I notice that Acell website (www.acell.com) is marketing to the hair transplant industry. They have a link to a page that talks about donor area repairs and plucked hairs. It looks like the product is readily available. Same info Hitzig and Cooley presented.
» I notice that Acell website (www.acell.com) is marketing to the hair
» transplant industry. They have a link to a page that talks about donor
» area repairs and plucked hairs. It looks like the product is readily
» available. Same info Hitzig and Cooley presented.
ACell is promising, Drs. Cooley, Hitzig and Epstein deserve a lot of CREDIT AND THANKS for their research using ACell, but I think they still haven’t proved indisputably that it works to substantially improve HT or autocloning.
It seems they have tried almost every type of experiment – repairing old scars with ACell, using ACell in conjunction with HT and plucking, two side-be-side tests of scalp hair and beard hair both with ACell, etc.
But the one test I haven’t seen them do is this:
Direct, side-by-side comparison of HT/plucking WITH ACELL on one field of scalp, versus the same WITHOUT ACELL on an adjacent field of scalp.
All other conditions must be controlled. Needless to say the tests should be using the same patient: it is much more useful to compare two areas of scalp on one patient than one area on each of two different patients, because responses are highly idiosyncratic. And this is best done on scalp that has minimal or no existing terminal hair. The scalp field with NO ACELL applied would be considered the “control” part of the experiment.
The one thing that worries me in all this is that, without clean, side-by-side experiments of ACell versus no ACell, with all other conditions being the same, we are not really getting an objective view of its utility, only subjective opinions by the doctors, and mental comparisons of ACell cases with non-ACell cases from the doctors’, and our own, memories.
» » I notice that Acell website (www.acell.com) is marketing to the hair
» » transplant industry. They have a link to a page that talks about donor
» » area repairs and plucked hairs. It looks like the product is readily
» » available. Same info Hitzig and Cooley presented.
»
» ACell is promising, Drs. Cooley, Hitzig and Epstein deserve a lot of
» CREDIT AND THANKS for their research using ACell, but I think they still
» haven’t proved indisputably that it works to substantially improve HT or
» autocloning.
»
» It seems they have tried almost every type of experiment – repairing old
» scars with ACell, using ACell in conjunction with HT and plucking, two
» side-be-side tests of scalp hair and beard hair both with ACell, etc.
»
» But the one test I haven’t seen them do is this:
»
» Direct, side-by-side comparison of HT/plucking WITH ACELL on one field of
» scalp, versus the same WITHOUT ACELL on an adjacent field of scalp.
»
» All other conditions must be controlled. Needless to say the tests should
» be using the same patient: it is much more useful to compare two areas of
» scalp on one patient than one area on each of two different patients,
» because responses are highly idiosyncratic. And this is best done on scalp
» that has minimal or no existing terminal hair. The scalp field with NO
» ACELL applied would be considered the “control” part of the experiment.
»
» The one thing that worries me in all this is that, without clean,
» side-by-side experiments of ACell versus no ACell, with all other
» conditions being the same, we are not really getting an objective view of
» its utility, only subjective opinions by the doctors, and mental
» comparisons of ACell cases with non-ACell cases from the doctors’, and our
» own, memories.
If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck them in my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or not.
» I notice that Acell website (www.acell.com) is marketing to the hair
» transplant industry. They have a link to a page that talks about donor
» area repairs and plucked hairs. It looks like the product is readily
» available. Same info Hitzig and Cooley presented.
Can’t find such a link on their website … 
That’s the only link I’m aware of:
BTW - Here is why everything on ACell took so long …
http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/3896255-1.html
Excerpt:
“A three year legal battle finally is behind us. Now we eagerly look forward to executing on our plans to further develop and commercialize our prized ECM technology.”
Hopefully Histogen (similar situation) will be successfully as well in the courtroom … 
» BTW - Here is why everything on ACell took so long …
»
» http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/3896255-1.html
»
» Excerpt:
» “A three year legal battle finally is behind us.
» Now we eagerly look forward to executing on our plans to further
» develop and commercialize our prized ECM technology.”
»
» Hopefully Histogen (similar situation) will be successfully as well in the
» courtroom …
They will, especially when you have a bald judge or jury
» BTW - Here is why everything on ACell took so long …
»
» http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/3896255-1.html
»
» Excerpt:
» “A three year legal battle finally is behind us.
» Now we eagerly look forward to executing on our plans to further
» develop and commercialize our prized ECM technology.”
»
» Hopefully Histogen (similar situation) will be successfully as well in the
» courtroom …
This article is from 2007!!!
But no progress since 2007 in their primary fields(regenerative medicin)
Their business volume in regenerative medicine seems to be poor and maybe they are searching for a niche in HT where they can make money.
I am sceptic about this, as a breakthrough
Yeah Yeah bla bla, now go back to Andreas Staedtgen and tell him you did your job and you want your money from SENSITIV Gesundheitsprodukte
» Yeah Yeah bla bla, now go back to Andreas Staedtgen and tell him you did
» your job and you want your money from SENSITIV Gesundheitsprodukte
very conspicious iron_jenkins, your batched posts! this is not the way you can hide your double account 
why are you still here? not cured?
you promote this “breakthrough” all the time, and now you are too f…king cowardly to be the first???
wasn`t your butchered head abused enough???
» If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck them in
» my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a
» controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or not.
Right, but these doctors are all claiming “amazing” results, or at least better results, with ACell. My concern is that it is just too easy for these docs to tout it and hype it up to “get patients in the door” for HT in a poor economy, where business has probably dropped off considerably in the past 2 years. Someone else mentioned this possibility in a post a couple of weeks back, too.
HT surgeons generally don’t like to do research. The vast majority of them don’t spend a penny on true research, and run their clinics like assembly lines – production facilities where the idea is “get 'em in the door, get 'em out…”. They’re not interested in research because there’s no certain return on investment, so they may eat the costs like overhead.
That’s why you had so few HT surgeons researching HM. It was just too expensive to do, no certain ROI, will take too long getting it through the FDA, and anyway when it appears, others will probably control it and most of the revenues. And that’s why we had so many HT surgeons skeptical of HM, saying it’s a long way off, lumping it with genetic engineering on their websites, etc. They just weren’t interested in the expense of doing research, or promoting a development that they couldn’t, and probably wouldn’t, control – and something that, if it appeared quickly, would devastate their businesses. (BTW, on that last point, I am sick of arguing with people. It WOULD devastate most HT docs’ businesses because it is being developed as PROPRIETARY procedures by ARI, etc. – and the independent HT docs haven’t been cut in on any licensing deals, and probably will not, with Bosley in the way.)
With ACell, all those reasons I gave above for HT doctors not to experiment with new techniques go out the door, they’re not valid. ACell is already FDA approved. It costs little to “research” this stuff, but it would reap great dividends if the docs can convinve enough of the public that it, say, significantly enhanced HT results. It would be a marketing coup made in heaven – minimal research costs (because the subjects are generally PAYING patients who are just getting ACell added on as a bonus), but a windfall in public relations because it’s easy to generate a buzz of excitement about this stuff.
That is all the MORE reason, then, why the testing has to be done under the strictest scientific conditions, accurately, and with control subjects (or scalp areas) not treated with ACell, for direct comparison.
I am saying that because the possibility of hyping this thing even if it’s not really effective is so high, and so easy to do, that is PRECISELY why we need testing with the most painstaking standards to produce ACCURATE, REPRODUCIBLE results!
As for autocloning, same thing. Although it looks promising and would be exciting, I’m not going into any HT doctor’s clinic for HT or autocloning, until they can prove conclusively that the plucked hairs cycle. When that is proven, I’ll be the first in the door.
» bla bla
» you promote this “breakthrough” all the time, …
» bla bla
This is completely untrue!
Other users here always complain that I just ‘promote’ Dr. Gho! 
But I’m not the only one: Dr. Jerry Cooley promoted him respecfully too …
Source 2010: http://www.iahrs.org/news/dr-jerry-cooley-acell-matristem-slide-presentation/
Dr. Cooley (min 05:35): „Dr. Gho published a study in a reputable journal, that plucked hair does indeed has hair follicle stem cells and other researchers have confirmed the finding.”
So now the whole “HT and HM industry” knows about the hair-stem-cells and hair plucking expert Dr. Gho …
@roger_that - you shouldn’t ‘promote’ ACell so much … 
In some funny way you answered your questions yourself in your last sentence ^^
Even if the economy is down right now, if some ht surgeon would make this auto cloning possible and working i can guarantee you that everyone wat to get it done.
So i can say you are semi right, cause look at Armani he didnt change his absolut way over the top fees.
I think this time its more a thing about HT docs really wanting to help people, because if you look at things in the past, it is now more difficult then ever to rip people off, because of the internet.
The only thing concerning right now should be " Hair cycling.
And i have to be honest, since some months now, i began to not care about my hair, cause in the next few years there will be solutions with more then satisfying results.
So well iam not commenting in this forum that much lately because why should i argue with idiots anymore.
And to make it clear what i mean, you guys should all be happy that hairsite provides this sub-forum as the first entry here.
In one of the biggest german forums, hair research is treated like some snake oil. The admin even manages to ridicule the findings and results of Hitzig and Co.
Yes, they keep german hairloss sufferers dumb, i mean really dumb. I can absolutely say “If everybody could get their full head of hair back for 10 dollars forever even a NW7, there would be a lot of bald people in germany but not the rest of the world”
All nes HM related toppics are always ridiculed in the german forum, and guess what the admin is on a paylist from some FUT-Clinics 
but he always claims otherwise.
And the User Matigol is also a german sock puppet account who followed Iron_Man.
So what i say is, you guys should be really really thankful for hairsite even if it is sometimes a little bit frustrating here
» If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck them in
» my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a
» controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or not.
By the way, your reasoning above contains the logical fallacy “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” – “after this, therefore because of this”.
If the doctor sprinkles talcum or ACell or angel dust on your plucked hair and implants it and it grows, you ASSUME it’s because of the powder he sprinkled on the hair. But you don’t KNOW, because you haven’t compared it with a control where you saw the powder was NOT used. If you don’t know, but are willing to pay money to an HT doc just on that basis, good for you. But I want to see proof.
» » bla bla
» » you promote this “breakthrough” all the time, …
» » bla bla
»
» This is completely untrue!
» Other users here always complain that I just ‘promote’ Dr. Gho!
Did you notice it???
YOU IRON_MAN ANSWERED TO A POST I WROTE @LEEROY
LMAO, YOU CONVICTED YOURSELF IRON_JENKINS!!!
A double account isn`t easy to handle!!!
Next abusion waiting to happen, come on, get your ticket to hitzig.
Lancet is sharp and ready
» » If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck them in
» » my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a
» » controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or not.
»
» By the way, your reasoning above contains the logical fallacy “post hoc,
» ergo propter hoc” – “after this, therefore because of this”.
»
» If the doctor sprinkles talcum or ACell or angel dust on your plucked hair
» and implants it and it grows, you ASSUME it’s because of the powder he
» sprinkled on the hair. But you don’t KNOW . . .
You totally missed my point. Why do you think I said “I couldn’t care less”?
Because it is not about “I don’t know”
It is about “I don’t care” and “it doesn’t matter”
Talcum powder or no talcum powder, what matters is I’d be getting new hair.
That’s what I care about. Whether you get the hair without talcum powder, is mere scientific curiosity.
And I don’t need to wait several more years for a series of clinical trials to see if hair regrows without the talcum powder.
Ahab, I didn’t miss your point.
I know you meant “I don’t care” rather than “I don’t know”.
MY point is if you don’t care about something like this, you’re more likely to be snookered. Had. Bamboozled. Hoodwinked. Conned. Ripped off. Etc.
If some doc comes up to you and says, “Watch me pour this Magic Powder on these hair follicles. And guess what, when I implant them, they’ll be PERMANENT HAIRS that will CYCLE and your baldness will be CURED!!!”
Before I shelled out money for that sh*t, I would ask to see proof first. And I would want to know how it works.
I understand, you don’t even care about “how”. Well you and me just differ there. For me, the “how” and “why” figure into the “if” – IF I am going to believe someone’s claim and spend money on it.
I guess you’re more with Marlo Stanfield from The Wire, who, when telling a friend that Omar Little had been killed, said: “Don’t know the ‘who’, don’t even know if there was a ‘why’”.
» » » If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck them
» in
» » » my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a
» » » controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or
» not.
» »
» » By the way, your reasoning above contains the logical fallacy “post
» hoc,
» » ergo propter hoc” – “after this, therefore because of this”.
» »
» » If the doctor sprinkles talcum or ACell or angel dust on your plucked
» hair
» » and implants it and it grows, you ASSUME it’s because of the powder he
» » sprinkled on the hair. But you don’t KNOW . . .
»
» You totally missed my point. Why do you think I said “I couldn’t care
» less”?
»
» Because it is not about “I don’t know”
»
» It is about “I don’t care” and “it doesn’t matter”
»
» Talcum powder or no talcum powder, what matters is I’d be getting new
» hair.
»
» That’s what I care about. Whether you get the hair without talcum powder,
» is mere scientific curiosity.
»
» And I don’t need to wait several more years for a series of clinical
» trials to see if hair regrows without the talcum powder.
It would be reasonable to ASSUME that IF hair follicles can be regenerated when used in conjuction with Acell and this was not possible before the introduction of Acell…Acell is what made the difference…or am I incorrect and they were regenerating complete follicles (as in Cooley’s study) previously and I just missed it???
» It would be reasonable to ASSUME that IF hair follicles can be
» regenerated when used in conjuction with Acell and this was not possible
» before the introduction of Acell…Acell is what made the
» difference…
I agree Willy, but as much as I like, respect, and admire these doctors (I really do think Cooley and Hitzig are very smart guys, caring docs and way ahead of almost everyone else in their industry), I’m not just going to take their word for it (whether it’s the supposedly “much better” or “amazing” results in HT when ACell is used, or whether pre-treatment with ACell causes plucked hairs to become permanent, cycling hairs…) I want to see the cold, hard, EVIDENCE, and that means side-by-side tests with a control group not treated with ACell, or MUCH BETTER THAN THAT, side-by-side tests with and without ACell on the same patients’ scalps.
As much as I like these two doctors and think their work is serious, ONLY positive results on tests performed as I described above will be enough to convince me to have this treatment (plucking/autocloning + ACell) done.
There MUST be controlled testing or it doesn’t convince me of anything!
or am I incorrect and they were regenerating complete
» follicles (as in Cooley’s study) previously and I just missed it???
» Ahab, I didn’t miss your point.
»
» I know you meant “I don’t care” rather than “I don’t know”.
»
» MY point is if you don’t care about something like this, you’re more
» likely to be snookered. Had. Bamboozled. Hoodwinked. Conned. Ripped off.
» Etc.
»
» If some doc comes up to you and says, “Watch me pour this Magic Powder on
» these hair follicles. And guess what, when I implant them, they’ll be
» PERMANENT HAIRS that will CYCLE and your baldness will be CURED!!!”
»
» Before I shelled out money for that sh*t, I would ask to see proof first.
» And I would want to know how it works.
»
» I understand, you don’t even care about “how”. Well you and me just
» differ there. For me, the “how” and “why” figure into the “if” – IF I am
» going to believe someone’s claim and spend money on it.
»
» I guess you’re more with Marlo Stanfield from The Wire, who, when telling
» a friend that Omar Little had been killed, said: “Don’t know the ‘who’,
» don’t even know if there was a ‘why’”.
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
» » » » If they sprinkled my plucked hairs with talcum powder, and stuck
» them
» » in
» » » » my scalp, and it grew hair–I couldn’t care less whether they did a
» » » » controlled experiment to see if the talcum powder was necessary or
» » not.
» » »
» » » By the way, your reasoning above contains the logical fallacy “post
» » hoc,
» » » ergo propter hoc” – “after this, therefore because of this”.
» » »
» » » If the doctor sprinkles talcum or ACell or angel dust on your plucked
» » hair
» » » and implants it and it grows, you ASSUME it’s because of the powder
» he
» » » sprinkled on the hair. But you don’t KNOW . . .
» »
» » You totally missed my point. Why do you think I said “I couldn’t care
» » less”?
» »
» » Because it is not about “I don’t know”
» »
» » It is about “I don’t care” and “it doesn’t matter”
» »
» » Talcum powder or no talcum powder, what matters is I’d be getting new
» » hair.
» »
» » That’s what I care about. Whether you get the hair without talcum
» powder,
» » is mere scientific curiosity.
» »
» » And I don’t need to wait several more years for a series of clinical
» » trials to see if hair regrows without the talcum powder.
I know all about the scientific method and controlled experiments that are reproduceable.
But I also live in the real world.
And I more than anyone here needs what Cooley and Hitzig say to be true.
But I am too smart to rush out and have either of those two work on me yet.
I am waiting to see this idea being taken up by other doctors to see if other doctors can duplicate the findings of Cooley and Hitzig, and for the technique to be further refined through the practice of it.
If Cooley and Hitzig are blowing smoke, it will come out in time.
These are practicing doctors, not lab researchers. If you want rigorous controlled experiments to be done before you have this done to you, you pay for it.
Me, I’ll wait to see how this plays out in the real world.
If Hitzig and Cooley have found a way to give as much hair to people as their findings so far suggest, you won’t need any rigorous controlled experiment to verify that.
Because over the next few years, you’ll be seeing increasing numbers of bald people all over our neighborhoods and in our work places and entertainment stars, all growing significant hair on their heads.
And the media will be all over this story by that time, too.
Meanwhile, if Cooley and Hitzig were to verify their results by doing a rigorous controlled experment, you’d then be saying it’s not enough, because Hitzig and Cooley have skin in the game, so it should really be tested by some independent laboratory, or that they didn’t have a large enough cohort. Or that they only did one trial, when they should do three or at least two,
Etc., etc., etc.
Why are u even wasting your breath about something that won’t happen in the real world, or that won’t happen for a long, long time, if ever?
TRY THIS: http://www.acell.com/files/Donor_Site_Repair.pdf
» » I notice that Acell website (www.acell.com) is marketing to the hair
» » transplant industry. They have a link to a page that talks
» about donor
» » area repairs and plucked hairs. It looks like the
» product is readily
» » available. Same info Hitzig and Cooley presented.
»
» Can’t find such a link on their website …
»
» That’s the only link I’m aware of:
»
» http://www.acell.com/pandr_surgery.php