» » In your view there really is no need to even have the present ongoing
» » experiment because it is impossible for ACEL not to work at growing
» hair
» » since as well all know the doctor himself has stated that Acel has
» grown
» » hair in humans.
»
» I don’t understand, are you replying to me? Where did I state or imply
» the above? Earlier I said the following:
»
» “Whether new follicles will grow in the new skin or not is a different
» story, but all the old skin in that spot is gone, and therefore, what grew
» there in the past is inconsequential.”
»
» Thereby clearly stating that I don’t know if Acell will grow hair or not.
»
» You are deploying a classic “straw man” tactic here, which goes something
» like this:
» 1. Claim that I said or implied something ridiculously wrong, even though
» I didn’t.
» 2. Proceed to argue against what you claim I said, instead of what I
» actually said, and prove it wrong.
»
» This is also a favorite Creationist tactic. One can learn quite a lot
» from that bunch.
»
» » In my view we need to wait to see if it works and in case
» » it doesn’t work we should have line up some good reasons for its’ lack
» of
» » success so that we can try the same stuff, but differently, in other
» » experiments. By your way of thinking it must work, and if it doesn’t
» work
» » then that is the end of it, but what if it would work if the docs tried
» a
» » different protocol???
»
» There are plenty of reasons of why Acell may not grow hair, but one of
» them is not be the quality of the skin that was completely removed before
» Acell was applied. If you think otherwise, please present a logical
» argument to the contrary.
You are dumb. Sometimes science determines or changes existsing logic after an experiment. This thing happening with Acel is an experiment. You, and your ilk, are the only ones who know for certain what can and can’t happen. The doctor performing the experiment doesn’t know what to conclude yet and even the manufacturers of Acel don’t know what to conclude yet. Again, only you, and your ilk, have already determined what is and what is not possible. I have not. I am saying anything is possible whether it seems logical or not right now. You are saying let’s take the limited info we have at this pre-results point in time and assume what the outcome of the experiment will be. You are saying that certain things can’t possibly happen because pre-results logic makes it impossible for those certain things to happen. You are a fool who is talking out of his @ss. I accept that there is a chance that somehow someway the fact that the skin being removed was both scarred and bald for a long time may prevent hair from growing in hypothetical new skin tissue that grows in that area. You are saying that is impossible. However, I can think of logical reasons why the fact that the skin being removed being scarred and bald long term could affect how the new skin grows but i don’t respect you so I’m not sharing that with you. You know something genius, years after minoxidil was released for hair growth they still weren’t logically sure why minoxidil works on some people. They were doing experiments to try to find out. People were using it for years to regrow hair but scientists weren’t sure the mechanism by which minoxidil grows hair. years after the launch of the product they were still doing experiments to try to find out the logical basis for it working. Like I already said, sometimes experiments produce logic. Hypothetically, let’s pretend that for some reason the new skin doesn’t grow hair I accept that there is a chance that the reason(s) why the experiment will have failed could have something to do with the fact that the skin removed was long since bald/scarred, but you do not accept that as a possibility. I keep an open mind to any potential eventualities. You do not. As a matter of fact, based on your logic it is impossible for the Acel not to grow hair. You say otherwise but that’s just more proof that you are a fool. You don’t even know what you yourself are saying.
Fact 1: The doctor claims that Acel has been proven to regrow tissue, complete with hair, in humans.
Fact 2: You claim that it would be impossible for the results of the experiment to be affected by the fact that the tissue being removed is long since dead/scarred.
These two facts taken together mean that you have already concluded that the ongoing Acel experiment has no choice but to be a success. And you are such a fool that you don’t even realize that this is your position, but that is, in fact, your position. After all, since it is already a known fact that Acel does regow hair in humans then besides the fact that the tissue being removed is long since bald/scarred there isn’t much else that could prevent the experiment from being a success. After all, other then the fact that the tissue being removed in this case (experiment) is long since bald/scarred there doesn’t appear to be any difference between this case (experiment) AND OTHER CASES WHERE ACEL DID REGROW HAIR IN HUMANS. So therefor you are clearly stating that this experiment is a waste of time since the experiment has no choice but to be a success because Acel has already proven to regrow hair in other cases and there is no meaningful difference between this case and the other cases where Acel alreay proved to regrow hair. In accordance with your position we should just abandon the experiment right now and just move directly into performing hts involving nearly complete harvestation of the donor area because the hair in the harvested area will DEFINITELY (according to Skippy/you) be completely restored (including hair) if we use Acel to close the wound. Oh, and despite the fact that this is your position you also do an about face and state that you understand that the experiment might fail and you don’t even realize that out of the other side of your mouth you are saying that it is impossible for the experiment to fail.