Yes throw 1,000,000 men into battle and more are gonna live. But the ones that are lost can't be replaced and the ones that live could have been strategically placed in other areas to fight the battle better. These are your results.

You could show alot of results. I could also show you comparison photos after comparison: in one photo an APPLE and in the other photo an ORANGE. Two words: hair characteristics. This determines the outcome.

And if you want to forget about characteristics and focus on numbers then any of the top docs are capable of throwing another 1000 or so grafts on the head in one pass. To do this day in and day out is simple. Hire some extra techs, get a few more microscopes, and encourage their patients to flood the hell out of the hair loss forums with their comments and photos to keep the business coming through the door. It is domination with strength in numbers not necessarily better results than any other capable clinic.

You seem quite hostile. Don't let your emotions get the best of you it is simply a matter of different philosophy and it is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them. But to do this they need to see both sides of the story. There are TWO sides to every story.

They have good and bad results like every other top doc. The difference is the presence of patients on the forums. It is quite bizzarre behavior that you don't see from other docs. For some reason they have motivation to hang around the forums, almost to the point of policing them as I see you are sort of doing to an extent. Other docs like to stay low key and that is a good thing if they don't want to get involve in the mudslinging for no good reason that goes on. This is once again where the domination of the forums marketing tactic comes into play.

On the forums I have seen them go on to silence their own( fellow recipient of transplant from their clinic) when they come to the board and are not satisfied with their result. The matter is quickly swept under the rug. Results posted are oooed and aaaaaawed if they are one of their own. Good results from other top docs are not necessarily criticized in all cases but there is always that belittling jab thrown in here and there so it doesn't shine like it rightfully should. From a sociological perspective it would be described as gang-like.

Jotronic catapaulted his clinic into the spotlight. He came along in early times of this industry, an industry with a dark history, and showed off his results. With his internet savvy, he became the orinal dominant presence on the forums and marketed his clinic to the top. It's none of my business but they owe him alot for what he did for them from a marketing stand point. Had Jotronic gone to any of the other top docs they could have done the same for him in terms of fixing his bad transplant as he is blessed with great elasticity in his donor that allowed for multiple strip procedures to get him to where he is now. Had Jotronic gone to another top doc they would have been the beneficiary of all of Jotronics marketing genious, the average Joe that got saved by his clinic. His clinic took off from his dominant presence on the forums. Had Jotronic poor elasticity in his donor, it would not have had such a happy ending and would not have been as lucrative for both parties involved.

Well hummmm, this kind of discussion is the reason I come back to this forum. I had a rather "small" procedure of 2650 grafts about 7 months ago. I don't think I am going to see the kind of density I am looking for BUT, I had quite a bit of native hair in the area transplanted. So it stands to reason that perhaps a conservative approach was the way to go. I DREAD another surgery, so understand the reason for a larger one pass surgery. Was I a good canidate for one, probably not. At the end of the day, I am interested in a fantasic result not $4,000.00 one way or another. This will affect how I look and feel for the rest of my life. I really see and understand both sides of the equation. I do appreciate all the interst and passiion this subject seems to generate as it has made me a better patient/consumer of this type or surgery.

Cheers

Sorry for the typing errors!

Landen, you seem like a very intellegent person and bring a lot of thought to the table. I am still watching and observing. I think most would agree to get to your reseults as fast as possible with as little procedures as possible is the best route. A couple thoughts I have about mega sessions, when you have a very long scar, sometimes hairloss goes down along the side, above the ear, I wonder would the scar be visable. Maybe I am wrong and it wouldnt be an issue. Also going a little more conservative gives the industry time to make its advancements, if you did 2 procedures over 3 years the industry could change remarkably and has. I have seen amazing results from both clinics. And in the future I will go back to Shapiro, because they are 15 minutes from my home and they treated me awesome I also would recommend DR Rose to anyone. I would also goto many docs on here. This whole debate is very interesting, and obviosly emotional. I am out on this and will wait and watch over time and see what takes place.

__________________
My Hair Loss Weblog

Let's keep in mind that details, some of which are subtle, differentiate the doctors from each other. I call them style and technique differences. That doesn't mean one style is necessarily better than the other.

If one doctor's technique is to use smaller fu's neatly placed close together, that doesn't mean you are getting ripped off. If it creates fantastic results, you are ultimately the winner.

There are other style and technique differences such as:

- Some docs fade into the hairline with less density to high density. Others will produce a harder, yet still natural looking hairline.

- Hairline design differences obviously exist with all of the doctors.

- Exclusive use of lateral slit compared to a combination of lateral and sagital.

- Dense forlock spreading out to thinner sides, compared to a more even distribution.

- Tendencies to go with a higher hairline vs. a lower hairline that frames the face.

- Dense packing vs. less dense packing.

- Donar strip closure techniques.

- And obviously, huge megasessions vs. multiple smaller sessions.

__________________
____________
2700 Total Grafts w/ Keene 9/28/05
663 one's = 663
1116 two's = 2232
721 three's = 2163
200 four's = 800
Hair Count = 5858

1000 Total Grafts w/Keene 2/08/07
Mostly combined FU's for 2600+ hairs

My Photo Album

See me at Dr. Keene's Gallery

When I viewed Pats' pictures from H&W I was astounded over the amount of donor tissue that was removed and also how some was taken from above the ear.

The reason for my surprise is that it has always been my understanding that you do not want to remove tissue above the posterior occipt bone in the skull, due to the fact that this hair may very likely fall out. This has always been a rule of thumb because the hair located below this bone is genetically programmed differently in most patients, which ensures the growth and success of the transplant.

If you transplant hair that has the DNA to miniaturize it will eventually fall out.

__________________
I am the patient coordinator for Dr. Scott Alexander in Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Alexander's Coalition Membership Profile

Well, I take a day off from the forum and WHOA!!!!
Anyway, let me take a moment to remind each of us, that we are debating two different philosophy's, and a question of what appears to be inflated graft counts over actual hair transplanted.
Let's start with this--- an industry standard of graft breakdown is 65% 1 an 2 hair grafts, 26% 3's and 6% 4's. Even if a patient is slightly skewed one way or the other, these numbers are typically constant.
1000 grafts
650 1's and 2's
260 3's
60 4's
If we multiply the hair moved here using estimates for 1's and 2's this is what we come up with
325 1's = 325 hairs
325 2's = 650 hairs
260 3's = 780 hairs
60 4's = 240 hairs
total = 1995 hairs for a 1000 graft procedure
Using these estimates please note the actual HAIR to GRAFT ratio is nearly double. I realize that these are estimates, but they represent a industry average which can change slightly from patient to patient.
Using this estimate we can say that a 3000 graft procedure should produce roughly 6000 hairs. We can estimate 200 to 300 grafts either way for physiological make-up, but either way a ballpark number of actual hairs is able to be estimated. This takes us to some very interesting questions---- What are actual hair counts versus graft counts? Does waste percentage increase if many naturally occurring follicular are being split at a higher than "normal" rate? Does pricing reflect naturally occurring follicular units?
3000 graft procedure producing roughly 6000 hairs costs:
2000 grafts = 9000
1000 grafts = 2500
total = 11500

a 6000 graft session with roughly 12,000 hairs would cost
2000 grafts = 9000
4000 grafts = 10000
total = 19000

This is great, but without hair counts how do we know that 12,000 hairs were moved? What if 8000 hairs were moved, roughly the equivalent of a 4000 graft session that costs 14,000, which is 5000 less? So the question is why pay for 6000 grafts, when you are getting a 4000 graft session turned into a 6000 graft session?
I think this is why we need to understand what is actually being done in these 4000 to 6000+ megasessions. (ie, 8000 1's and 2's versus, 12,000 naturally occurring FU's)
If we look at the information given we can come up with some solid answers. Pat detailed the fact that H&W does NOT keep track of hair count. I think that has to change, in order to put this issue to rest, permanently. Splitting grafts is a practice EVERY clinic employs, and that is a FACT. The question is how much, what is the benefit to the patient, and how much additional donor waste occurs as a result of blade trauma and technician fatigue?
This is an question that needs to be answered, in order for us to move forward and understand the nature of the industry at this time. If the hair counts moved in these mega-session prove to be spot on, I will gladly tip my hat to the genius of H&W, and they will have earned a heartfelt apology. If not, then I think we need to re-evaluate these graft sessions, and see what can be done to put things in proper order. I cannot argue with some of the results that H&W has shown over the years, but I can question philosophy and practices.
I hope this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all the members of this forum, H&W patient or not.

__________________
Go Cubs!

6721 transplanted grafts
13,906 hairs
Performed by Dr. Ron Shapiro

Dr. Ron Shapiro and Dr. Paul Shapiro are members of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians.

With inflation at around 3%, it would almost 7 years for your time value of money to count. So unless your crappy results last you 7 years (scoff, ROLFMAO, LMAO, etc, etc) you lose. Clearly you're talking a little bit out of your field on a number of topics.

You don't see it from other docs because their results are shit. Your other "coalition" docs are totally unimpressive with the exception of one or two doctors. The rest of them use tools that look like someone's been poking your head with a pool queue, plant the hairline with *visible* gaps in the hair - a good example here is the woman who recently had her hairline done and has her picture posted on the photos section. There was no need for a non-fpb patient to conserve donour. Furthermore, her HT will be THIN and I said just that. This simply shows a pathetic doctor not willing to do right by his patient. This woman will NOT be able to wear her hair normally like she may have had the chance to, had she gone to a decent clinic.

Joe Tillman did not originall work for H&W when he posted his first photos. You clearly like to view things one way, and you'll clearly have more of these weak points to add because you argue with the logic of a woman, so I'm not going to bother offering any logic backwards, I'll just tell you where you're wrong.