Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Hasson & Wong is the cure


#21

Bald Knight…trust me, more than Dr. Jones is trying Acell. I’ve personally spoken with this company and e-mailed 50-60 doctors about it. I know for a fact that several doctors are trying it or at least “looking into it”. If you want to contact me at Billy550C@Yahoodotcom(Take out the dot and replace with .) I will give you more details about other doctors I know of.

I’m not making any promises but I’m pretty confident that it will at least help with scar revision. My personal hope would be that it will regenerate removed donor tissue and donor hair…but I’m not sure about the hair.

Give it some time. See what happens with Acell and don’t forget that other things are in the works. Remember, this is a place where people can relate.

-Bill


#22

He also said over a year ago in Scientific American that if everything went well it could be available in 3 years. That would be less than 2 years now, and they haven’t even started human trials. You can’t take anything Cotsarelis says seriously with regards to timelines.


#23

» He also said over a year ago in Scientific American that if everything went
» well it could be available in 3 years. That would be less than 2 years
» now, and they haven’t even started human trials. You can’t take anything
» Cotsarelis says seriously with regards to timelines.

What evidence is there that it will take longer than he’s said, All i keep hearing from people is about the time it will take to complete the trials. As far as i’m aware the drugs they will be using in the compound are all already FDA approved, And the wounding they want to achieve is reached by methods dermatologists already use.

Follica said earlier this year that they would be holding trials this summer and that is what they are doing at harvard, I’m not saying it will or won’t be ready for the public in 2-3 years, But there is absolutely no evidence yet to suggest it won’t be.


#24

» » He also said over a year ago in Scientific American that if everything
» went
» » well it could be available in 3 years. That would be less than 2 years
» » now, and they haven’t even started human trials. You can’t take
» anything
» » Cotsarelis says seriously with regards to timelines.
»
» What evidence is there that it will take longer than he’s said, All i keep
» hearing from people is about the time it will take to complete the trials.
» As far as i’m aware the drugs they will be using in the compound are all
» already FDA approved, And the wounding they want to achieve is reached by
» methods dermatologists already use.
»
» Follica said earlier this year that they would be holding trials this
» summer and that is what they are doing at harvard, I’m not saying it will
» or won’t be ready for the public in 2-3 years, But there is absolutely no
» evidence yet to suggest it won’t be.

Zohar mentioned several phases of trial being completed in one year.


#25

So you really think it’s possible it will be available in less than 21 months? And they haven’t even started human trials yet? I don’t know what other evidence you need.


#26

» So you really think it’s possible it will be available in less than 21
» months? And they haven’t even started human trials yet? I don’t know what
» other evidence you need.

Did you completely ignore my other post, They said they would be doing trials this summer which they are in the process of doing at harvard. I don’t claim to know when it will be ready but i do know that there is absolutely no evidence so far to suggest they aren’t following up with the things they have said.


#27

Folica this, Zohar that.

Guys on the MPB message boards will probably have the basics of their deal figured out way before they announce anything.

The drugs are cheaply available to anyone.
Dermabrasion is cheaply available to anyone.

Do you want your hair back or not?


#28

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/funding-biotech-start/2008-03-17

I am new to all this, I dont know if this article with Daphne Zohar has been discussed on this board, but this article makes me think that it may be closer then she lets on. Some optimistic lines

Technology is the foundation of it all. Investors are looking for a unique product–not a “me-too” drug. When asked whether investors prefer funding technology platforms or drug candidates more, all three said they prefer to finance technology platforms that have produced drug candidates. Early-stage investors also look for investments that have the ability to hit a key milestone in one to three years.

Another area Zohar, Weissman and Schilberg stressed was strong IP (intellectual property) protection. It’s a bad move to publish findings before locking down commercially-driven IP. Also, IP not covering key areas (such as the international market) isn’t attractive to investors, and will only create problems in the long run.

Then new investors are expecting something big in the near future. You don’t invest in a company that is 7 to 10 years away. There is enough information out there about this process that they need to be close to a marketable product when they go to a proof of concept trail. If not they will have competition from a competitor doing a similar process. I think that is why they are doing small studies first, so they can perfect their process before proof of concept. That is also why I don’t think you will hear much from them until they have a product that is ready.


#29

No. I didn’t ignore your other post. All I said was that anything Cotsaralis says about timelines doesn’t mean anything. That was my point. Nobody should believe anything that he says regarding timelines. It is meaningless. He can keep changing the timelines over and over again, and eventually he may be right. Much like somebody is going to eventually be right when they say “within 5 years”. If you keep saying it over and over again, changing your prediction every year, you will eventually be right. But to me, it is obvious they will not be releasing anything by May of 2010, which is 3 years from when Cotsaralis made his statement.


#30

» It looks great, no doubt, Hasson & Wong is one of the best in the
» business, BUT consider a few things:
»
» 01) I’m not trying to take away from the clinic’s reputation (I already
» said I think they’re one of the best), BUT you’re judging results from a
» youtube quality video. Maybe the guy had really thick hair.
»
» 02) Hasson & Wong only does strip, so the poor sap was left with a scar
» and all the fun stuff that comes with scars.
»
» 03) The guy had more than 5000 grafts. The video says 2600fue, and
» 5200strip with Hasson & Wong (7800 grafts total)
»
» 04) Oh yeah, cost. If you look at average HT costs, this is what that
» guy’s hair cost him.
» 2600fue @ ~$8/graft = ~$20,800
» 5200strip @ ~$4/graft =~ $20,800
» Grand total = $41,600+ traveling expenses, and downtime (caused by that
» lovely strip scar)

Having received 3 treatments from H&W (1000 per for a total of 3000), I can say firsthand that it radically changed my appearance for the better. I could stand to use another 2000 (and would unquestionably reach that video guy’s level of coverage), but am very, very satisfied with the work Dr. Hasson did. His staff were great too, adored them all. Cost 10K at the time.

The ONLY drawback in my opinion is the pain - for about two months afterwards, while the back of your scalp fuses together again, it hurts like a muthefcke*.

But these guys are indeed the bomb. And Dr. Hasson is also a very cool, likeable, down-to-earth guy in general.