» » saying. i am saying that there MAY be a difference between the closure
» of
» » a very recent/immediate wound in healthy tissue that is still growing
» hair
» » VS the closure of a wound that is right smack dab in the middle of scar
» » tissue that is long since void of hair follicles.
»
» “closure of a wound that is right smack dab in the middle of scar tissue”
»
» THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. THE SCAR TISSUE WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED! Making a
» NEW WOUND. IT IS NOW A “very recent/immediate wound in healthy tissue”.
» The doctor did not just cut through the middle of the scar, HE EXCISED IT,
» which means he cut around it, removed it, it is GONE.
»
» DO YOU GET IT NOW??? Probably not.
Guess what Little Bo Peep, i already knew the incision cut a little into the skin that is healthy/still growing hair but why did you even respond to my point that the tissue was scar tissue removed from inside the border of the scarred area when according to you that shouldn’t make any difference? I only said that it was removed from the inside the border of the scar tissue to bait you. And it worked. And while I’m glad you responded to my point that i baited you with, i am still curious why you completely ignored my other points. You are selecting minor/irrelevant points of mine to take issue with while ignoring my larger/big picture points. Is that because you don’t have an answer to my more important and bigger-picture points???
» Oh i understand that i just wanted to engage your stupidity so i thought i
» would say something to pull your chain and it worked.
riiiiight
» are now saying that you really aren’t so stupid because you can spell these
» words i said you can’t spell but then doesn’t your admitted vulgarity and
» profanity make the same point that you are stupid as mispelled words would
» have made? In other words, the fact that you really can spell those words
» doesn’t prove that you are a buffoon because your needless profanity and
» vulgarity makes the same point that you are an idiot/imbecile.
»
So intelligent people don’t use profanity huh. Um, ok.
»
» I will accept this if and when the ongoing experiment regrows hair. if it
» doesn’t then that will show that you are a fool and a buffoon because your
» posit is clearly that the ongoing experiment has no choice but to succeed.
My post NEVER said that. Just shows your inability to comprehend.
» Guess what Little Bo Peep, i already knew the incision cut a little into
» the skin that is healthy/still growing hair but why did you even respond to
» my point that the tissue was scar tissue removed from inside the border of
» the scarred area when according to you that shouldn’t make any difference?
» I only said that it was removed from the inside the border of the scar
» tissue to bait you. And it worked. And while I’m glad you responded to my
» point that i baited you with, i am still curious why you completely ignored
» my other points. You are selecting minor/irrelevant points of mine to take
» issue with while ignoring my larger/big picture points. Is that because
» you don’t have an answer to my more important and bigger-picture
» points???
Bait me? HAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! OMG dude, you are such a tool!
What other points? The only point you have is needle in your pants.
» » On one hand you say that “Nobody” knows “shiit” about ACELL, but then on
» » the other hand you say that YOU know, for a fact, whether or not ACELL
» will
» » regrow hair.
»
» When did I say whether or not ACELL will regrow hair? I never said that.
» I said an excised scar is in fact a new wound. There is no proof ACELL
» will work on a new wound, or any wound, to regrow hair.
Sure you did idiot, but you’re too stupid to realize it. However, i do give you credit for at least tackling one of the bigger issues i’ve raised instead of sticking to my more minor issues. Now let me explain retard, we have all seen pics of wounded animals that, via ACELL treatment, got regrowth of hair/bearing skin tissue so this proves that ACELL regrows skin complete with hair in the right circumstances. And the right circumstance is that the skin (or scar tissue in this case) had to be healthy skin programmed TO STILL BE GROWING HAIR AT THIS TIME, and it would be if it hadn’t been replaced by scar tissue. That means that the skin that is supposed to be where the scar tissue was is healthy hair-bearing skin. The ACELL is going to get its’ directions from a SOURCE inside the surrounding healthy skin and the directions given to the ACELL from inside that healthy skin can’t include replication of scar tissue because the scar tissue came AFTER the SOURCE of the instructions already existed and because scar tissue is an unatural man-made add-on. It’s not part of the natural instructions inside whatever is the SOURCE of the instructions. For example, let’s say that each cell in the skin has the directions for all the cells inside the skin. Then let’s say that the instructions for how to rebuild the scar tissue will come from the healthy skin surrounding the wound. Since the instructions come from the genetics still inside the healthy tissue the instructions couldn’t possibly include the results of afer-birth man-made add-ons such as scar tissue from a hair transplant. So the directions would have to result in replication of the original skin, without man-made add-ons.
HENCE SINCE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE FACT THE REMOVED AREA IS LONG SCARRED AND NON-HAIRBEARING IS IRRELEVANT THEN YOU ARE ALSO SAYING THAT THE ONGOING EXPERIMENT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SUCCED.
»
» Get your facts straight fuuckhead (misspelled on purpose). And no, you do
» not get it.
» have all seen pics of wounded animals that, via ACELL treatment, got
» regrowth of hair/bearing skin tissue so this proves that ACELL regrows skin
» complete with hair in the right circumstances.
HAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA! AAAHAHAHAHAHA! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are killing me man! Trying to bait me again with stupid posts?
Just because wounded animals grow fur doesn’t mean it will grow hair on humans. HAAAHAHAHAHA! Animal wounds will regenerate fur without ACELL.
This method used electrical stimulation to aid in healing. Fur was obviously regenerated. So do you think this is proof that electrical stimulation will regrow hair in a wounded human scalp?
» Fur was obviously regenerated. So do you think this is proof that electrical
» stimulation will regrow hair in a wounded human scalp?
Errr, where fur was regenerated? I can’t see… it looks like fur has not been generated yet, maybe you can try to post more recent picture?
Really, it don’t seems to be regenerated… not at all…
ps. with this post I don’t want to say that acell will work for sure, I don’t know and frankly I’ve never put hope in acell, but I have never seen fur regeneration in pets before acell, that’s all
Maneless, I don’t need to “stop reading certain threads.” You really missed what I was getting at way back there.
You interpreted what I was saying to be that we should assume Acell can do less in general. That was never what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that in general around here, there’s an unnecessarily frantic feeling in the air about early Acell testing on HT procedures.
IMO we should relax a little. Whatever this stuff’s scar closure and skin regeneration abilites really are, I guarantee you that MANKIND WILL FIND OUT THE WHOLE STORY. AND RELATIVELY SOON. Medical researchers will be stretching Acell’s legs on more aggressive wounds all over the world in a matter of time.
If Dr. Jones does something incorrectly that’s unfortunate, but let’s get a grip and keep things in perspective. It’s not like this is some small-time lab working with a little-used chemical that will never be tried again if it doesn’t prove its worth right here & now with Dr. Jones. Acell has gone mass-market now. Probably the worst that a procedural mistake from Dr. Jones can do at this point is delay accurate findings by a few months/years.
» » Guess what Little Bo Peep, i already knew the incision cut a little into
» » the skin that is healthy/still growing hair but why did you even respond
» to
» » my point that the tissue was scar tissue removed from inside the border
» of
» » the scarred area when according to you that shouldn’t make any
» difference?
» » I only said that it was removed from the inside the border of the scar
» » tissue to bait you. And it worked. And while I’m glad you responded to
» my
» » point that i baited you with, i am still curious why you completely
» ignored
» » my other points. You are selecting minor/irrelevant points of mine to
» take
» » issue with while ignoring my larger/big picture points. Is that
» because
» » you don’t have an answer to my more important and bigger-picture
» » points???
»
» Bait me? HAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! OMG dude, you are such a tool!
»
» What other points? The only point you have is needle in your pants.
More proof that you’re an idiot/imbecile. I’m bored of your stupidity so it’s off to more intelligent things for me, and it’s off to continued ignorance and imbecilic foolhardiness for you. Get a book, read a book, go back to school, and grow a brain, imbecile. Bye bye, you are not worth my time you dumb little boy.
» More proof that you’re an idiot/imbecile. I’m bored of your stupidity so
» it’s off to more intelligent things for me, and it’s off to continued
» ignorance and imbecilic foolhardiness for you. Get a book, read a book, go
» back to school, and grow a brain, imbecile. Bye bye, you are not worth my
» time you dumb little boy.
This idiot/imbecile I was able to teach you a couple things:
The difference between and excised scar and an incised scar.
An excised scar is a NEW WOUND.
Since an idiot/imbecile FINALLY got this into your pea brain, but was so difficult for you to comprehend, makes you completely inept.
And yes, please get on to more intelligent things…like finishing grade school.
This is the last post you’re getting from me you imbecile, and yes i admit that i couldn’t resist posting this last post. That aside, the animals are only part of my point buffoon. Dr. Jones, who is the investigator doing the present ongoing experiment, stated that ACELL has grown hair in humans. Now keep in mind that ACELL has been used on America’s soldiers but that those pics are part of those soldiers private medical records so we can’t get access to them. If we could get access to other people’s private medical records then i would be able to see your psychological profiling which would reveal an IQ of less than 80 establishing that you are retarded, but i can’t get ahold of those records so the secret about you being retarded is safe. That aside, the company that produces ACELL would have at least some pictures of the soldier’s use of ACELL and perhaps other human use of ACELL besides the soldiers. The company would have shared these photos, amongst any other info the company has about the use of ACELL on humans, with Dr. Jones because Dr. Jones is taking some risks here and he would have wanted all the info he could get and because the company wants the experiment done because they know that if it works that will mean a huge amount of new profits for them as ACELL will then be used to restore the donor area after hair transplant surgery. So, the company that makes ACELL has reason to share the photos, and other evidence, with Dr. Jones and Dr. Jones has reason to insist on being made privy to these photos and any other evidence there is regarding human use of ACELL. After seeing all the possible evidence Dr. Jones states that ACELL does, in fact, grow hair in humans. It’s a done deal buffoon. ACELL does grow hair in humans given the right circumstances and since you say that the fact that the tissue being removed has no bearing on whether or not the experiment will succeed then that means that you are saying that the experiment has no choice but to succeed. I’m not going to bother supplying the link to Dr. Jones statement of fact that ACELL does grow hair in humans but I will tell you that i read it somewhere in this forum. Go looking for it if you haven’t already read it.
Again, since it is a known fact that ACELL grows hair IN HUMANS coupled with the fact that you say the fact that the tissue being removed is scar tissue is irrelevant to whether or not the experiment succeeds, this means that you are stating that the experiment will definitely succeed. I am saying I’m not sure because the fact that the tissue removed was non hair-bearing scar tissue for numberous years could somehow throw things off. You’re a fool and that’s all there is to it. We have seen numerous examples in medicine where some alteration has happened to the human body and the human body has responded in a way that was anticipated before man made the change to the human body. For example, it has been determined that when a man takes finasteride to treat hairloss he reduces his DHT levels AND the human body responds by producing and sending an enormous number of NEW androgen binding sites into the human body so that the NEW androgen binding sites can pull in more androgens to compensate for the loss of DHT. When a person goes on a diet the person’s metabolic rate slows down to compensate for the reduction of food being eaten, and this is what makes excercise (to increase the metabolic rate) so important as part of weight loss program. With these kinds of facts in mind I’m thinking that is a CHANCE that somehow someway the fact that the tissue removed was long since non hair-bearing scar tissue the body could have somehow made some adjustment that could somehow someway affect the experiment. I am not saying this is a certainty; i am only saying there may be a chance of this. You are the only one taking a certain (and foolhardy) position because you are saying, with certainty, that the experiment can not fail. Plain and simply put, YOU ARE AN @SS.
Now go away and get a book and go back to school and read your little book and grow a brain, you imbecile.
» » More proof that you’re an idiot/imbecile. I’m bored of your stupidity
» so
» » it’s off to more intelligent things for me, and it’s off to continued
» » ignorance and imbecilic foolhardiness for you. Get a book, read a book,
» go
» » back to school, and grow a brain, imbecile. Bye bye, you are not worth
» my
» » time you dumb little boy.
»
» This idiot/imbecile I was able to teach you a couple things:
»
» 1. The difference between and excised scar and an incised scar.
» 2. An excised scar is a NEW WOUND.
»
» Since an idiot/imbecile FINALLY got this into your pea brain, but was so
» difficult for you to comprehend, makes you completely inept.
»
» And yes, please get on to more intelligent things…like finishing grade
» school.
done with you, you’re an idiot. bye imbecile. and 90 something percent of the population doesn’t know the difference between an excised and incised scar you jack@ss. Is 90 something percent of the population stupid while you are the ultimate global geniuse because you know one thing that 90 something percent of the rest of us don’t know. perhaps you have more reasons than we do to know the difference between an excised/incised scar. i’ve never had a surgery so i’ve never had to pay attention to that exact specific point. So f’n what you moron? I know how many Arizona pumping plants there are pumping water for the central arizona project because i worked at them, but i bet you don’t know so does that prove your dumber than me? of course not, because you have not had a reason to know that stuff whereas i have had a reason to. I don’t care about the difference between an excised or incised scar and the difference has never been an issue in my life so i don’t know it. Do you get it moron? Get lost you dumb punk.
That’s not the point imbecile. The point is that there are reasons why electrical stimulation could work in animals but not humans BUT those reasons have not been proven to be applicable in the case of ACELL treatment. You are comparing apples and oranges. But there is also the issue that Dr. Jones (who is privy to inside info that you and i are not privy to) has stated for a fact that ACELL does indeed grow hair in humans. He has probably seen insider company photos (such as photos of our soldiers who have used the product) and once again, Dr. Jones is stating that, in fact, ACELL does grow hair in humans. Now get lost you retard.
Yes, yes, yes, I know i posted to you again so don’t bother hamming that up, which of course you would have because that is the kind of thing you make an issue of, as opposed to making an issue of hard fact.
» treatment. You are comparing apples and oranges. But there is also the
» issue that Dr. Jones (who is privy to inside info that you and i are not
» privy to) has stated for a fact that ACELL does indeed grow hair in humans.
DR. JONES NEVER STATED ACELL GROWS HAIR IN HUMANS. He is only hoping it will. More proof of your stupidity and inability to comprehend.
» » More proof that you’re an idiot/imbecile. I’m bored of your stupidity
» so
» » it’s off to more intelligent things for me, and it’s off to continued
» » ignorance and imbecilic foolhardiness for you. Get a book, read a book,
» go
» » back to school, and grow a brain, imbecile. Bye bye, you are not worth
» my
» » time you dumb little boy.
»
» This idiot/imbecile I was able to teach you a couple things:
»
» 1. The difference between and excised scar and an incised scar.
» 2. An excised scar is a NEW WOUND.
»
» Since an idiot/imbecile FINALLY got this into your pea brain, but was so
» difficult for you to comprehend, makes you completely inept.
»
» And yes, please get on to more intelligent things…like finishing grade
» school.
and one last thing reject, i knew all along that the scar was cut beyond the border of the scar tissue. i sent dr. jones an email discussing this issue about 3 weeks ago and i told him that if he removed only scar tissue then the wound would not reach into the healthy skin so the ACELL wouldn’t be able to get instructions from the healthy area. He sent me back an email saying that the tissue that was removed reached into the healthy skin area so the borders of the removed tissue were were in healthy hair-bearing skin. He sent me this email weeks ago, maybe even as much as a month ago. So since i raised this issue to Dr. Jones that long ago this establishes that i understood the importance of this for months, you idiot. As i said before, i just pretended not to realize this so that i could bait your retarded @ss.
» issue about 3 weeks ago and i told him that if he removed only scar tissue
» then the wound would not reach into the healthy skin so the ACELL wouldn’t
» be able to get instructions from the healthy area.
If he only removed scar tissue what is left??? HEALTHY SKIN.
» » issue about 3 weeks ago and i told him that if he removed only scar
» tissue
» » then the wound would not reach into the healthy skin so the ACELL
» wouldn’t
» » be able to get instructions from the healthy area.
»
» If he only removed scar tissue what is left??? HEALTHY SKIN.
»
» You are dense man.
no, you’re wrong and you are an idiot. he could remove scar tissue and still have scar tissue left if he did not remove enough scar tissue to reach into the healthy skin tissue. so you are again proven wrong since you stated that if he removed scar tissue there HAS TO BE ONLY healthy skin left and that is not the case. it depends on how far out he goes when he removes tissue. now get lost i’m not responding anymore becasue you’re an idiot and a fool and you don’t take all the facts into consideration imbecile
» no, you’re wrong and you are an idiot. he could remove scar tissue and
» still have scar tissue left if he did not remove enough scar tissue to
» reach into the healthy skin tissue. so you are again proven wrong since
» you stated that if he removed scar tissue there HAS TO BE ONLY healthy skin
» left and that is not the case. it depends on how far out he goes when he
» removes tissue. now get lost i’m not responding anymore becasue you’re an
» idiot and a fool and you don’t take all the facts into consideration
» imbecile
He EXCISED the scar, meaning removed ALL the scar tissue, leaving only healthy skin. You still don’t get it…amazing.
I thought you were done posting back to me. You’ve stated that like 3 times now.
Maneless, I sincerely apologize for calling you an idiot, stupid, etc. You are obviously mentally challenged and it isn’t politically correct to call a mentally challenged person stupid.
» » treatment. You are comparing apples and oranges. But there is also the
» » issue that Dr. Jones (who is privy to inside info that you and i are
» not
» » privy to) has stated for a fact that ACELL does indeed grow hair in
» humans.
»
» DR. JONES NEVER STATED ACELL GROWS HAIR IN HUMANS. He is only hoping it
» will. More proof of your stupidity and inability to comprehend.
Check out the link below. It is from the doctor’s own site. Note the statements that ACELL has grown hair in humans which I will post seperately before the link itself. I will bold the relevant phrases since you obviously have trouble weeding them out on your own, retard. Here is one of the relevant quotes:
"Dr. Jones realized that he had the right patient for the trial of this procedure. He got a few samples of Acell and went to work on the scar repair. Dr. Jones said of the procedure “The question is whether or not the hair will regenerate as it does in animals or as it does in human wound care on other areas of the body… I immediately wondered what great things this would do to help repair patients old scars and I couldn’t help but imagine that using Acell in the hair transplant procedure would possibly produce an undetectable scar, and perhaps to even regenerate the donor area.”
And here is another:
This concept for healing the body naturally with new technology could extend to any patient looking for complete, no trace healing. Acell is a product that has been used in Veterinary medicine for years. It caught the interest of Dr Jones because it not only regenerates skin, but regenerates skin with normal hair follicles. Further, Acell has been approved for wound care in humans, and in patients where it has been used, the hair follicles regenerate as well as the skin.
For some reason I am able to read these paragraphs and conclude that ACELL has been proven to regrow hair in humans whereas you can not. Since this info was on the good doctor’s own site, the statement obvviously has his approval, so I reasonably conclude that Dr. Jones himself affirms that ACELL does indeed grows hair on humans. Do you know why you have thus far failed to determine that ACELL not only grows hair in humans, but that Dr. Jones himself is asserting this fact? I know why. It is because you are an imbecile.
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.
