Dr Tejinder Bhatti

Dear Dr. Feller, It would appear that in your quest for the ultimate “gotcha” moment you have overlooked a small detail in such a way that I was confused as to what you felt was such a problem to call it the "cover up the likes of which has never been seen on this site". The video was edited on the link that I posted. The video you have seen fit to link to no less than five times has not been edited in any way since it was originally posted and currently has 405 views. This is the edited version, which you failed to mention still shows 30 seconds of footage without the focused blur effect. There is one link to this video on this entire thread, on my original post. This is the original, which you have linked to five times throughout this thread. The link in your five separate posts are still active and legitimate. They have not gone anywhere:) As stated, I edited the video for reasons I previously shared, which were approved by Bill, I might add. I did not remove the original and it is still available freely, in it’s unedited form. You have seen fit to link to it five times, and I’m sure you will link to it again. To your benefit, this has deflected again from the original subject matter. Remember, Dr. Feller. Stay on point☺ From your post #988 From Dr. Blake's announcement of mFUE when he was still a moderator of this forum working for you... Which is the truth? If FUE growing in popularity or is it going to continue to "sputter along"? Where is your proof that FUT is growing? You have nothing, sir, to back up your claims as per usual and your own employee/forum moderator/partner/trainee contradicts the very title of this thread with the introduction of your patent pending mFUE. However when the results of a survey are given from multiple years at the ISHRS conference, and the response continues to show FUE increasing in popularity and use, you dismiss it as unreliable. A survey is a survey and nowhere is it claimed that the survey was a scientific study. How would the survey company verify the results to begin with? Visit each clinic of the 1200 member base of the ISHRS and confirm the surgery they are performing is FUE or FUT? What have you, sir, to refute the survey results aside from your opinion? If you had something, anything, aside from just your word to refute this then there would be room for consideration, but you have nothing to present to the contrary. Where is your proof that the three forces exerted on follicular grafts are insurmountable? What is the size of the mFUE punch you are patenting. How large must it be to encompass 18 to 20 follicular units at once AND the accompanying tissue that exists between follicular units? Where is the proof that your skillset is the determining reference for how all FUE procedures will result? You have repeatedly insulted my technique of which I can handle but you appear to be of the opinion, and have stated as much, that your skillset is the pinnacle of what any other FUE surgeon can consider to be achievable and thus better survival averages are impossible. Your three detrimental forces may be insurmountable to you, sir, or perhaps they are an excuse for your shaky hand seen in your video, but until you prove they are insurmountable to everyone else that is successfully performing FUE on a daily basis you have nothing more than conjecture. You cannot prove your points. If you could, you would have by now, after 50,000 plus views and 130 pages. Instead, you point at pictures and videos and say that they prove your point but that is no different than pointing at the horizon as proof that the world is flat. The world is not flat, Dr. Feller and FUE is on the rise.

Dear Dr. Feller, According to you they all have viewed this thread and they already know of it's existence so why would you have to contact them? You will do what you wish to do. I am not in a position to stop you. However, I did not mention the names of our colleagues to support my position. It was to reinforce the question of validity of your own position as you have yet to satisfy the scientific method. Instead you would like to focus on my video, which you believe is a weak point to continue addressing and by doing so that you somehow "win". I believe you should, as you say, "stay on point" and address why you have not, cannot, prove the three forces of compression, torsion and traction as being insurmountable. To say that it is negates the work of our esteemed colleagues and myself, which counter to your many angles of attack, appear to be making a lot of patients quite happy. I suspect you will continue to play games and try to deflect from your original intent. Clearly we are seeing evidence that FUE is more popular than FUT due to the increasing rate of adoption. We also clearly see that you cannot prove your points but instead you can certainly beat your chest and finally it is clear that you can stay on point when the purpose serves your interest but you cannot stay on point once challenged with legitimate inquiry. Prove your forces are detrimental. Prove they cannot be overcome. Prove that everyone that is successful with FUE is not as successful as you claim. Prove that the detrimental forces are so detrimental that all of the satisfied patients by all of the clinics that are known for their great work are in fact rare examples which thereby represents a massive, industry wide fraud of which you have decided to speak out against.

Dear Dr. Feller, The extent at which you go to insult professionalism and ethics is astounding. You must present proof that the three forces you state are so detrimental that they cannot be overcome. You have had over 100 pages of opportunity to do so yet instead of satisfying the demand of proof by the scientific method you point fingers (very shaky ones at that) and present hypothetical, if not fantastical, ideas that involve CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS??? Absolutley astounding behaviour from a "professional". The issue regarding my video is one of efficiency. It was shot, impromptu, and uploaded. With time I had it shortened because fifteen minutes is just too long. In fact, ten minutes is too long but I wanted to maintain the integrity of the documentation. The "blur" effect forces attention on the surgery. Finally, the edit allowed the addition of new information such as the type of forceps we use that were specifically designed to PREVENT crushing of grafts. Had you attended a conference in the past ten years you would know more about such tools that make survivability easier to achieve. What you fail to understand is that whatever you say about my technique is irrelevant because you have not proven your initial points about how the forces you are discussing are so detrimental that a steady hand cannot overcome them. To introduce the subject of class action lawsuits is beneath you, sir, but perhaps understandable when there is nothing else to say. Fortunately such references do not apply to me because one thing is missing from such a scenario that would make such lawsuits worthy of consideration. That missing ingredient is a list of unhappy patients and that sir is why everything you have presented thus far is nothing more than conjecture. Your "facts" are conjecture. Your detrimental forces are conjecture as is your critique of my procedure. You however have an obviously shaky hand which explains why FUE is not a good procedure for your patients and why you and Dr. Blake have orchestrated this campaign to spread fear and doubt about FUE while your mFUE is the perfect, and patent pending I might add, solution to the woes of the hair transplant patient community; woes that are so horrible that no one actually knows they exist! "FUE scarring with FUT yield" even though FUE scarring is "worse" than FUT. How does that work again? I implore you, sir. Prove that "compression, torsion, traction" are detrimental to every FUE practioner to the point that they cannot be overcome. Prove that Dr. Feriduni, whom Spex also represents, Dr. Lupanzula, Dr. Lorenzo, Dr. Erdogan, Dr. Bisanga, Dr. Mwamba, Dr. Vories, Dr. Diep, Dr. Rahal, Dr. Devroye, Dr. Karadeniz, Dr. Umar and the many other doctors (now including respected Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong) that have added FUE to a significant level in their practice or have COMPLETELY switched to FUE entirely, are wrong. Prove that all of these esteemed doctors do not have better hands, stable hands, compared to you and the forces you say are impossible to overcome with conventional tools has not been overcome. Prove that these forces are negative enough to warrant the need for special tools that have yet to be invented. Prove your points, sir. You have not, you cannot and you shall not, and until then this is simply an emotional outburst because of your shrinking surgical schedule and a marketing endeavor for your Hail Mary for relevance. Mr. Home1212, Indeed, very well said. Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong were the last recognized and respected stalwarts of FUT in the industry and yet here we are. They have recently posted a lovely preliminary photoset showing over 1000 grafts performed in a single day. Surely, if FUE was riddled with so many forces of detriment that cannot be overcome then they would have continued their path of offering excellent FUT only, yes? Could it be that they have used their considerbale dexterous abilities to overcome such insurmountable obstacles as "torsion, compression, traction"? I believe they have and the very existence of FUE in thier practice, to the point of it being advertised on their website, nullifies the very facade of this "debate." Mr. Swooping just posted a very telling graph, which echoes the information and the trend that was mentioned from the meeting in San Francisco in 2013. FUE is on the rise and FUT is on the decline with only a 1.5 percent usage gap between the two methods. The 2015 survey is based on information gathered from 2014 so with the increasing adotpion rate year over year I proclaime 2015 as "The Year of FUE" as it will be revealed in the next meeting that this is the year that FUE is overtaking FUT as the "most popular" procedure. Dr. Feller will dismiss this information as invalid for one reason or another. He and his new partner Dr. Blake have already said so in previous posts. The problem is that while there may be flaws in the numbers of the survey, it is still a survey, which is far more than Dr. Feller and Dr. Bloxham have presented as a counter. Good day.

As far as "theories" go I believe I have presented more evidence to support my position about motive than have been presented to support claims of the three or four forces and why they are so "detrimental" that a steady hand cannot overcome them. At the 13 second and 17 second mark of the video the hand is shown to be very unsteady, almost shaking, during the initial injury to the tissue. The shaft of the rotary punch is far too long with the weight of the rotary mechanism too high to have proper balance. To understand what I am talking about anyone reading this can take a standard #2 pencil and hold it near the end close to the erasure. Try to slowly insert the pencil point into a 1mm hole. Compare that attempt to holding the pencil behind the tip and inserting the tip into the same 1mm hole. The difference in accuracy and stability is substantial. This reveals why you feel that your detrimental forces are so detrimental. It also supports the need for you to develop a variation of punch plug grafting to compensate for what we see in the video and how it affects your FUE yield. Why grab one at a time with so little room for error when you can remove twenty at once and close the wound with sutures? It requires far less dexterity, accuracy and effort. Considering the size of the wound necessary to remove 20 follicular units at one time, along with the spacing of tissue in between each of the 20 follicular units, I can see the need for more comprehensive wound management. Dr. Bloxham joining your practice after working with you behind the scenes while presenting himself to be an unbiased moderator, your sudden re-emergence into the forum after a full year and a half of silence (Jan 2014 to June 2015) and the subsequent and sudden war campaign against FUE by you both, along with Dr. Lindsey's support (whom is also your partner) is understandably suspect especially when we factor in the “patent pending” mFUE. I'm sure if you take a moment to step outside of yourself and look in you will find it difficult to disagree with how it looks. If this is just the consequence of bad timing and it is all one incredible large coincidence then I'll be the first to acknowledge the misinterpretation. One step that can be taken to clarify this matter is to explain how Dr. Bloxham remained unbiased and impartial as a moderator of this forum while he was working with you behind the scenes, developing this "new" technique known as "mFUE" and working on your financial arrangement that allows him to call you his partner. Was Dr. Bloxham being compensated for his time as an unbiased moderator while he was actively working with you? Dr. Bloxham admitted that your relationship began a number of years ago and you and he have been working together since. I've pointed out the time frame that Dr. Bloxham's "opinion" was changing which was also the time that he was working, undisclosed I will remind, with you. As a physician making a monthly financial contribution for membership to this forum, along with the dozens of other respected physician members, I would like an explanation why we were not informed from the beginning. Was this arrangement revealed to Bill and Mr. Pat? I do not believe it was, as I believe they would have noted the conflict of interest and would not want to put in jeopardy the excellent reputation of this forum. All of this explains why there is nothing more than conjecture about the three detrimental forces being discussed with zero actual proof. It also explains why Dr. Feller has emerged from his long forum hibernation at the same time that mFUE (and the patent pending status) were announced along with the new partnership with Dr. Bloxham. As soon as there is any actual proof that the three stated forces are so detrimental that a steady hand cannot overcome them then I will respond. Until then we have other facts that go far in describing the real proof regarding mFUE and the FUE procedure it endeavors to replace, patent pending.

Dear Dr. Feller, The Beehner study had nothing to do with FUE. It was a study comparing chubby grafts vs. skeletonized grafts from SUBDIVIDING follicular units. FUE had no part in the study therefore you cannot make assumptions. It does however show a trend of you making claims with no scientific proof and modifying reality to match the truth that you wish for people to believe. Skeletonization is not one of the three "detrimental" forces you have been trying to convince everyone are so important and you still have not proven the three forces (or it is four now with skeletonized grafts?) are so detrimental that they cannot be overcome. It is your responsibilty to back up your claims with the proof and until then it is only your opinion. Would you mind addressing the issue of how your absolute assault on FUE as a primary treatment coincides with the announcement by Dr. Blake that you and he are partners and the announcement of "mFUE"? Four controversial threads were started by you or Dr. Blake in a two week window. The announcement of your partnership, the announcement of "mFUE", the comparison of "Strip vs. FUE vs. mFUE" and "FUT is more popular than FUE". Would you also mind clarifying if Dr. Blake was working with you behind the scenes while he was an "unbiased" moderator for HRN? Post #5 in the following thread is where I believe Dr. Blake's "opinion" began to change; http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178376-my-public-service-announcement.html "I've had the opportunity over the last year, however, to really start observing and interacting with live hair transplant procedures, and my opinion changed. I've come to the conclusion that FUE yields are simply more variable. The extraction method itself just puts a lot of stress and strain on super fragile mini-organs, and the failure rate is simply much higher. These grafts just are not as viable as grafts carefully dissected under microscopes. " "However, I like taking this thought process one step further. What we really need to do is figure out a way to obtain strip-level yield with FUE-level scarring. This, in my opinion, should be the goal." Poster Scar5 seems to have an almost prophetic outlook on Dr. Blake's post; "People have said FUE grafts are more vulnerable for decades. Of course we all want FUE scarring and strip yield. So ask what the post is really about." What was it "really about"? Dr. Blake addresses Scar5; " I studied the theoretical aspects of FUE for a number of years. Throughout this process, I convinced myself it was a superior procedure and produced growth on par with strip. In the real world, however, this theory simply didn't hold weight. Now that I've seen this stuff "first hand," I've come to realizations that guys like Dr. Feller came to years ago - as they were in the "hands on" phase during that time and I was still reading about FUE in textbooks." Two months later we have an official announcement; "After two years of training, Dr. Feller and I decided to continue our relationship and partner in a new practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplant Surgery." Dr. Blake was presenting himself to be an unbiased moderator of this forum while working with Dr. Feller in the background and then forming a partnership. This partnership was in motion well before the partnership announcement as was the creation of "mFUE" which, as evidenced by previous comments by Dr. Blake, was in development for quite some time where the reason for Dr. Blake's conversion of thought was motivated by his secret partnership with Dr. Feller. Now we have this multi-angle marketing strategy to divide and conquer. Deflect away from mFUE, villify FUE and present FUT as the superior option then bring mFUE to the forefront as the perfect compromise, which is being patented by the way. I think it is clear why after multiple (maybe a dozen?) requests for proof of these "detrimental forces" via the standard known as the SCIENTIFIC METHOD we still have deflection, avoidance and insults. Dr. Feller was, quite literally, silent from January 2014 up until the announcement of mFUE and his partnership with Dr. Blake in June, 2015. One need only perform a search for his posting history to see the 1.5 year gap. Kind regards, Dr Tejinder Bhatti

Sharing information and opinions are great. We all have them and we all have our rights to share them. However, to state opinions as facts without any proof, and then to insult and attack those that disagree with the unproven facts BECAUSE they are unproven is another story altogether. As medical professionals, if we make statements of fact, we must prove them to be true. Dr. Feller has not done this and every time the scientific method is mentioned, which is the underlying basis for every high school level science paper, he simply ignores it. Why? The answer is simple. He knows that this is his opinion and more so he knows he cannot prove his claims. Further, two weeks before this thread was started Dr. Blake opened a new thread: "INTRODUCING: Modified FUE (mFUE)" In this thread the "new" procedure known as "mFUE" miraculously gives "FUE type scarring with FUT type yield". But throughout this entire thread, that Dr. Feller has boasted has so many views to validate his claims, he has been villifying FUE scarring as being so absolutely horrendous that we are all fools with "learning disabilities" for not understanding the level of damage it is causing. How ironic, and convenient at the same time, that the very thing that he says is so detrimental about FUE is 1/2 of the strength of his new procedure called "mFUE"! What's unusual is that Dr. Feller did not make a single post in the thread "introducing" mFUE. The thread formation and all posts for 18 pages were left up to his partners Dr. Blake and Dr. Lindsey. Dr. Feller was resigned to being the bulldog in this thread instead. The insults, the grandstanding, and the twisting of words all lead up to one very obvious strategy. Attack and discredit FUE and those that specialize in it with UNSUBSTANTIATED claims that fly in the face of the scientific method while offering the solution to the problem at the same time. DISPhair said " It's not like he (Dr. Feller) gets a royalty every time a FUT procedure is performed and thus would have an interest against FUE." That is because nothing about FUT is patented but... "As far as presenting mFUE, while Dr. Bloxham made a presentation with some very broad strokes online, there are some aspects that we still can't discuss yet as it will interfere with the patent process. Dr. Feller" Two plus two equals four. It is my opinion, and the evidence supports my opinion, that this is a valiant but thin effort to develop business for mFUE. Claims about FUE and the three detrimental forces being so detrimental are not proven and all we have is discussion and any non-believers have "learning disabilities". Kind regards, Dr Tejinder Bhatti

I'll address each point: "1. There are thousands of FUT patients for every one FUE patient so it is absurd by the numbers. To not understand this is to either be disingenuous or suffering from a severe learning disability. " "Thousands" of FUT to each FUE? From where do you find such a statistic? I have 300 patients per year so if there is a single thousand per every one of my own patients it means that there are 300,000 FUSS cases being performed each year worldwide and that is compared to my clinic alone. To compare it to the HUNDREDS of clinics (per the ISHRS statistics) then I think your statement is contains a slight degree of embellishment, no? 2. I nor anybody else offers to repair moth eaten FUE donor areas or failed growth in recipient areas. He's asking for me to present patients who visit me for a repair procedure that isn't performed and one that I don't offer. No, I'm asking you to present your patients, regardless of their past procedures (if any), to show us how often you have patients that come in that happen to have bad FUE scarring as you claim. So far you have shown zero but instead have to pull images from random internet sources to back up your statement. I on the other hand have shown you my patients with, zero filtration, on a daily basis now. "3. He conflates people visiting him for FUE services who have simply had FUT in the past with patients seeing REPAIR from him. In reality, these patients just want more grafts in their recipient area." Call it what you will, repair or addition, it is irrelevant. They have come to me and I am sharing their cases for the sake of sharing. "4. None of the patients he showed with the Tribune slapped in front of it demonstrated a recipient area "repair" or a donor area "repair". He didn't fill a single scar with FUE, although in two of his photos the patients could have benefited from such FUE repair-which is one thing I believe large FUE is designed for." Again, it is to show what kind of patients walk through my doors on a daily basis. You miss the point, sir and instead you are offering excuses and fictitious statistics. "As far as bad FUE scarring from megasession FUE being a rare occurrence, I can assure you the opposite is true. ALL patients with megasession FUE have massive scar tissue. If the patient was selected properly and had enough donor density then the scarring can be hidden with some hair. But if the patient wasn't filtered properly, as most are not, you are left with a destroyed donor area and very thin hair left, if any , to cover it." It is just as much an issue for the patient to filter the clinic as it is for the clinic to filter the patient, which is why you are seeing the images that you have to search the internet for. Properly performed FUE will leave scarring, of course, just like any time one receives a paper cut or a scalpel cut, but the difference between a good clinic and a bad clinic is tremendous, which is my point to begin with. This issue you call a "confluence of scarring" is the result of larger punches used too close to each other and that is why you have such images to post to begin with. I'll remind you that you have yet to prove that the three "detrimental forces" are in fact detrimental and cannot be overcome. This is your responsibility before it becomes mine to disprove. Until then we have visual evidence to show that your theory, and it is a theory, is wrong. Best regards, Dr. Tejinder Bhatti

"gbhscot" I do not feel when you ask such a question you will ever get an honest answer. It is also true that if a hysician were to give an honest answer, you may not believe it! Therefore, the best way to study the scarring produced by FUE and FUT is to post cases coming to you every single day. Like for instance this 53 years old patient of March 2015 who received 3200 scalp grafts and 403 beard grafts for the hairline and midscalp and who is here with me today for coverage of his crown area. You can clearly see the FUE scars. Even if you wear a size #1 trim hair, the scars will not be visible like an FUT scar would.You can also see the beard donor area. And mind you he has darker skin characteristics. And compare him to my patient of last week whose picture I am again posting to show how a Caucasian scars after an FUE. Honestly, in my practice, and in that of leading FUE surgeons the world over, I do not see much scarring in FUE as compared to similar subsets who have undergone FUT. Dr Feller's pictures are culled from the internet and this is not a statement on the state of FUE today.

Lileli, thank you for appreciating.

Bill, The point is that Dr. Feller was saying that bad FUE scarring is a normal occurrence. I offered an opportunity to show these cases as they come in, in real time, as he must be seeing these cases in person else he would not have any legitimate reason to make such a statment. This is what I have been doing to show the mix of cases I get on a daily basis, verified with the newspaper date in the images. These are not "results" as you put it but rather pre-operative photos to show the state of the donor region as the patient comes in. They are not cherry picked, they are not selected. They are what they are, random and mor importnatly, daily. That is the very crux of the argument by Dr. Feller, that there is so much bad scarring from FUE so I have set the stage for him and I to back up at least this part of our respective points with the necessary visual evidence. When he asked me to take up his challenge to disprove the 3 forces I did participate. Now it is his turn to reciprocate. That would be a gentleman he is. However, if you wish me to stop posting, I will honor the forum; but with a note of dissent on record. Bill, As far as marketing is concerned, I don't even use a link to my website in my signature block. Also, it is also a fact that I was not too eager to join this thread. You know that. Best wishes.

Strip surgery in a 57 years old done for 3000 grafts. Guess, just about 300 grew! Surgery done outside Asia 4 years ago. Redo using FUE technique since he is "fully stripped out!" The only benefit I feel of being "fully stripped out" is that the scalp donor skin is so tight that you do not need an assistant to give counter traction to the skin while harvesting using FUE technique. See video- https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=C1v3gbTbc64&video_referrer=watch

Poorly done FUE procedure with pluggy look. One year back! If you think the world has gotten over pluggy grafts,think again. Moral for the Day- Both FUT and FUE doctors keep churning out bad cases every single day.

The following post shows an everyday FUE megasession scar- http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179786-fut-more-popular-than-fue-84.html My Case of the Day of August 17, 2015. Picture is again attached.

haha! Fewer extractions do not mean moving away from megasessions... ... Fewer extractions mean moving to Dr Feller! Just joking!!

This is not a MEGASESSION! I agree it is a very bad scar, Dr Feller. And unacceptable. Is this is a case that came to you today? Even if it is picked from your library of scars, an FUE scar should never be like that. The problems here are not in the healing but in the technique- 1. Punch size is clearly over 1 mm. In Caucasians the ideal punch diameter is 0.75 mm and no greater. 2. Each punch scoring has been made adjacent to the previous without leaving adequate intervening bridge of skin. Ideally we must leave one follicular grouping between 2 adjacent punches or else the thin bridge will necrose and the punches become confluent leading to confluence of scars which make then appear “moth eaten” or “rat chewed”. This is highly preventable and is not due to healing but because of bad technique. 3. Lastly he may have poor growth since nape of the neck hair is mostly not DHT resistant.

This healthy Caucasian patient received a strip surgery 5 years ago in East Europe from a lesser known clinic. Poor growth and a 10 cm long strip scar that is 2.0 cms wide is evident. He has been wearing a hair piece ever since. Due to a restricted residual scalp donor, only 1207 scalp FUE grafts were harvested as planned for the hairline alone. He has decided to wear a hair piece behind the natural hairline for life. "No shave" FUE technique camouflaging the strip scar was used since he returns to work on Monday.

FUE hair transplant donor site in the immediate post procedure period in the clinic. This Indian origin patient received 2453 scalp grafts for type 3 MPB yesterday. 8 hours procedure. The patient is going back home to Brooklyn tomorrow evening. The benefit of FUE- low downtime,

Minimally invasive procedure with minimal downtime of recovery. This Caucasian patient received 2876 scalp grafts for type 3 MPB yesterday. Jim Harris' Safe Scribe system for harvest. (8 hour procedure). The donor area is shown. Note the ability to harvest large graft counts keeping strictly in the safe permanent donor zone. Lower the "out of body time" for grafts, better the growth. Speed is essential to a well done FUE procedure. Patient will be going for a week long holiday in the Himalayas tomorrow where he wishes to trek.

"Rawkerboi"- There is no dispute on your statement. There are great FUT surgeons like Dr Wong, Dr Feller and Dr Rahal who give great results as are great FUE doctors around the world. What is being stressed here is- 1. FUE today is safe effective and reproducible in experienced hands since it has overcome the 3 forces of traction torsion and compression. 2. It is today a standalone procedure in its own right and a patient need not be stripped out before knocking on the FUE doctor's door. 3. Hair transplant patients are today embracing the FUE technique in ever increasing numbers. 4. This is because it is a minimally invasive procedure. 5. FUE scars are almost indistinct as compared to FUT scars. The latter point is being presently stressed by showing day-to- day strip scars which I come across in my practice. (If you observe I show each patient with the day's newspaper). I have asked Dr Feller to do the same for FUE scars but he has not taken up my challenge. I am not insulting the intelligence of respected members by picking up scars from the internet. They know they just have to search the phrase "hair transplant scars" and the images will start to load. I have till now restrained myself from tapping into my 100s of pictures of scar repairs. It is not fair since both FUE and FUT will have complications in the occasional patients. However if we do not come across these complications in day to day practice, they are insignificant. FUT is still the gold standard; but FUE surgery has come of age and is almost there to claim the title. That is why FUT surgeons become shifty and start threads like this with the preconceived disingenuous invention with a mischievous intention- " FUT is more popular...##*%#@$$^!!...... mFUE."

This is with full hair- www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJTXIzcCn0I&feature=em-upload_owner

Today's patient- received an FUT megasession some years back for his balding outside Asia. He has come for filling of his large crown area and possible scar correction.

Will need more advice from you tomorrow when I post tomorrow's strip scar.

Well said, "HTsoon". I have another patient coming in tomorrow for the procedure with an earlier strip surgery done. Let's see how his scar shows up after #1 trim. FUT done by a reputed FUT surgeon. No names. I never mention 'em too. Best.

David, Still no acknowledgement of Dr Feller- that he bears the burden of proof that the forces of physics are as detrimental as you claim. His melodramatics are entertaining but he has not addressed the lack of proof behind his many MANY words. Perhaps if he says it enough then it will become proof enough? Instead he attacks, attacks and then attacks some more. No one is right, everyone is wrong. Medicine at it's finest! I don't wish him to do FUE- Just send validated contemporary pictures of the repair work he claims he does on many many FUE patients. He has one score FUE clinics around his Great Neck. Best wishes.

I fully agree "Rawkerboi" and that is the gist of my post.