I was just recently doing a bit of research into acell, when I saw that it is still a topic of conversation on alot of acne forums at the moment. And i just wanted to share a few thoughts, to see if anyone can clear a few things up for me. Firstly, am i right in thinking that acell has never been applied to an open wound and left to heal in the methods origionally shown in the animal tests; also, did Dr Jones only use acell in a case where the scar was afterwards stitched. I had an idea, this may be a tad crazy, but couldn’t anyone, who has a regular private doctor/dermatologist who they trust, go about obtaining acell, then get the doctor to cut a very tiny strip in their calf and apply acell to the open wound and see if it regenerates with hair follicles. I know this sounds a bit out there, but this is the only way i can see us finding out if acell actually works when used this way. any takers?
I’d settle for seeing somebody just apply the powder to a dermabraded area of balded/balding scalp skin and keep it covered with it. There’s at least one story going around of that method healing a woman’s stretch marks.
HT doctors stand to lose their careers if something so simple would turn out to work though.
I spoke with the Acell rep last week. There jumping on the Hitzig wagon. He’s claiming he regrew donor hair. Looking at his pics , there ridiculous. He didnt even do a good job of faking it. http://www.nyhairloss.com/acell.htm
I spoke with the rep about jones experiment. He said Jones botched it because it dried it. He said he needs to apply a layer of vaseline or hydragel over the acell to prevent it from drying out. I know Dr. Jones said he’s done with acell. I think we need to create a thread begging Dr. Jones to try it one last time by applying a layer of hydragel or vaseline over the acell to keep it moist. If it fails that way as well then I can feel comfortable putting ACELL to bed.
Would you look to Merck to answer people’s questions about whether Finasteride is responsible for permanent sexual function damage?
Then why are you looking to HT docs to tell you whether this cheap & easy powder has completely obsoleted their whole industry or not?
» Would you look to Merck to answer people’s questions about whether
» Finasteride is responsible for permanent sexual function damage?
» Then why are you looking to HT docs to tell you whether this cheap & easy
» powder has completely obsoleted their whole industry or not?
The difference is that Merck makes Finasteride, so they would have an interest in covering up any adverse side-effects, to protect their profits.
The HT docs don’t make Acell, so if we were to correctly follow your “logic” (I mean draw an otherwise valid conclusion from faulty initial assumptions), they wouldn’t be trying to protect this product by covering up something about it. Unless they are trying to cover up the extremely unlikely chance that it actually grows hair.
I would think the chances of that are about the same as the Pope announcing that he’s converting to Mormonism.
Rather, I think that many HT docs will promote Acell, as a way of driving more patients into their clinics. The pitch will be NOT that Acell creates more hair, but that it helps in healing and perhaps promotes much better healing in donor areas so that less hair is LOST there, long term.
Whether or not that will be true is something that we’ll only know with more time and testing.