Questioner

Arfy, that was very well-researched and presented clearly and convincingly. I, however, will not commend the publisher of this site as you did on suspending Dr. Brandy's recommendation to visitors of this site, because your research suggests that no recommendation in his favor should have been made in the first place. If it requires the prompting and research of posters to get Dr. Brandy's methods reviewed, something was not right in the first place, and I hope that not too many people followed the recommendation.

Spencer Kobren said on his 1/13 radio show that he was re-evaluating the efficacy of low level laser treatment for hair loss (an option he had previously dismissed) and that his staff was getting some of these "Laser Combs" to evaluate them and provide some anecdotal evidence. Well, I'd rather have a consumer advocate of some sort (Kobren or other) really take a look into these things before I even considered it. Their website is typical of those we see for scam products or those with quite a few caveats. The company advertising this product I believe claims it will reverse miniaturization. Usually if something sounds too good to be true, it's a scam or there's a BIG catch. A money-back guarantee does not make it a safer bet at all. I would not rely on their website arguments, for obvious reasons. Before you spend hundreds of your hard-earned dollars on this product I would wait to see what Kobren has to say about it after his staff uses it (the product's makers say it takes a few weeks to start seeing benefits, so that won't be anytime soon). Why should any of you fellas pay to test it when they're sending some to Kobren (albeit for free, as I recall). My instinct is that it is, like most products, not what it is advertised to be, and be aware that there is a laser treatment in Europe that was highly touted and the company is now the target of a class action lawsuit due to the treatment's utter ineffectiveness. I do not know if the European laser technology this product refers to is the same. My strong advice to fellow posters is don't buy this thing until and unless Kobren gives it a big thumbs up. I don't think Kobren is a deity but he's the only real consumer advocate for hair loss sufferers out there and he turns down money from scam artists and he is bluntly honest about things like this. Hair loss takes a lot out of people emotionally, it's hard to help that. It doesn't have to rob you blind too, that you can avoid by keeping a keen eye on these kinds of products. -?er [This message was edited by Questioner on January 20, 2002 at 10:05 AM.]

Airtrans' has chosen to take the low road. His comments are really worth dignifying with a detailed response. It is always important in life to only care about the opinions of those you respect. I see no reason why Arfy should respect someone who speaks as Airtrans has chosen to. Carlos, you may get a delay on hearing back from Dr. Woods for 2-3 weeks or so (based on what I've read on other sites) because there have been some terrible fires in Sydney not too far from his clinic although his clinic is reportedly safe. He has a secretary named Wendy there on Tuesdays I think, you may want to contact her to see whether there is a backup due to the fires. The last thing I want to mention, is, as Arfy said, that future treatments are starting to look more promising and less distant. I posted about a month ago about Dr. Unger's work in the "Future Treatments" thread on this site, and since then we have learned that he was able to grow "cosmetically" significant and acceptable hair in two of his ten or so test studies. I invite the other posters to revive that thread, my last post there has been sitting by its lonesome for a month, and I think it's a topic worth discussing more for a lot of fellows (and fellettes) because a lot of people have to approach transplants from a long-term standpoint and well, if you can may be able to regrow your hair from a series of injections 2-5 years from now, then well, that has to play into your thinking. Cell therapy, as it is known, may be a way to regrow your hair with vastly better coverage than an HT and with no removal of a donor strip and hence, no surgical scar. I'd hate to be the last strip patient operated on before they announced cell therapy was going to be available. Anyway, this thread is not the most appropriate place to discuss cell therapy in great detail, like I said, if people are interested in talking about it then I welcome some intellectual company on the future treatments thread where I will share more. ?er

One reason I wish to add why I agreed with Arfy is because of the nature of his own experiences. He got screwed by a bad doctor yet he helps people here in spite of that without a trace of bitterness toward those he's advising even though most of them have not had to endure what he has. There is only one word to describe the advice you'll get from someone who's capable of doing that: "honest".

Carlos, You are not a good candidate for a transplant in my opinion. You don't appear to need one either. Furthermore, the only doctors who would probably consider you a good candidate for a transplant are the most unethical and poorly skilled doctors out there. From your photo you appear to be a Norwood 2.5 at worst and probably with surgery would be at risk for an unacceptable amount of what is called "shock loss" (losing of existing hair from the surgical shock of what is involved in the transplant). Many unethical surgeons ignore or are dishonest about the shock loss issue because shock loss helps them get more surgeries from you. Stay on the Propecia to keep your hair, and save your surgery money (or if you are intent on spending it, look at some children's charities). Don't make the mistake, Carlos. I'm sorry you feel unhappy now but you have to realize how bad the surgeons who'd be willing to operate on you are and how you'd feel afterwards. ?er

Dr. McLellan, You are suggesting that the donor strip size is the key factor in shock loss? Dr. Bernstein said on thebaldtruth.com that it came from the making of recipient sites and the amount of epinephrine used. It is very hard to make up one's mind when doctors within the same practice haven't made up theirs! Seriously, it's time for good clinical studies. No one should be forced to take one step back to go two steps forward. Anecdotal evidence is really not enough for patients on a big issue like this. Clinical studies would be usedul, that is, unless you feel comfortable having the study commissioned by Merck to MHR of all places be the prevailing sentiment when it comes out. -?er

I really thought I'd get some heat for posting the post above this on an HT site. It was either too boring to follow or maybe people don't think it's that crazy to think something could happen soon.

Dr. Walter Unger up in Toronto has reportedly made some progress on what is known as "cell therapy". This is not hair cloning, which involves the replication of hair follicles to be able to transplant an unlimited donor supply. Cell therapy involves, as I am told, the injection of dermal papilla (I think) cells into follicles to regrow hair shafts no longer growing and to reverse miniaturization. This would amount, if clinically applicable, to a surgical cure for baldness. Dr. Unger began human studies at the University of Toronto earlier this year. He had initially injected DP cells into the human arm to look for side effects, found none, and now has injected DP cells into the scalps of his study patients to see how it works. According to another hair loss site, Unger's assistant says the results have been "excellent". That is probably a very subjective term in the context of science, so I would doubt it means they have reached or know they are capable of reaching their end goal. Dr. Unger should be updating his website early next year to account for his progress. There has also been some discussion stemming from another researcher who talked to Spencer Kobren that led Kobren to state on his show that new technologies may be forthcoming in the next two years. He was not referring to Dr. Unger. So there is a lot in the pot, so to speak. Anyone who reads this should be careful not to assume any clinical application is necessarily around the corner, although it is rather encouraging. Personally, I feel an available improvement, be it cell therapy or hair cloning, is five years away. That's my own personal guess, I can't say it's a perfectly educated one because I don't know all the research efforts being made. I encourage anyone considering a transplant to take all these things into consideration, do your research on these new technologies, and decide for yourself how it will affect or not affect your thinking about having a transplant. -?er

Dear Transplant Technician or whomever, Don't be so presumptuous as to think that just because Arfy is not an HT doctor or technician that he doesn't know a lot about transplants. He knows a little too much, unfortunately for him. Shock fallout is a real problem, one that actual patients have complained about on these types of boards but that HT doctor websites either omit completely or downplay. There was a very good, serious discussion with Dr. Parsley and a poster (AP, I think) on that very subject. Most of what Arfy says, whether I agree with how he says it or not, has come from research, his experiences, and the experiences of actual patients who post. People know he is not a doctor and that he is not a substitute for a doctor. This is, however, an industry in which many doctors have been less than forthcoming about the potential risks of the surgery. People like him therefore have a valuable role believe it or not. I might add that your post added nothing to the substantive discussion of the thread, it was merely a one-line attack on a poster, who in spite of a horrible experience, still tries to help other people. If you want to contribute to this forum, I suggest that you do it constructively rather than trying to take shots at posters trying to do good. I sincerely hope you are really a technician for one of the better surgeons who can contribute positively to this thread and others. Good discussion is important and necessary. -?er

I agree that the crown, as doctors say, should not be transplanted until and unless the front and the top extending toward the crown have been done. There is some debate among the doctor as to where the crown starts though. Bernstein says it is 150 cm sq behind the front of the hairline. Shapiro says it is 90 cm sq behind the front of the hairline. Putting that into perspective, Bernstein transplants about 2.4 inches further back than Shapiro. My impression always was the the crown starts where the skull reaches its highest point and where the hair changes direction from being going forward to going backward. It's important to understand what we consider the crown and what different doctors do. Any thoughts? Posters? Doctors? -?er

j25, I think the consensus is that the transplant route should be a last resort when and if the time is right. Remember, you may have to live with hair loss for now while you try these medications, but you might not be forced to appear to have hair loss. Some of the concealer products (Toppik if you still have a bit of hair, Prothik if you don't) can really mask the appearance of various stages of MPB. Sure, it requires some daily work, but a prematurely planned or bad HT involves daily pain and regret. And remember, women put on makeup everyday. Just because it's not real, should they be criticized? Of course not. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself when you step out the door, you should do it. Good luck. -?er

There is no way you should get a transplant as a 2A/3. The only doctors who will be willing to transplant on you are not the kind of doctors that will give you a good transplant. Go with Propecia and Rogaine and maybe even Lysine. Only Arfy can fully appreciate how right he is on this one.

Patients of his on the site, www.hairlosshelp.com have said he does not use a punch. Their word is the best we have. Woods answers questions there, as do a number of other doctors, I don't much care for the website but if you wanted to ask Woods directly there you could get your answer in more detail. The main point is that Dr. Parsley injected a poorly veiled criticism of Woods into a thread that had up to that point had nothing to do with Woods whatsoever. There was one thread on Woods he already was commenting on. I again apologize to the original poster, you asked a good question, as Parsley said, but no one will address it anymore. Don't let it discourage you from using these boards. Honestly, we all can start new threads if we want to talk about something. When someone starts a thread, it's probably important to them, so it's better not to take the thread off the topic.

I apologize to AP. Parsley's bringing Dr. Woods into a thread in which you never even hinted anything about him was low. To the other posters, Woods does not use a punch. This he has said and patients of his have said so. I don't know how he avoids transection, but he's got no legal waivers so he must be confident that you will not get damaged follicles. Imagine the potential lawsuits. At any rate, AP's question was actually a pretty good one. I apologize again to you, and hopefully you will get answers about fine hair coverage from the doctors and my fellow posters.

Dr. Parsley: That you would use a completely unrelated thread to attack Dr. Woods (who doesn't use 1mm punch, as you and your colleagues all seem to think) exemplifies that you are nothing but a ISHRS hatchet man with a medical license.