» I left the board because of the racism/jews/honocaust/death threats stuff.
» I came back when it ended.
Oh, sorry cal. I didn’t know that you have been away from this board for the past 10 years. So there is no wonder that you sound like an irritated newbie who has absolutely no clue about what’s going on.
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, WHY quoted Dr. Cooley in his ISHRS presentation Dr. Gho’s hair-stem-cell-study?
-
Because actually it has been Dr. Gho (et al) who confirmed with the by Dr. Cooley quoted study other researchers prior vague HYPOTHESIS, that there are INDEED different stem cell pools located in the (whole) hair follicle.
-
For instance, for lots of other reputable researchers AFTER Dr. Gho’s “hair-stem-cells-by-plucking-hairs-study” …
Source: Plucked human hair as a tissue in which to assess pharmacodynamic end points during drug development studies | British Journal of Cancer
… there has been NO NEED anymore to review Dr. Gho’s findings, that there are INDEED different (as well as proliferating) stem cell pools located in the hair follicle. Because Dr. Gho, as well as other research-institutions who teamed up with Dr. Gho for this very important study, has once and for all been able to CONFIRM a) previous researchers findings (e.g. Moll et al) as well as b) previous researchers hypothesis.
- Finally, Dr. Jerry Cooley tried (surely desperate) to find THE scientific explanation, why “Autocloning” with ACell (could/should) may work - resp. “occurs”. Because a (critically) researcher community always wants to know WHY something is working (or not). Cooley has finally chosen Dr. Gho’s study for that, because Gho’s study is -more or less- THE only study out there, which IS
a) specific to plucked hairs;
b) reviewed & confirmed by lots of other reputable researchers in the field;
c) well demonstrated and illustrated for the understanding - even for layman’s:
(2003) http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/hair-multiplication-278.htm
And here is the final study (quoted and discussed by Dr. J. Cooley):
(2004) Human follicular stem cells: their presence in plucked hair and follicular cell culture - PubMed
Full text: http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf
In simple words: Currently, there is no other research paper out there (are there any? Sorry, can’t find any…), which fulfils all the criteria above. Or in even more simple words: Dr. Cooley has been –more or less- practically forced to quote (for reference) Dr. Gho’s research paper.
Oh, by the way – a little bit HISTORY:
(2003) http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss-articles/hair-multiplication-278.htm
As you can see, in 2003, Dr. Gho shared his findings with the ISHRS community in New York – right? Right.
I’m pretty sure, that about 90% of the attendees didn’t even understand what Dr. Gho is talking about (and why). Because during this time (actually until today), the focus of the majority has been “How can I close best possibly the f…. strip wound of my HT patients?” or “Could ‘FUE’ be considered as an improvement in the HT field?” - and stuff like that.
The other ~10% kept a closer look at Dr. Gho’s presentation. And finally, e.g. one of them has been “Mr. K.W. (et al)”. I’m pretty sure that Mr. K.W. thought “Oh, it seems that this strange guy from the Netherlands IS on to something (while he is -as stated by himself at the meeting- struggling with the so called ‘HM-cell-based-therapy-approach’) … and this ‘hair-plucking-thingy’, sounds pretty ‘logical’. And above all, it seems more realistic to achieve than a in vitro cell-therapy approach …”.
In a strenuous effort, Mr. K.W. immediately tried (in a very ‘broadbanded’ manner) to ‘replicate’ the usage of Dr. Gho’s “TO MULTIPLY OR NOT TO MULTIPLY, THAT IS THE QUESTION …”-findings, and finally, tried immediately to patent it. But unfortunately, the outcome of this ‘great’ effort has been this:
Source:
WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections
That means, thanks to patent authorities, because they are always in advance pretty good in “WHO-did-WHEN-what” affairs – especially in a billion-dollar industry. But on the other hand, it seems that in some countries patent authorities sometimes lose control over the door-keys of their buildings; because this enables sometimes completely the same patent filing date for completely the same subject (‘bioengineering hair follicles’ - derived form plucked hairs). It happened by accident, as claimed by Mr. K.W.? As far as I know, e.g. lottery winnings happen by such very rare ‘accidents”, but that happened SURELY NOT in this affair (absolutely impossible!).
Anyway, did all this made Dr. Gho to “a very shy researcher”? Not at all! Dr. Gho presented almost every year his research progress at the ISHRS meetings – that’s simply fact. Because, WHERE is the difference between e.g. THIS presentation (2007) …
http://ushairrestoration.com/follicular-stemcell-transplantation.php
… and finally THE following ‘presentation’ (study)?
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf
Basically, there is NONE (besides the more detailed aspect)!
And now the super-duper question:
WHY has been Dr. Gho’s previous study (the one from 2004) so important for Dr. Gho HIMSELF?
-
To ‘back up’ with hardcore-science his “hair stem-cell transplantation” (HST) approach;
-
To know, WHERE exactly the hair stem cells are located in the (whole) hair follicle;
-
Finally, to be able to find the ideal way HOW TO divide all those necessary hair follicle stem cells, so that on BOTH sides (recipient as well as donor side) these stem cells are still present in the tissue (after dividing them). That’s all. But to find out, whether or not this prior theory is indeed working in a clinical practise, a follow-up study (‘Proof of Concept Study’) of the 2004-study has been necessary. And here she is:
http://www.hasci.com/uploads/downloads/dad01225-0ceb-4a30-90c4-771ed900f25aHSI%20-%20Artikel_Gho%20Neumann.pdf
And finally, this is the PLAIN MESSAGE/OUTCOME:
“This technique enables us to generate two hair follicles from one follicle with consistent results and preserve the donor area.” END.
But does this thingy called “Hair Stemcell Transplantation” (HST) really working?
Currently, at least more than 1500 satisfied HST-patients confirm this. And just for instance, he is one of them:
Today (December 23), he got his 4th HST procedure (he did it step-by-step). And without ANY doubts, this patients HST grafts will “Grew and Grew since day one” again in his recipient side (as several times mentioned by himself), as well as in his donor area, where Dr. Gho harvested the hair stem cells.
Lots of independent VIDEOS:
http://www.hasci.com/default2.aspx?id_menu_item=74fd381a-77af-4af4-aa95-c9aa299fc84e&special_type=0
Before/After PHOTOS:
http://www.hasci.com/default2.aspx?id_menu_item=e6aabe5b-3d1f-421f-97ff-59cc249ef737&special_type=0
Do you want more?
Anyway, it was a pleasure to enlighten you a little, Mr. long-away-cal! 
