Oviously, I can’t see any new, “cloned” hair in these photos.
But whats worse, I can’t even see the scar repair that it is supposed to show.
The BEFORE photo shows 4 scars in the back of the head, but the AFTER photo shows a view of the side of the head, and you can’t see the area of the scars (perhaps only marginally).
» These are provided by Dr. Hitzig www.nyhairloss.com. The BEFORE pic shows a
» patient with recurrent donor keloid scarring, despite multiple revisions
» and cortisone injections.
»
» The AFTER picture is from a 4 month follow up.
»
Dear Dr.Hitzig
Please don’t let us assume that which you should be able to easily prove.
» Oviously, I can’t see any new, “cloned” hair in these photos.
» But whats worse, I can’t even see the scar repair that it is supposed to
» show.
» The BEFORE photo shows 4 scars in the back of the head, but the AFTER
» photo shows a view of the side of the head, and you can’t see the area of
» the scars (perhaps only marginally).
»
»
Wow! Good catch! The first photo shows a scar on the back of the head, and the second photo is a shot of the side of the head, right about the ear!
Here’s what I think. The after picture only shows the first of the scars, just below the thumb’s nail. From what I can see, there is considerable improvement. It’s possible to see the outline of the first scar both in the before and after pictures, and they are of the same shape. The after picture shows very good healing progress after 4 months, with the scar nearly gone, even though that period of time is probably not the end of the healing process.
Here’s the scar in the before picture, marked with a red outline:
And the same scar in the after picture:
And here’s the original unmarked after photo, in which once you know where to look for the scar mark, it’s easier to see I didn’t just mark off an arbitrary outline:
» » These are provided by Dr. Hitzig www.nyhairloss.com. The BEFORE pic shows
» a
» » patient with recurrent donor keloid scarring, despite multiple
» revisions
» » and cortisone injections.
» »
» » The AFTER picture is from a 4 month follow up.
» »
» Dear Dr.Hitzig
»
» Please don’t let us assume that which you should be able to easily prove.
i just hope they find something that works soon. we know its possible thats not even a question its just a matter of when. i would really just allow everyone on here and myself to live again… guess i can pray for it. serouisly i hope its at least within 10 years or so but it just doesnt look good. it seems like with all the money and energy thats being put into this someone would nail it yet maybe humans just arent capable of implementing this kind of technology at our present state. its okay some how im just going to have to keep on fighting.
Seems that ACell need some money for an expansion.
Anyway, I think that’s a good sign in general. And if they would develop something special for hair re-growth too (because nobody has come closer to that during the last decade, I think), they maybe could easier get the needed money …
The company wants big money fast + they’re not taking the initiative to prove Acell can regrow hair = Acell probably can’t regrow hair.
Yes, FF, I also think that the after photo shows the first of the scars, at the far right end.
And yes, the scar looks better after the repair, but maybe any other doctor could have obtained the same result. Its a matter of cutting off the scar tissue and close again. I am not expert, but I think Dr. Arvind and others do these kind of things regularly and post results in the HT forum.
Now the important question is WHY Dr. Hitzig posted such an absurd “after photo”, where the result of the scar repair job can barely be seen? Oviously, Dr. Hitzig wants to manipulate us, so the we think that the 4 scars in the center of the before photo have been replaced by hairy healthy tissue in the center of the after photo. So that we think “oh, Acell is wonderful, it grows hair in the scar!!”. This is plain and simple a manipulation. And the other photo posted by Dr. Hitzig in the other thread is also a manipulation (the one with the scar combed over).
It is pityful!! Do Dr. Hitzig and Dr. Jerry Cooley intend to be pioneers with these kind of trickeries?
Is this how they intend to prove the world that they are the first ones to clone hair using Acell!!!
Jerry Cooley was the principal investigator in ICX-TRC phase II trial. That long trial with lots of promises and not a single photo. Now Jerry Cooley comes with new promises and with pityful photographic manipulation from Dr. Hitzig.
Last, but not least, Acell now is blaming Dr. Jones for his failure, supposedly because he “deviated from the Acell instructions”. Acell is lying. Hitzig is manipulating, and Jerry Cooley is also manipulating, because he is teaming with Hitzig. Cooley is making new promises with no proof, and in the meantime, he is advertising his clinic for scar repair, in radio interviews.
Incredible, just incredible what things we can see in this industry.
» Here’s what I think. The after picture only shows the first of the scars,
» just below the thumb’s nail. From what I can see, there is considerable
» improvement. It’s possible to see the outline of the first scar both in
» the before and after pictures, and they are of the same shape. The after
» picture shows very good healing progress after 4 months, with the scar
» nearly gone, even though that period of time is probably not the end of the
» healing process.
»
» Here’s the scar in the before picture, marked with a red outline:
»
»
»
» And the same scar in the after picture:
»
»
»
» And here’s the original unmarked after photo, in which once you know where
» to look for the scar mark, it’s easier to see I didn’t just mark off an
» arbitrary outline:
»
»
» The company wants big money fast + they’re not taking the initiative to
» prove Acell can regrow hair = Acell probably can’t regrow hair.
Exactly. This is what I think (just an hypothesis):
Acell need money. They need hypes to get money. They don’t have proof. They manufacture proof. They use Hitzig and Cooley to manufacture proof. They blame Dr. Jones for failure.
Cooley also needs money. He lost his job at ICX.
Just a theory.
» Cooley also needs money. He lost his job at ICX.
»
» Just a theory.
Why just theory?
ACell’s intention has always been wound healing.
That means, ACell’s intention has never ever been just “hair re-growth”, because that wasn’t necessary. That means, that the “hair re-growth” factor always just has been a “normal side effect” for them. ACell always saw “the bigger picture” behind their researches. And their “bigger picture” has always been regenerating tissue like skin or complete organs. Not enough?
I’m talking here about ACell’s history, which has already been reviewed and proven by court in 2005/2006.
Back to the “normal side effect”:
IF ACell products are able to let re-grow hair in regenerated skin too, ACell’s product would work as is should. Because it’s all about complete REGENERATION of tissue/organs. And regeneration thereby means everything: tissue/organs like skins, finger nails, hearts, livers AND organs like hair follicles too.
So what?
And now the part with “Cooley [Hitzig too!] also needs money. He lost his job at ICX”:
Just combine a great and proven product like ACell’s ECM MatriStem with an experienced hair follicle researcher like Cooley or Hitzig or …
What would be the outcome? Bull….? Yes or no?
I think, Cooley and Hitzig just “cooking their own soup”. And as I already have noticed, currently some others in the scene doing the same …
Okay, then why are we getting these garbage pics?
They’re not ignoring the need for photographic proof.
They’re not delivering decent photos either.
They’re delivering photos, but CRAPPY, DECEPTIVE ones.
The fact that they’re tossing out crappy pics and calling it proof causes me more doubt than if they had not delivered any photos at all.
thanks for the article. I have saved it.
» » Cooley also needs money. He lost his job at ICX.
» »
» » Just a theory.
»
» Why just theory?
»
» ACell’s intention has always been wound healing.
» That means, ACell’s intention has never ever been just “hair re-growth”,
» because that wasn’t necessary. That means, that the “hair re-growth” factor
» always just has been a “normal side effect” for them. ACell always saw “the
» bigger picture” behind their researches. And their “bigger picture” has
» always been regenerating tissue like skin or complete organs. Not enough?
»
» I’m talking here about ACell’s history, which has already been
» reviewed
» and proven by court in 2005/2006.
»
» Back to the “normal side effect”:
» IF ACell products are able to let re-grow hair in regenerated skin too,
» ACell’s product would work as is should. Because it’s all about complete
» REGENERATION of tissue/organs. And regeneration thereby means everything:
» tissue/organs like skins, finger nails, hearts, livers AND organs like hair
» follicles too.
Then, it is very clear for you, but when Acell is asked about it, they say that they don’t know if the regenerated skin has follicles, and they rely on HT surgeons to do the test. Also note that when hair follicles are harvested, for example, in a strip HT, the wound is very deep. Maybe Acell can regenerate skin with follicles in a shallow wound, but not in a deep wound like the one in a strip surgery.
»
» So what?
» And now the part with “Cooley [Hitzig too!] also needs money. He lost his
» job at ICX”:
» Just combine a great and proven product like ACell’s ECM MatriStem with an
» experienced hair follicle researcher like Cooley or Hitzig or …
»
» What would be the outcome? Bull….? Yes or no?
»
» I think, Cooley and Hitzig just “cooking their own soup”. And as I already
» have noticed, currently some others in the scene doing the same …
I don’t understand what you mean in these lines. please, explain again to me.
» » So what?
» » And now the part with “Cooley [Hitzig too!] also needs money. He lost
» his
» » job at ICX”:
» » Just combine a great and proven product like ACell’s ECM MatriStem with
» an
» » experienced hair follicle researcher like Cooley or Hitzig or …
» »
» » What would be the outcome? Bull….? Yes or no?
» »
» » I think, Cooley and Hitzig just “cooking their own soup”. And as I
» already
» » have noticed, currently some others in the scene doing the same …
»
» I don’t understand what you mean in these lines. please, explain again to
» me.
Hi Spanish Dude,
Sorry, currently I don’t have the time to explain concludent things …
But when you follow e.g.
http://www.baldtruthxxxx.com/showthread.php?t=833 ( <–just replace the “xxxx” with “talk” )
this thread til its current end, you should know a lot about my lines above.
»
» I’m talking here about ACell’s history, which has already been
» reviewed
» and proven by court in 2005/2006.
»
Please don’t get me wrong but I don’t understand you.Are you saying that it has been proven that ACell’s product regenerates skin?It is a real question,I honestly don’t know if it has been or not.I am a layman,and on many occasions have been proven to be naive idiot as well,however even being such,my idea or rigorous proof is not citing some case about completely different thing.It proves that there has been dispute about infringing on patents in some Courts,that eventually got resolved.How does that prove that ACell’s product work?Again don’t get me wrong,I want it to work,I just want to know how did you arrive at the conclusion that it works because of that case in the link you give.
Do you have any idea what you have to prove in order to get your patent application approved?
Again,I wish it works.
» Do you have any idea what you have to prove in order to get your patent
» application approved?
»
» Again,I wish it works.
Hi John35,
Here you can read yourself about I’m talking (PDF) …
That means, ACell WORKS, and this fact has been the reason why ACell could start in Aug 2006 again with selling their products …
Sorry, I can not explain every detail.
» Hi Spanish Dude,
» Sorry, currently I don’t have the time to explain concludent things …
»
» But when you follow e.g.
» http://www.baldtruthxxxx.com/showthread.php?t=833 ( <–just replace the
» “xxxx” with “talk” )
» this thread til its current end, you should know a lot about my lines
» above.
Sorry, the other thread is “o.k.” but here is the one I actually meant:
http://www.baldtruthxxxx.com/showthread.php?t=885
Here you can read Cooley’s own conclusions about PRP etc - just scroll down a bit …
» » Do you have any idea what you have to prove in order to get your patent
» » application approved?
» »
» » Again,I wish it works.
»
» Hi John35,
» Here you can read yourself about I’m talking
» (PDF)
» …
»
» That means, ACell WORKS, and this fact has been the reason why ACell could
» start in Aug 2006 again with selling their products …
»
» Sorry, I can not explain every detail.
Thank you Iron Man
The Court reversed the judgment of infringement.Again,whose idea it was,does not prove,to me,that the idea (invention) works.For obvious reasons.It would be wonderful if ACell is to prove - first to themselves, later to investors or companies,and us the consumers - that their idea ,or invention works. For an invention that is a process or a business method, physical proof may not be possible or necessary. But for something that regenerates skin that is easy.
Acell’s invention is a manufacturable product,and potentially VERY desirable,therefore why they do not show it looking as close to a finished article as they can manage or afford.Common ,are this pictures I see and the mute silence all I should have to believe that ACell works?
If their idea/invention is inherently costly and they need to seek funding why not gather convincing evidence that the idea will work, and has the potential to make enough profit to justify the level of risk.
I don’t know what does one need to prove Under US patent law, to get the patent application approved.Probably the conception - the formation, in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention (as defined by the patent claim).Does anyone know what else?I don’t know,and,I don’t believe,that an inventor MUST prove with convincing evidence that the invention he wants to patent actually works.I might be wrong of course,so please correct me if I am wrong.
Simple question.Does it mean that if some invention is protected by patent,it also must work?
You say “That means, ACell WORKS” I still don’t understand why you think that?But it is cool if you don’t want to talk about it.
» Hi Spanish Dude,
» Sorry, currently I don’t have the time to explain concludent things …
»
» But when you follow e.g.
» http://www.baldtruthxxxx.com/showthread.php?t=833 ( <–just replace the
» “xxxx” with “talk” )
» this thread til its current end, you should know a lot about my lines
» above.
O.k. - I’m going to help you to find THE KEY between some lines in threads and posts:
“Regenerative medicine is the future of medicine and we are only beginning to understand how it works. PRP is only the first generation and the future of hair multiplication will include some combination of GF/ECM complex, stem cells and cultured hair cells.”
So with WHAT we should combine e.g. ACell’s MatriStem?
Water? Coffee? Urine? Coca Cola? Botox? Cultured Hair Cells?
What do you think, which of the above examples regenerating skin/tissue would love to get for helping dermal cells to know what YOU wish to see in addition?
Maybe you think I’m funny. Am I funny? No.
Ops 1 …
Ops 2 …