» acording to the link below by Ray woods, he tried this in 2003. I am
» sceptical about his comments though!
»
» http://www.hairsite2.com/library2/article281.htm
Let me look …
“On another note, there is much controversy about hair multiplication and cloning.
Despite breakthroughs with cloning mammals, reptiles, and talk of cloning humans, has anyone yet cloned or multiplied a follicle ?
With this in mind, we do not pretend for one second to have a better chance than anyone else, but we do intend to see what happens when follicles are longitudinally split.”
Dr Woods and Dr Campbell - Date 10/17/2003
And it happened – WHAT ?
Interesting. In 2003, it has been almost IMPOSSIBLE to get the needed chirurgical instruments, for such a IN VIVO “splitting longitudinally hair follicles” procedures. And as far as I know, NOT EVEN TODAY you can get such tiny (hollow triple-waved-tipped) needles (0.3 – 0.6 inner diameter) straight from the medical shelves:
http://www.mediquipsurgical.com/trtitippu.html
Dr. Gho, as mentioned in his new study (published online April 2010), they are using their own developed needles:
(microscopically close-up)
But to get such tiny hollow needles, I think it isn’t such a big deal, if you really need/want them. The REAL “big deal” is HOW TO carefully extract hair follicles (units) PARTS (tissue with “hair-stem-cells”) with such tiny hollow needles in such a way (and here comes the “trick” along), so that the tiny “needle containing follicle part” (IN VIVO vertically “splitted” unit-grafts) as well as the partially left behind follicular unit tissue PARTS in your donor area, is leaving sufficient follicle unit tissue behind (including sufficient of ALL necessary “hair-stem-cells” too) to let regenerate the hair follicle (units) again in your donor area – even it is, of course, actually “damaged” (traumatized)!
REASON #1:
“The hair follicle demonstrates the unusual ability to completely REGENERATE itself.” (Stenn and Paus. Phys. Rev., 81(1), 449 - 2001)
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/449
REASON #2 – The real reason WHY they have such an unusual ability to REGENERATE:
“There are different stem cell pools [longitudinally] located in the [whole] hair follicle.”
(Gho, Braun, Tilli, Neumann, Ramaekers, Br J Dermatol.; 150:860–868. – 2004)
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf
“Mother nature’s RESULT”
Donor area ~1 week later after such a tiny “HairStemCell Extraction” procedure:
“Longer hair shafts and shorter hair shafts after ~1 week …”
The longer hairs are the re-grown SHAVED hair shafts (short before the extraction procedure) and the shorter hair shafts (blue circles) are just the partial extracted, but already REGENERATED follicular units including the already REGENERATED hair shafts – hair shafts with the same diameter as before the extraction procedure!
All in all, this is just a completely normal result of “mother nature’s biology”.
In short, it is the REAL natural “donor preservation” as a result of “its unusual ability to completely REGENERATE itself.” Regenerated hair follicles AS WELL AS regenerated skin tissue! That’s all.
Actually, this biologically behaviour is just as natural as having sex or being stupid like Spanish Dude (…forget the SD part, because in this case it is NOT normal and not the mother nature’s rule). And finally besides this fact, you can harvest those regenerated hair follicle units over and over again (NOT just “in theory” only!), so that you are finally be able to get as much hair as you want or need them, to fully cover up your bald scalp - at least the possibility is there. And in fact, has always been there.
But it seems WITHOUT such studies as mentioned them above, NOBODY has been aware of “mother nature’s unusual abilities”.
Back to the Woods/Campbell article (2003):
They knew about “mother nature’s dirty secrets” in 2003? Yes/No - it seems not really:
Most physicians out there, even worse most HT doctors until TODAY, they always believe that “this complex mini ORGAN ‘hair follicle’ is an ORGAN like the heart, liver or kidney, and therefore you can only successfully TRANSPLANT such organs if they are entirely “intact”.
Right or wrong?
Basically – RIGHT. But regarding “hair follicles”, actually it is scientifically WRONG:
REASON #1:
“The hair follicle demonstrates the unusual ability to completely REGENERATE itself.” (Stenn and Paus. Phys. Rev., 81(1), 449 - 2001)
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/449
REASON #2 – The real reason WHY they have such a unusual ability to REGENERATE:
“There are different stem cell pools located [with-]in the [whole] hair follicle.”
(Gho, Braun, Tilli, Neumann, Ramaekers, Br J Dermatol.; 150:860–868. – 2004)
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf
Moreover, hair follicles aren’t that BIG as organs like kidneys or livers. That means, the more little/tiny something is (organs, injuries etc), the more there is the ability present for REGENERATION. Even the biggest douche bag knows that, if you push very deeply a tiny needle into your skin, will you see a scar tissue there after ~1 – 2 weeks? Normally, not even with help of a loupe!!
But if you push very deeply a big knife into your skin, oh well …
That means, humans have just a tiny degree of the ability of FULL REGENERATION like salamanders – sure, not that much, but we have some. And if there’re very tiny injuries, you will not even see any scar tissue under a microscope.
Back again to the Woods/Campbell article (2003):
So in which way they tried to “longitudinally splitting follicles” ?
Let me guess: They simply tried to cut the previously FUE-extracted and “intact” hair follicles IN VITRO (outside the body) into 2 pieces (horizontally like an apple). NO WAY!!
Actually, I’m not aware of such an attempt/study (“longitudinally/horizontally splitting follicles outside the body”), BUT whatever they tried, I’m ABSOLUTELY SURE that they used a normal SALINE solution for the storage of the transacted grafts, which just leads to apoptosis (programmed cell dead) of the transacted and traumatized hair follicles, which mostly results IN THIS CASE into DEATH of the (dissected) hair follicles. Even they would survive such a massacre, the result could be a thinner hair shaft diameter (thinner hairs).
To overcome these problems AND to reconstruct (“mimicking”) any lost tissue of something, YOU NEED 3 essential things, which leads in the very first step to the contrary of “apoptosis”:
- specific cells, keratinocytes, growth factors etc,
- a kind of artificial “mother nature’s tissue scaffolds” and
- bioactive molecules for an interaction between all these things;
… and every tissue engineer & “organ constructor“ (e.g. Dr. A. Atala) is aware of this.
So what?
Did the IN VIVO (inside the body) “splitted” HST hair follicles of Dr. Gho’s patient Bridget Maasland, just for instance, immediately die thereafter, resp. weeks, month, year thereafter? No? How about the diameter of her eyebrow hairs?
By the way:
Dr. Gho’s HST grafts EXTRACTION PART is based on – (modified) DENTAL MEDICINE TECHNIQUES & TOOLS. Guess WHY for yourself:
http://jlmeniusdds.com/services/root-canal-treatment.html
Currently, with such tools there’re up to 2000 HST grafts possible per day. And within 2 days, you can get up to 4000 HST grafts if you need them and so on.
And finally, let me quickly highlight Dr. Woods pt. 8. of his “Declaration of Patient Rights”:
- Donor Site Conservation and Protection
Avoidance of follicular damage due to incorrect technique, inexperience and production line mentality
So WHICH technique fits far more in this “Patient Rights” picture?
Dr. Woods’ or Dr. Gho’s ?
“Donor hair follicle preservation by partial follicular unit extraction. A method to optimize hair transplantation.”
So because of that, I have just redefined and declared NEW patient rights:
-
No STRIP !
-
No traditional FUE !
-
No WOODS !
-
Dr. Gho’s HST only! 
