Out of curiosity because people are attacking each other again.
What is the problem if different researchers are pursuing different approaches? Whta if Cotsarelis is wrong when he says “Stem cells are still there they only need something to operate them”
And in the first playe everyone would have listened to him and then all is for nothing.
We cant say for sure what will work in the long run and what not, so its important to have different solutions at hand in case something bad happened to one of the approaches.
So instead of fighting, we should work overtime to save the money for the nearest future.
It doesnt matter if there are no studies to a certain approach, as long as its working with no side effects.
What if Histogen is in fact the golden bullet and can bring the full head of hair, even when Cotsarelis said it wont. And what if Cotsarelis approach also gives you back your hair?
Who would actually give a shi* about it? Right nobody because its working. Regarding cancer : Well if you are in a certain age you have to do a screening anyway 
I dont know why guys here are getting totally agressive out of nowhere, it seems that a possible cure makes people angry somehoe and i dont know why. Right now i can only say one thing for sure
Everyone is right, yes everyone here is somehow right. This means, that some things just work but we cant explain them. There are so many approaches and each of them has somehow created new hair. And i think no one ever said that There is only ONE possible solution. Sometimes things just work and no one can explain it, its just the one in a jillion gazillion chance.
WHat proof do we have for what
-
Astressin b : I still dont believe in it but there are tests with mice under stress with good results / so i cant say for sure
-
Histogen : It created new/old hair in follicles and thickens existing hair /sure there are contra arguements but it created hair
-
Gho : He claims it and peer reviewed studies supported it, even Dr Cole / there are contra arguemnts like Gho is only splitting follicles etc but hey he has a plausible paper
-
Ari : In theory a nice and working idea and some people here (one person) said it worked for him somehow / the lack of informations but hey i have to take the word from a member here and thats ok
-
Acell/PRP : Yes Hitzig and Cooley claim it works with plucked hair / Yes people say its a sc_am but why should they lie so big time and also its somehow like Ghos method
-
Lauster : Yeah artificial follicles are great because you can manipulate them / it will take some time for them to bring this to market but hey its good to have this
-
Infinite Donor : Well yes a mixture of correct needles and storage solutions can bring you infinite donor, EVen FUE specialists admit they saw sometimes regrowth in donor areas (bverotti doesnt but yeeeaaaahhh we all know why) / sure its to good to be true and you still have to get a “transplant” but its something to work with even as a high NW candidate
-
Follica : I really dont know but i give them the benefit of doubt
etc etc
And no guys we didnt have such different approaches 10 years ago, so this whole " 10 years from now is not working anymore".
Hairloss and people are different, so why shouldnt different approaches work for different people. I can only say one thing and this will be clear in the future
FUT will be obsolete and the cheapest form of FUE will be in combination with Acell.
Are those new robot a part of the future? Well i am not sure, but the only thing i know is, that we are really close. And if you look at it from another perspective, what did actually undergo an evolution? FUT or FUE
FUE of course, and this technique is compared to FUT not very old. You see in the beginnings there were plugs and then micro grafts etc. And now we are at a point where we can “amputate” a follicle to regrow again, all due to FUE. Can FUT offer this? Nope never has and never will be.
But really compare the timeline for FUT and FUE and you will clearly see why FUT is so outdated.