor pulls out some hairs grown by this method, then waits four months to see if it grows back.
» This photo is a total calamity. Cooley is credible, Hitzig is not. But
» curiously, Hitzig is the alleged mastermind.
Spanish DUD, you said clearly BOTH are charlatans ? I’m confused …
BTW - Please explain again the “WHO is copying WHOM ?” part …
… as well as the “WHO is capitalizing on WHOSE hype ?” part, because I’m confused on this part too.
Concerning your re-analyzed pics, you should first should check out your pic analyzing abilities:
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
