If it works then I would say that absolute soonest you could see it being sold would be one and a half to 2 years. It’s very doubtful that it will be marketed that soon but it is possible. Most likely you’re looking at 3 years to 4 years.
There are doctors in other countries that would love to start selling this technology RIGHT NOW. The only reason they don’t is because they don’t know the Sanford-Burnham technique. Only the scientists involved with the project know the technique.
If the Sanford-Burnham scientists were to disclose their technique to even one foreign hair doctor I think you would start seeing the treatment surface rapidly - within one and a half to two years at most. Maybe even sooner than one and a half years. But again, it’s doubtful this will happen.
But there is a possibility of this because the lead researcher on the project is Russian and he is losing hair himself. I’m sure he wants to get this treatment idea to market asap and Russia would probably allow the treatment into the marketplace rapidly. China too.
Don’t you think that there’s a possibility that since the lead researcher is Russian that he is aware that it might be possible to release the treatment in Russia rapidly? Do you think there’s a chance that Russian hair doctors have perhaps already contacted him about the Sanford-Burnham technique?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Mr. Z[/postedby]
They’ll be lucky if they iron out the basic research (where they can grow thick terminal hairs that cycle like normal hair on an actual human head) in 3-4 years. No way in hell are they going from preclinical basic research phase to a commercially released product in 3-4 years. In fact, if they managed that in 10 years, it would be a miracle and without precedent,with or without asia release. It’s just not that close. I wish it was, but it’s not.
[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
This is something that might not require all that long a time to “iron out”. We’ve seen a long string of immature technologies and companies trying to rush them or force them through clinical trials no matter how badly they really work.
I think there is a good chance with this particular discovery, they really have discovered the “motherlode”, in other words a technology that’s not inherently immature – just something that needs to be formally tested and implemented.
Like I said, I’m not sure, but let’s ASSUME what I just said is true, that this really is the “holy grail”. Then, as soon as they start testing it, they’ll find it works, and the path from that point is pretty quick as long as you have a regulatory jurisdiction that’s friendly. The US is NOT a friendly regulatory jurisdiction, but thankfully such places do exist in the world.
Let’s not be blinded by what’s happened in the past. Just because we’ve seen Intercytex, Aderans, Gho, etc., etc. go down the drain, doesn’t mean this one will, because this discovery is INHERENTLY DIFFERENT from those. This is actually making working inductive dermal papilla cells directly from stem cells. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE >>>>>>>> KEEP AN OPEN MIND.[/quote]
First of all is the issue of whether it works or not.,
If it does work I think that this is the type of technology that some countries would allow into the marketplace after minimal experimentation. It just feels like that.
I thought of this too, the fact that most of the researchers on this project appear to be foreign-connected suggests that they might use their foreign contacts try to get it into the market somewhere outside the US -
Derivation of Hair-Inducing Cell from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Ksenia Gnedeva, Ekaterina Vorotelyak, Flavio Cimadamore, Giulio Cattarossi, Elena Giusto, Vasiliy V. Terskikh, Alexey V. Terskikh
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
I thought of this too, the fact that most of the researchers on this project appear to be foreign-connected suggests that they might use their foreign contacts try to get it into the market somewhere outside the US -
Derivation of Hair-Inducing Cell from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Ksenia Gnedeva, Ekaterina Vorotelyak, Flavio Cimadamore, Giulio Cattarossi, Elena Giusto, Vasiliy V. Terskikh, Alexey V. Terskikh[/quote]
I think all of these names sound foreign. I think they sound like European and Russian names. A couple of them look related.
I think that it’s a far-fetched idea that these scientists could make the technology available rapidly overseas someplace like Russia but it is possible. I think there’s about a one-percent chance.
I agree this stuff looks very promising. There may not be many years of steps to go before they can start trialing it.
But, 3-4 years? As if.
Past history says hair research always moves at a glacial pace no matter how many or few steps are needed.
They will find a way to spend a whole year just gearing up & enrolling for a trial. When it’s done they will take another half a year just to tally up the data. Etc.
Medical research in general. It never moves quickly. You could delete all the time for the actual trials/research to happen, and there would probably still be 3 years of just screwing around in between steps alone.
Adipose derived stem cells for the treatment of hair loss has not gone through much, if any, testing but it’s already being done in some countries, including at least one European country.
Also, AAPE has not undergone government sanctioned studies but it is being used in some countries to treat hair loss.
I think that shortly after the researchers at Sanford-Burnham make the treatment information known to doctors some of those doctors will market the technology quickly. Perhaps after one human experiment or maybe right away the same as ADSCs are already available for hair loss despite an absence of human testing first.
The 3 big questions are:
Does this technology even work?
Can the ressearchers release the information about their technique or does that information belong to the university/company they work for?
Will these reserearchers think outside the box and release that information to foreign doctors or are they going to do things by the American book and make commercialization of this technique drag on? For all we know they won’t even think of making this treatment available someplace where it’s legal sooner.
I think this is the technology we’ve been waiting for all this time. Actually, I knew that EVENTUALLY someone would convert stem cells into hair-generating cells, but I just thought it would take much longer than this… maybe 15-20 years of additional work and waiting.
The real reason I was so pessimistic is that the FDA is very cautious and very negative about this type of experimentation. First of all there’s a red flag because the stem cells they used for the experiment were embryonic, which is a huge political no-no in Washington. Anytime you say anything about using embryonic stem cells, even if it’s to save people from debilitating diseases, a huge number of conservative religious wackos come out of the wood work and start screaming that it amounts to an abortion, or that the fetus was probably aborted to get the stem cells (not necessarily true, they can be taken from the umbilical cord after a live birth). That leads to a lot of hyper-vigilant caution and finger-wagging by the FDA, which is beholden to their funders in Congress, who are in turn beholden, in many cases, to the fundamentalist Christian community.
Secondly, a new type of stem cell has been developed in the lab that can do everything an embryonic stem cell can do – it’s called an “induced pluripotent stem cell” (iPSC) and that was acknowledged in the Sanford-Burnham article. These iPSC’s are amazing and actually perfect for this procedure. In fact, researchers recently figured out a way of creating iPSCs without directly tampering with the genes/nucleus of the cells and going through the pluripotent stage – called “direct reprogramming” or “transdifferentiation”. Check out this Wikipedia article:
I thought it would be many years before US-based scientists would do this in the case of converting stem cells to inductive DP cells, because with the FDA being so negative about experimenting with any kind of human stem cells (putting a high burden on researchers to get approval), there would be very little incentive to drive the research unless it concerned some life-saving cure to a deadly disease or a “serious” disease like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s.
It just so happens that what Dr. Terskikh and his team were working on was Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, and they had approval to research different ways to convert stem cells (they were obviously allowed to work with embryonic stem cells) into other different types of cells, in their quest to develop new treatments for mainly brain and neurological diseases.
The neural crest in embryonic development, which develops into the brain and central nervous system, also surprisingly develops into the skin and skin appendages, like hair follicles. Most of the the hair on your scalp results from a fusion of what was once neural crest ectoderm in the embryo, with embryonic mesoderm, the precursor to “mesenchyme”.
So Dr. Terskikh and his team, fortunately and you could say “coincidentally”, had the ability and approval to do such experiments… and they took the additional initiative to change stem cells into neural crest cells and from there, into functional DP-like cells!
I believe that is how they got around the FDA’s strict prohibitions, oppressive requirements, and the fearful environment and hysteria imposed by religious anti-stem cell activists in the country.
Therefore what could easily have taken another 20 years to get approval to do, and actually get done, because of an FDA-imposed atmosphere of “over-caution” and what amounts to “self-restraint” within the research community, was done by this enterprising and resourceful scientist from Russia rather quickly… just a few short years after the discovery of how to generate iPSCs, in fact.
Bravo, Kudos, and Mad Props to the Sanford-Burnham team!
Addendum: One thing I would like to see the Sanford-Burnham team confirm is that this technique can be replicated using iPSCs. As I read their study, they used embryonic pluripotent stem cells in their experiments, and they acknowledged how iPSCs work in their article. But as I read it, they didn’t specifically say they also tried this technique using iPSCs. If this technology is to have some kind of hopeful potential to get FDA approval in the US anytime reasonably soon, I would think they should concentrate on iPSCs and/or transdifferentiation.
Roger, when scientists discover technology like this doesn’t it belong to the university or company that the scientists work for? If that is the case then doesn’t that mean that the scientists can’t release the information because the scientists don’t own the information.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Roger, when scientists discover technology like this doesn’t it belong to the university or company that the scientists work for? If that is the case then doesn’t that mean that the scientists can’t release the information because the scientists don’t own the information.[/quote]
It generally depends on what kind of deal is worked out between the scientists and the institution they work for. With an influential, established scientist like Dr. Cotsarelis, even though he’s working in the labs of a very formidable institution, the University of Pennsylvania, he seems to retain a lot of the rights to the discoveries he makes there. But, it’s probably a contract that distributes the rights between them in some way.
With less high-profile scientists like Dr. Terskikh and his team, and especially because many of them seem not to have been in this country for long (some of them appear to still live in their home countries), they may have a contract which apportions more of the rights to their institution, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute. Anyway, I think they probably have still negotiated some measure of rights for themselves, but it might not give them as much autonomy as a Dr. Cotsarelis who seems to make deals with anyone he wants to (Follica, Kythera, etc.) Some of Dr. Cotsarelis’ deals may have been jointly with UPenn and himself, reaching agreements with the outside biotech firms to develop his discoveries.
In short, these days, it’s a kind of “open market”, and you can have almost any kind of negotiated deal regarding IP between the researchers and the institution that employs them.
As far as releasing discoveries, as in disclosing the exact techniques and methods to the public, they sometimes do this in the form of a scientific journal paper – as the Terskikh team did – but still the SB paper didn’t reveal all the details of what they did, in a way that might allow outside scientists to reverse-engineer their technique. Anyway, once they put something out in the public domain like that, it becomes “prior art” (patent law term), and the publication of that, plus a provisional patent application, locks in their work so that another scientist – even if he/she read it and was somehow able to figure it out and copy it – could not lawfully sell it to anyone.
Is there any point to contacting these Sanford-Burnham scientists and talking to them about possibly allowing medical and scientific people outside the USA start working with their technique and bringing it to market VERY rapidly?
Keep in mind that like I said in a previous post ADSCs are already available for the treatment of hair loss in some countries, including some very developed European countries, such as Switzerland, even though ADSCs have not been through any government sanctioned human studies for the treatment of hair loss. My point is that if Sanford-Burnham scientists could be persuaded to give technical information to the Swiss team working ADSCs it might be possible to get the Sanford-Burnham technology into the marketplace rapidly.
Jarjar, here’s your answer with respect to technologies developed by Sanford-Burnham scientists -
“After securing available protection for the creation, Sanford-Burnham will permit the disclosure of intellectual property by development and commercialization and/or publication. The term “intellectual property” includes any invention, discovery, trade secret, technology, scientific or technological development, computer software or other form of expression that is in tangible form.”
So, basically, their first step is to secure patent protection for the technology. This process can really happen much sooner than you think because all they have to do is file a provisional patent application with the USPTO and have it accepted. A provisional patent application is quite easy, in that it places very low burdens on the applicant. This can take anywhere from a j8st few months to a year. I doubt very much that they’d let it take as long as a year.
Then, according to the rules, they have 12 months, known as the “pendency period”, to file the formal patent application. The idea is temporarily protected from the date of filing the provisional application, to “bridge” them over until the filing of the formal application and then the granting of the patent.
My reading of their statement, though, leads me to believe they wouldn’t actually put into place licensing agreements with partners until they actually receive the patent (which could take about 2 years or more from the filing of the formal patent application).
Sometimes, though, inventors do begin to license their inventions during the “patent pending” period. As long as a licensor and licensee agree on the terms, it is possible. But there is some risk in that. If the patent isn’t granted, and a completely different inventor is found to have a paramount claim, it’s possible that the other inventor can come in as a third party claimant, and sue both the licensor and licensee for any profits made based on the invention, and receive those lost profits.
However all of that doesn’t stop inventors like the Sanford-Burnham team from discussing with potential partners financial plans to leverage their technology and raise money right now, which is I believe what they’re now doing.
In my estimation however, the process of actually being granted the patent might not take very long, compared to many other biotech patents. Why? Because to my knowledge, it’s quite clear that NO ONE else in the world has succeeded in doing what they’ve done… No one has taken human stem cells and successfully converted them into a functional DP or DP-like cell. Therefore I don’t expect a long, dragged-out scenario of claims and counter-claims by various researchers. Sure, there are some other scientists that they’ll cite for various reasons in their application. But the discovery clearly belongs to them.
Since there aren’t any “competitors” around the world who could compellingly demonstrate that they’ve done the same thing, or used the same techniques to accomplish this outcome, it should be easy for the patent examiners at USPTO to declare Sanford-Burnham’s technique “unique” – that is, there’s nothing out there which could be confused with or which overlaps their claims. If there were other competitors out there who’ve achieved this outcome, we’d already know about it.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Is there any point to contacting these Sanford-Burnham scientists and talking to them about possibly allowing medical and scientific people outside the USA start working with their technique and bringing it to market VERY rapidly?
Keep in mind that like I said in a previous post ADSCs are already available for the treatment of hair loss in some countries, including some very developed European countries, such as Switzerland, even though ADSCs have not been through any government sanctioned human studies for the treatment of hair loss. My point is that if Sanford-Burnham scientists could be persuaded to give technical information to the Swiss team working ADSCs it might be possible to get the Sanford-Burnham technology into the marketplace rapidly.[/quote]
Hello, I am new to the forum, can someone tell me in plain simple English what is ADSC and the places where this is offered as a treatment for hair loss?
Adipose Derived Stem Cells (ADSC) are a certain kind of adult stem cell taken from adipose (fat) tissue in your body. They can be taken from any area of fat in your body, including your stomach area. They are then re-injected into the body, often in another area. They aren’t used just for hair, they are mainly used to inject into different parts of the body to revitalize and rejuvenate tissues and organs. They are used mainly by cosmetic surgery clinics, with uncertain or mixed results so far, because there isn’t a lot of reliable information about their effectiveness.
My understanding is that only a very few clinics in the world have started to use ADSCs to promote hair growth in the scalp. Because this use is so new, there is not a lot of reliable public data about it. I believe jarjarbinx is correct in saying just a small handful of clinics, including a couple of clinics in Switzerland, are injecting ADSCs into patients’ scalp to promote hair growth.
ADSCs are also believed by some to secrete certain growth factors which may revitalize different parts of the body and possibly promote hair regrowth if injected into the scalp. In that case, just injecting the liquid secretions of these cells might have some positive effect. All of that is really uncertain, though – because as I said, there isn’t much hard data about the results of this work. Because ADSCs are in kind of a “gray area” around the world, not requiring clinical trials because it’s just taking cells from your own body and injecting them back into your own body, there isn’t really much official clinical data that we can review to independently assess their effectiveness. We have to rely on the claims of private medical clinics.
In the USA, however, under current law, re-injecting ADSCs into any area of your body apart from the exact same area they were taken from, might require some kind of clinical trials or at least proof of safety. There are a number of clinics right now in the USA which use ADSCs for various purposes, but none for hair.
The Sanford-Burnham study was something different – not about Adipose Derived Stem Cells. It was about taking embryonic and other kinds of stem cells from the human body and changing them into the hair generative cells that exist in your hair follicles, called Dermal Papilla (DP) cells.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Adipose Derived Stem Cells (ADSC) are a certain kind of adult stem cell taken from adipose (fat) tissue in your body. They can be taken from any area of fat in your body, including your stomach area. They are then re-injected into the body, often in another area. They aren’t used just for hair, they are mainly used to inject into different parts of the body to revitalize and rejuvenate tissues and organs. They are used mainly by cosmetic surgery clinics, with uncertain or mixed results so far, because there isn’t a lot of reliable information about their effectiveness.
My understanding is that only a very few clinics in the world have started to use ADSCs to promote hair growth in the scalp. Because this use is so new, there is not a lot of reliable public data about it. I believe jarjarbinx is correct in saying just a small handful of clinics, including a couple of clinics in Switzerland, are injecting ADSCs into patients’ scalp to promote hair growth.
ADSCs are also believed by some to secrete certain growth factors which may revitalize different parts of the body and possibly promote hair regrowth if injected into the scalp. In that case, just injecting the liquid secretions of these cells might have some positive effect. All of that is really uncertain, though – because as I said, there isn’t much hard data about the results of this work. Because ADSCs are in kind of a “gray area” around the world, not requiring clinical trials because it’s just taking cells from your own body and injecting them back into your own body, there isn’t really much official clinical data that we can review to independently assess their effectiveness. We have to rely on the claims of private medical clinics.
In the USA, however, under current law, re-injecting ADSCs into any area of your body apart from the exact same area they were taken from, might require some kind of clinical trials or at least proof of safety. There are a number of clinics right now in the USA which use ADSCs for various purposes, but none for hair.
The Sanford-Burnham study was something different – not about Adipose Derived Stem Cells. It was about taking embryonic and other kinds of stem cells from the human body and changing them into the hair generative cells that exist in your hair follicles, called Dermal Papilla (DP) cells.[/quote]
sounds like another “Platelet Rich Plasma” type of treatment to me but instead of using the patient’s blood, they use the patient’s fat tissue. I no longer believe in platelet rich plasma and now i am super skpetical of ADSC.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Adipose Derived Stem Cells (ADSC) are a certain kind of adult stem cell taken from adipose (fat) tissue in your body. They can be taken from any area of fat in your body, including your stomach area. They are then re-injected into the body, often in another area. They aren’t used just for hair, they are mainly used to inject into different parts of the body to revitalize and rejuvenate tissues and organs. They are used mainly by cosmetic surgery clinics, with uncertain or mixed results so far, because there isn’t a lot of reliable information about their effectiveness.
My understanding is that only a very few clinics in the world have started to use ADSCs to promote hair growth in the scalp. Because this use is so new, there is not a lot of reliable public data about it. I believe jarjarbinx is correct in saying just a small handful of clinics, including a couple of clinics in Switzerland, are injecting ADSCs into patients’ scalp to promote hair growth.
ADSCs are also believed by some to secrete certain growth factors which may revitalize different parts of the body and possibly promote hair regrowth if injected into the scalp. In that case, just injecting the liquid secretions of these cells might have some positive effect. All of that is really uncertain, though – because as I said, there isn’t much hard data about the results of this work. Because ADSCs are in kind of a “gray area” around the world, not requiring clinical trials because it’s just taking cells from your own body and injecting them back into your own body, there isn’t really much official clinical data that we can review to independently assess their effectiveness. We have to rely on the claims of private medical clinics.
In the USA, however, under current law, re-injecting ADSCs into any area of your body apart from the exact same area they were taken from, might require some kind of clinical trials or at least proof of safety. There are a number of clinics right now in the USA which use ADSCs for various purposes, but none for hair.
The Sanford-Burnham study was something different – not about Adipose Derived Stem Cells. It was about taking embryonic and other kinds of stem cells from the human body and changing them into the hair generative cells that exist in your hair follicles, called Dermal Papilla (DP) cells.
[postedby]Originally Posted by hair101[/postedby]
sounds like another “Platelet Rich Plasma” type of treatment to me but instead of using the patient’s blood, they use the patient’s fat tissue. I no longer believe in platelet rich plasma and now i am super skpetical of ADSC.[/quote]
Ludicrous!
You’re saying that the contents of blood and fat are the exact same substances structured the exact same. But if that were the case then fat WOULD BE blood and blood would be fat. LOL!
The substances inside fat are DIFFERENT from the substances inside blood and of course this is one of the reasons why there is a difference between fat and blood.
Imagine, if you will, a bucket full of fat next to a bucket full of blood. Do you think that the two substances would like the same or different? If you think they will look different, do you understand why they look different?
sounds like another “Platelet Rich Plasma” type of treatment to me but instead of using the patient’s blood, they use the patient’s fat tissue. I no longer believe in platelet rich plasma and now i am super skpetical of ADSC.
[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Ludicrous!
You’re saying that the contents of blood and fat are the exact same substances structured the exact same. But if that were the case then fat WOULD BE blood and blood would be fat. LOL!
The substances inside fat are DIFFERENT from the substances inside blood and of course this is one of the reasons why there is a difference between fat and blood.
Imagine, if you will, a bucket full of fat next to a bucket full of blood. Do you think that the two substances would like the same or different? If you think they will look different, do you understand why they look different?[/quote]
you are an idiot for even asking me that, of course blood is not the same as fat, what i am getting at is that doctors are using the same logic in their sales pitch, they associate things such as blood and fat tissues with stem cells in order to make people think that they are getting some cutting edge treatment.
The other thing to know is that the vast majority of adipose tissue consists of adipocytes, fat cells which are NOT stem cells – they’re just basic cells engorged with yellow fat, which is really just lipid molecules. Lipids are long-chain carbohydrates containing fatty acids.
That yellow greasy stuff that you may have seen come out of a person in videos of liposuction? That’s adipose tissue, just cells engorged with fat.
In fact the adipose-derived stem cells are few and far between in the adipose tissue… they represent only a tiny fraction of the bulk of your fat.
So the stuff that’s having the positive effects is NOT the plain old yellow fat cells, but the ADSCs and their proteins and growth factors.
sounds like another “Platelet Rich Plasma” type of treatment to me but instead of using the patient’s blood, they use the patient’s fat tissue. I no longer believe in platelet rich plasma and now i am super skpetical of ADSC.
[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
Ludicrous!
You’re saying that the contents of blood and fat are the exact same substances structured the exact same. But if that were the case then fat WOULD BE blood and blood would be fat. LOL!
The substances inside fat are DIFFERENT from the substances inside blood and of course this is one of the reasons why there is a difference between fat and blood.
Imagine, if you will, a bucket full of fat next to a bucket full of blood. Do you think that the two substances would like the same or different? If you think they will look different, do you understand why they look different?
[postedby]Originally Posted by hair101[/postedby]
you are an idiot for even asking me that, of course blood is not the same as fat, what i am getting at is that doctors are using the same logic in their sales pitch, they associate things such as blood and fat tissues with stem cells in order to make people think that they are getting some cutting edge treatment.[/quote]
Here is EXACTLY what you said:
“sounds like another “Platelet Rich Plasma” type of treatment to me but instead of using the patient’s blood, they use the patient’s fat tissue. I no longer believe in platelet rich plasma and now i am super skpetical of ADSC”
You were commenting on the “treatment” not the sales pitch. But even if you were initially talking about the sales pitch your statement would still be ludicrous because every merchant selling any product has the same basic sales pitch - “OUR PRODUCT WORKS”. Some merchants are telling the truth and some merchants are not telling the truth. The sales pitch surrounding ADSCs may seem similar to the PRP sales pitch but they’re still 2 different products, they work entirely different, and it is possible that one product could work while the other product does not work.
For example, imagine if you will, a Mitsubishi Spyder and a Chevrolet Corvette side-by-side at an auto-show. Now imagine that the Mitsubishi representative tells you that the Spyder can outrun the Corvette but the Chevrolet dealer tells you that the Corvette can outrun the Spyder. They are both using the excitement of speed to get you interested in their car so that means they are both using the SAME SALES PITCH but one of them is actually right while the other is wrong. Do you understand why one of them is actually right? If you do understand that one of them is actually right does that explain to you why it’s irrelevant that they are both using the same sales pitch?
Let me put it to you like this: If Albert Einstein was here he would tell us that the sales pitch, like TIME, is IRRELEVANT.
BTW in case you don’t know, the Corvette IS faster.
Not really. They aren’t using the same sales pitch, because (1) no doctors in the US are using ADSCs for hair loss; (2) ADSCs are completely different from platelets. Platelets are in no way, shape or form a stem cell; and (3) with ADSCs it’s not the “fat” tissue itself that is active; it’s stem cells that just happen to be located within the fat tissue. The fat is discarded; it’s not used. With PRP treatment, they keep the blood plasma and inject it into you.
Truth is, PRP has some potential to help in wound healing, but that is ALL. It will not give you more hair, whether applied in conjunction with a hair transplant, or as a separate therapy. Any statements to the contrary are inaccurate and misleading.
When you say, in your previous post, “I no longer believe in Platelet Rich Plasma”, I have to wonder why you believed in PRP in the first place. I think a number of American doctors are using unethical and deceptive sales tactics to promote PRP. They appear to be misleadingly implying that it can do things that it really can’t do.
Have you had PRP therapy, hair1010? Was it in conjunction wtih an HT, or as a stand-alone therapy? If so, what was the doctor’s sales pitch?
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.