I Don't Know If Every1 Has Seen This Article So Here...

[That Guy]

And in the US, 90 Euro would buy me a year's worth of generic finasteride.

So if you personally can't afford a specific treatment, that means no one can and the protocols sucks? LOL You just don't make any sense.

From what height were you dropped as an infant?

 

[the smoking baby]

If it is a "long way off" from competing with FUE in time, then there IS a density issue - you can only spend so much time in the chair. If a robot can extract/implant X amount of follicles, and Piloscopy can only do 1/4X, then it can't achieve the same density per session. People who don't follow ARTAS don't realize how close they are to dramatically speeding up the hair transplant process, and that's just against current techniques; if Piloscopy is even slower, then there's no question there's a density problem vis-a-vis current and future techniques.

And why is it my responsibility contact him? I didn't make the original comment about Piloscopy. As for Dr. Wesley, he's created this monster, hasn't he? He gave that wackjob Artista a free Piloscopy hair transplant, then let said wackjob post tease about it for a year. Wesley also went on Spencer's show and talked about it for an hour, and gave people access to his PP presentation. Now Artista is tight-lipped, and everyone is upset that they haven't been provided the information that he promised. I'd say the responsibility is on Dr. Wesley to give an update, not for those who have been following him to seek him out about it.

Density and density per session are two different animals. Overall density can be achieved with FUT/FUE/Piloscopy given a number of factors: donor quality/quantity, number of sessions are 2 of the biggest. Comparing density per session, piloscopy is unlikely to compete with FUE/FUT for the foreseeable future.

And I never claimed that it was your responsibility to contact Dr. Wesley. The conversation started with the hope/claim that piloscopy would overcome donor loss because it had the potential to transect follicles from underneath, leading to donor regeneration. Dr. Wesley was very open to discussing his technique with me. For those wishing for an update on how far along he has come, call him up and ask to interview him.

As a final note on this subject, Artista was obviously one of the first live patients that Dr. Wesley performed his technique on. The fact that there have been no updates indicates (to me at least) that he has gone back to the drawing board. If his best case scenario of rolling out the technique in two years was stated 1 year and 4 months ago, he is not ahead of that schedule it would seem.

 

[thomps1523]

Guys this is all riveting, but who really has the bigger dick?!

 

[inham123]

In the UK, most of western-europe and the US the price of generic Finasteride should be about the same at around 30 euro/dollar for 30x1mg. Is it that much more in Canada?

And yeah Hasson & Wong and Rahal are quite expensive, as are most US and Western-European clinics. Turkey is tons cheaper with great results because the labor cost is a lot lower and it's more factory work instead of tuned to a patient. Erdogan "officially" does 2.5euro a graft if you visit their site but when I went to one of their offices in the Netherlands they quoted me 2 euro a graft after I told them I was very interested in doing multiple transplants in the future to get my hairline completely back and that I felt very good about Erdogan after doing a lot of research.

I have a vacation booked this summer in Turkey and at the end of I'll have the second transplant done.

I definitely agree that more topicals and pills are really needed and in that direction we have seen quite a lot of names pop up in recent years and with disappointing setbacks.

 

[nameless]

And I never claimed that it was your responsibility to contact Dr. Wesley.

As a final note on this subject, Artista was obviously one of the first live patients that Dr. Wesley performed his technique on. The fact that there have been no updates indicates (to me at least) that he has gone back to the drawing board. If his best case scenario of rolling out the technique in two years was stated 1 year and 4 months ago, he is not ahead of that schedule it would seem.

* How did you exchange email addresses with Artista?I tried to do that TBT but the site won't allow it.

* The fact that there is no update yet does not mean he's gone back to the drawing board. Why are you always assuming the worse case scenarios? Artista says he and his wife believe they see quality donor regeneration. He also said he was going to be seen by Dr. Wesley in November to get an *official* conclusion regarding donor regeneration but he got sick so he canceled the November appointment. He says he was rescheduled for a January appointment so we could hear something soon. That is all Artista said. He said nothing about Dr. Wesley going back to the drawing board.

 

[nameless]

That IS all he said - why? He was all over that board, hyping his Piloscopy hair transplant, and then he suddenly disappeared. Spencer hasn't mentioned a thing about it, either (not that that means anything - Spencer is very shady).

I don't know why. I'm not Artista or Dr. Wesley. Maybe they know that if they start answering questions the questions will never stop so they've decided to avoid us until they can give us some definitive information.

But the point is that just because you don't have an answer to your question that doesn't mean you should start assuming negative stuff. The point is that Artista has said he had to cxl his November appointment with Dr. Wesley due to illness and he's rescheduled for January.

 

[the smoking baby]

* How did you exchange email addresses with Artista?I tried to do that TBT but the site won't allow it.

* The fact that there is no update yet does not mean he's gone back to the drawing board. Why are you always assuming the worse case scenarios? Artista says he and his wife believe they see quality donor regeneration. He also said he was going to be seen by Dr. Wesley in November to get an *official* conclusion regarding donor regeneration but he got sick so he canceled the November appointment. He says he was rescheduled for a January appointment so we could hear something soon. That is all Artista said. He said nothing about Dr. Wesley going back to the drawing board.

You have now made the claim several times that I am assuming worse-case scenarios with piloscopy. I'm not.

Let's do this: what are your expectations of piloscopy?

 

[nameless]

As Dr. Wesley stated in October of 2015,


Is this directed at me? Your first quote in italics is not even from my post. The second quote is a quote from Hellouser paraphrasing from my transcription. Neither of these quotes are mine.

First here underlined is the part of my post that claims the quote by you which you deny saying. Note that I highlighted the part where I quoted you and which you now deny saying:

Your recent postings the past few days about Pilofocus feel generally negative and specifically it feels like you're being negative about the potential for quality donor regeneration in regards to Pilofocus. For example, you said the following in italics:

"As for the claim of regeneration, if he's just pointing to old studies that transected hairs regenerate, that means his technique doesn't regenerate better than any other that transects hairs (which, btw, don't regenerate to full diameter follicles, just poor quality follicles that are unfit for transplant)."

"we can presume that the donor hairs will be thinner and finer than the original ones."


And now below is your post wherein you said exactly what you claim you didn't say. It's down at the bottom of your post below and I've highlighted the key part.


the smoking baby New Member

Pilofocus is already available through Dr. Wesley, albeit on a trial basis. Unfortunately, it likely won't be a technique that will supplant FUE anytime soon as it is not nearly fast enough to extract the same number of follicular units in the same time period as FUE given the limitations of the piloscopic instruments (removing the follicles from below is extremely time consuming and cumbersome with current instruments). Although he has been improving the instrumentation and technique, as of last year, he admitted himself that he was still a long ways off before his technique would compete with FUE in both time and cost (SOURCE: I interviewed Dr. Wesley last year for a website I had up for a year before taking down given my time constraints to keep at growing it). It should also be noted that Dr. Wesley was not the first to attempt piloscopy. It had been attempted before with other surgeons, including Dr. Robert Jones in Canada, before being summarily abandoned given the crude piloscopic instruments available and the time-consuming nature of the technique. Better instruments lead to better and faster techniques but let's be real: removing follicles from underneath is always going to be far more time consuming than removing them from the top of the scalp. If you only want 1000 follicular units transplanted in one session, then pilofocus will be a viable alternative. If you want 3000 or more, be prepared for multiple sessions and significant costs associated with the additional time.

That is not to say that it won't be beneficial to the hairloss community in the short run. Hair multiplication treatments, like Dr. Tsuji's, will require small biopsies to be removed in order to multiply the different cells. Piloscopy would be ideal for that purpose as it would't leave a punctuate scar and requires far less follicles to be removed.

As for the claims of donor regeneration. Dr. Wesley has not made any claims about donor regeneration beyond what existing studies have already demonstrated: a certain percentage of follicles that are bisected do regrow but regrown follicles are thinner and don't always cycle through their various phases.

#24the smoking baby, Yesterday at 7:20 PM

 

[the smoking baby]

Below s your post wherein you said exactly what you claim you didn't say. It's down at the bottom of your post and I've highlighted the key part.


the smoking baby New Member

Pilofocus is already available through Dr. Wesley, albeit on a trial basis. Unfortunately, it likely won't be a technique that will supplant FUE anytime soon as it is not nearly fast enough to extract the same number of follicular units in the same time period as FUE given the limitations of the piloscopic instruments (removing the follicles from below is extremely time consuming and cumbersome with current instruments). Although he has been improving the instrumentation and technique, as of last year, he admitted himself that he was still a long ways off before his technique would compete with FUE in both time and cost (SOURCE: I interviewed Dr. Wesley last year for a website I had up for a year before taking down given my time constraints to keep at growing it). It should also be noted that Dr. Wesley was not the first to attempt piloscopy. It had been attempted before with other surgeons, including Dr. Robert Jones in Canada, before being summarily abandoned given the crude piloscopic instruments available and the time-consuming nature of the technique. Better instruments lead to better and faster techniques but let's be real: removing follicles from underneath is always going to be far more time consuming than removing them from the top of the scalp. If you only want 1000 follicular units transplanted in one session, then pilofocus will be a viable alternative. If you want 3000 or more, be prepared for multiple sessions and significant costs associated with the additional time.

That is not to say that it won't be beneficial to the hairloss community in the short run. Hair multiplication treatments, like Dr. Tsuji's, will require small biopsies to be removed in order to multiply the different cells. Piloscopy would be ideal for that purpose as it would't leave a punctuate scar and requires far less follicles to be removed.

As for the claims of donor regeneration. Dr. Wesley has not made any claims about donor regeneration beyond what existing studies have already demonstrated: a certain percentage of follicles that are bisected do regrow but regrown follicles are thinner and don't always cycle through their various phases.

#24the smoking baby, Yesterday at 7:20 PM

That's not the quote you attributed to me. Go back over your own posts and fact-check yourself. You attributed a quote from another poster to me, not the one you just bolded.

 

[the smoking baby]

Ya know, for years I followed various online hairloss boards and avoided the idiots that want to shoehorn their own biases to fit their beliefs. Now I'm in a convo with one.

 

[the smoking baby]

Here is the complete post by me. The first quote is a copied and pasted quote taken right from one of your posts. I've highlighted the first post I attributed to you, which you now deny said even though you did say it. The second quote was taken from Hellouser's post but he was paraphrasing YOU.

namelessSenior Member

At what point in any of my posts on this topic have I indicated that Dr. Wesley had a negative view of donor regeneration? He indicated that donor regeneration was possible based on existing studies.
Your recent postings the past few days about Pilofocus feel generally negative and specifically it feels like you're being negative about the potential for quality donor regeneration in regards to Pilofocus. For example, you said the following in italics:

"As for the claim of regeneration, if he's just pointing to old studies that transected hairs regenerate, that means his technique doesn't regenerate better than any other that transects hairs (which, btw, don't regenerate to full diameter follicles, just poor quality follicles that are unfit for transplant)."

"we can presume that the donor hairs will be thinner and finer than the original ones."

You did not post Dr. Wesley's 2015 statements (to you) about the potential for quality donor regeneration with Pilofocus in a vacuum. You posted that information after making negative comments regarding the potential for quality donor regeneration with Pilofocus. By quality donor regeneration I mean that both the part of the hair that remains in the donor area and the part that is implanted into the recipient area retain their original width and length.

I reasonably assumed you posted Dr. Wesley's 2015 response (to you) to support your negative position regarding the prospects for quality donor regeneration with Pilofocus. I obviously did not view the statements by Dr. Wesley negatively, but since you posted that statement in the context of a discussion wherein you take a negative view of the potential for quality donor regeneration with Pilofocus I assumed you were presenting that information to support your negative view for quality donor regeneration with Pilofocus.

so you're copying and pasting a quote made by occulus at 4:40 today and attributing it to me? And you're quoting me but as it's being paraphrased by another member? And he wasn't even paraphrasing me but rather a transcription of an interview?

Hey listen - I know alternative facts are all the rage and all....

 

[nameless]

Top, bolded quote is mine, the second, non-bolded quote is from Helluser.

I grabbed a quote from your post instead of his when I gathered the two posts to demonstrate my point. He said something that sounded similar in a different post and when I saw your post I thought it was the post by him wherein he said something that seemed similar.

 

[the smoking baby]

I apologize to all the other readers who came to this thread just to look for information to help them get through their day dealing with hairloss. I did not mean to devolve into a ridiculous argument with another member over a treatment that, in my opinion, is viable but limited. If you are interested in piloscopy, please take the time to read over my posts and other information about Dr. Wesley's technique. He is a dedicated hair restoration surgeon who is trying to improve the industry. I am not negating his work at all. In fact, I hope that he succeeds.

 

[That Guy]

What is the difference between tissUse's method vs Kyocera's?

I think they use different cells. I know that Tsuji uses mesenchymal cells and epithelial cells, but TissUse apparently uses HDMECS and dermal papilla cells.

I don't know wtf an hdmec is, though. Some kind of endothelial cell, but even with Google I'm not sure I get how endothelial and epithelial cells are different so you'd have to ask Bill Nye or @Swoop

Also, tsuji plans a lot of automation whereas tissuse could be done by one person

 

[nameless]

I apologize to all for erroneously copying the wrong post when disputing with another poster about what he had said. The post I used was from a different poster but both posts are on the same page in this same thread, and both posts start off using almost the exact same words. And both posts mean almost the exact same thing anyway. In other words it's a difference without much of a distinction. Here highlighted in italics are the two posts:

"As for the claims of donor regeneration. Dr. Wesley has not made any claims about donor regeneration beyond what existing studies have already demonstrated: a certain percentage of follicles that are bisected do regrow but regrown follicles are thinner and don't always cycle through their various phases."

"As for the claim of regeneration, if he's just pointing to old studies that transected hairs regenerate, that means his technique doesn't regenerate better than any other that transects hairs (which, btw, don't regenerate to full diameter follicles, just poor quality follicles that are unfit for transplant)."

OK, I made an error. This mistake shouldn't have become the big deal the other poster made of it since the post I mistakenly used means pretty much the same thing as the post he did actually make anyway, which makes my mistake kind of irrelevant. And it shouldn't overshadow my larger point that he's been saying a lot of negative stuff about Pilofocus because I'm right.

Off the top of my head here are some of the inappropriate negative stuff he's said about Pilofocus:

1. He misstated when he actually got information from Dr. Wesley. He said he got the info from Dr. Wesley "last year" when in fact he got the info from Dr. Wesley the year before last year. And this is a big deal because if he got the info from Dr. Wesley then that would give his info the feel that it's very up-to-the-minute since last year is less than a month ago. His 1 year and 4 months is a long time in research. One year and 4 months is long enough to complete an entire phase study for example.

2. He raised the issue that Dr. Jones gave up on Pilofocus but Dr. Jones used available tools at the time and I would imagine that the final Pilofocus product will look a lot different from the Pilofocus that Dr. Jones tried.

3. He pointed out that even as Pilofocus improves FUT/FUE will also improve as if this will result in Pilofocus becoming a niche treatment. But that's bs because if Pilofocus achieves quality donor regeneration 100% of the people with insufficient donor supply would prefer Pilofocus. For example, if you have a choice between FUE/FUT with thin coverage and a partial hairpiece OR full recovery of your hair via Pilofocus which would you want?

4. He raised the issue that since standard follicle harvesting doesn't produce quality donor regeneration Pilofocus might not either even though standard follicle harvesting is different from Pilofocus.

5. He points out that he believes a big reason why Dr. Wesley is proceeding with Pilofocus is because he has invested so much time and money into the technology that he can't quit now. It feels negative when he says this but I don't understand why this has to be a negative thing. A lot of great products have been produced because the inventor was under financial pressure to find a way to bring his/her invention to market. I'm not saying pressure always results in success but it has happened A LOT.

 

[nameless]

Ya know, for years I followed various online hairloss boards and avoided the idiots that want to shoehorn their own biases to fit their beliefs. Now I'm in a convo with one.

Because of course the only possible answer is that I must be "shoehorning" my own biases. There is no possibility whatsoever that there are two very similar posts on the same page in this same thread and I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong one.

OK. And I guess you've never made a clerical error. Alright.

And by the way, does this mean that when you said you interviewed Dr. Wesley last year (2016) but you actually interviewed him the year before (2015) was that you being an idiot who wants to shoehorn your own biases to fit your beliefs? I mean after all you do reject the possibility that people could simply make clerical errors, right?

 

[inham123]

@the smoking baby: thanks for the info you posted. Just ignore nameless. I 100% agree with you in regards to piloscopy

 

[the smoking baby]

It would appear that Dr. Wesley's piloscopy experiments are effectively on hold for the time being.
Source: the other hairloss website