http://www.iahrs.org/news/gary-hitzig-responds-to-concerns-acell-matristem/
Awesome, although some are skeptical about hitzig, I like how he responded and I hope he starts to release more pictures of his “amazing results” to the public soon and I do think he will be doing so in early January.
Great interview, but maddeningly vague on some important points (and as usual, Kobren doesn’t ask for clarification).
For example, Hitzig describes an experiment he did to demonstrate whether acell can regrow skin and hair in the donor area.
Hitziz says he makes two sets, each set consisting of three old-fashioned plug sites.
In one set, he makes the first plug in scar tissue, the second plug partly in scar tissue but also partly into the hair growing area, the third completely into the hair growing area.
The second set he does the same way, except he treats the second area with ACell.
And here is what he says resulted:
In the untreated set all three plug removal sites grew only scar.
In the ACell treated set the area where the plug was made completely in scar, the result was scar; in the area where the plug was made partly in scar and partly in hair growing area, the result was “grew the plug back” (WTF doest that mean? If it grew hair, why didn’t he say it grew hair? Why didn’t Kobren stop him at that point to ask “Do you mean it regrew the hair”??); in the area where the plug was made completely in hair growing area, you couldn’t tell anything had been done (also, WTF???: does that mean you couldn’t tell because the skin and hair grew back or because the hole made by the plug shrunk thereby pulling the hair-growing virgin skin around it so close together you could see no gap?).
»
» Great interview, but maddeningly vague on some important points
» (and as usual, Kobren doesn’t ask for clarification).
»
» For example, Hitzig describes an experiment he did to demonstrate whether
» acell can regrow skin and hair in the donor area.
»
» Hitziz says he makes two sets, each set consisting of three old-fashioned
» plug sites.
»
» In one set, he makes the first plug in scar tissue, the second plug partly
» in scar tissue but also partly into the hair growing area, the third
» completely into the hair growing area.
»
» The second set he does the same way, except he treats the second area with
» ACell.
»
» And here is what he says resulted:
»
» In the untreated set all three plug removal sites grew only scar.
»
» In the ACell treated set the area where the plug was made completely in
» scar, the result was scar; in the area where the plug was made partly in
» scar and partly in hair growing area, the result was “grew the plug
» back” (WTF doest that mean? If it grew hair, why didn’t he
» say it grew hair? Why didn’t Kobren stop him at that point to ask “Do
» you mean it regrew the hair”??); in the area where the plug was made
» completely in hair growing area, you couldn’t tell anything had been
» done (also, WTF???: does that mean you couldn’t tell
» because the skin and hair grew back or because the hole made by the plug
» shrunk thereby pulling the hair-growing virgin skin around it so close
» together you could see no gap?).
My gut tells me this is a bull$h!T sKam. S-H-A-D-Y definitely comes to mind.
» http://www.iahrs.org/news/gary-hitzig-responds-to-concerns-acell-matristem/
Why does Hitzig keep saying that plucking is too tedious to use for large areas except in cases where there’s no donor for HT?
Seems to me plucking should be less tedious than FUE, and lots of other doctors do FUE for large areas all the time now.
» »
» http://www.iahrs.org/news/gary-hitzig-responds-to-concerns-acell-matristem/
»
» Why does Hitzig keep saying that plucking is too tedious to use for large
» areas except in cases where there’s no donor for HT?
»
» Seems to me plucking should be less tedious than FUE, and lots of other
» doctors do FUE for large areas all the time now.
I think it has to do with plucking process itself. They need the plucked hair to contain the proper amount of cellular material from the bulb. So, what they have to do is pluck the hair and then examine each individual hair under the microscope to make sure it contains enough of the bulb to regrow when it’s implanted in the recipient area. Apparently, there is a lot of variability in what comes out when they pluck the hair. For example, for them to get, lets say 10 useable hairs, they may have to pluck 40 hairs. So, it’s a lot of work.
» » »
» »
» http://www.iahrs.org/news/gary-hitzig-responds-to-concerns-acell-matristem/
» »
» » Why does Hitzig keep saying that plucking is too tedious to use for
» large
» » areas except in cases where there’s no donor for HT?
» »
» » Seems to me plucking should be less tedious than FUE, and lots of other
» » doctors do FUE for large areas all the time now.
»
» I think it has to do with plucking process itself. They need the plucked
» hair to contain the proper amount of cellular material from the bulb. So,
» what they have to do is pluck the hair and then examine each individual
» hair under the microscope to make sure it contains enough of the bulb to
» regrow when it’s implanted in the recipient area. Apparently, there is a
» lot of variability in what comes out when they pluck the hair. For
» example, for them to get, lets say 10 useable hairs, they may have to pluck
» 40 hairs. So, it’s a lot of work.
Can’t be more tedious than extracting follicles one at a time using a microscope to guide your hand when doing FUE.
I’m just relaying the information that Hitzig provided in his interview. If you think otherwise then you should question Hitzig or Cooley.
» My gut tells me this is a bull$h!T sKam. S-H-A-D-Y definitely comes to
» mind.
I wouldn’t go that far.
My gut tells me there is something to this.
I just wish Kobren was sharper. He too often misses asking the most important questions or asking for clarification on the most important points in many of his interviews.
» » My gut tells me this is a bull$h!T sKam. S-H-A-D-Y definitely comes to
» » mind.
»
» I wouldn’t go that far.
»
» My gut tells me there is something to this.
»
» I just wish Kobren was sharper. He too often misses asking the most
» important questions or asking for clarification on the most important
» points in many of his interviews.
Gee - I wonder why that could be…
Very dissapointing interview imo, it sounds like he’s backtracking on what they first talked about, and why don’t they try the PRP Acell mix on it’s own without surgery? it doesn’t make sense.
it sounds like he’s backtracking on what they first talked about
I didn’t get that from the interview, for me the only disappointment was him saying he has to filter the plucked hairs and the acceptable percentage may be as low as 50%. That means with a 50-75% success rate when actually transplanting only about 25% of the plucked grafts may actually end up growing in the recipient area. There is a suggestion that you may get more than one hair growing from any hair that is transplanted successfully but he was very vague on that. Hopefully as more work is done on this the percentage success rate for both parts of the procedure will continue to increase.
I got the impression (and it is just my view) that he is mindful of not upsetting other HT doctors by playing down autocloning as a replacement procedure rather than as just an adjunct to conventional HT’s. He describes the process of plucking and filtering the grafts as tedious but I just don’t see that compared to conventional HT’s - especially as technicans can do it. I think that IF this works as we hope (and that IS still a big if) then eventually it is obviously a straight replacement for current HT’s.