Dr Tejinder Bhatti

"fortune11" speed is the singlemost essential factor which gives FUE in general and FUE megasessions in particular a higher yield almost comparable to FUT.

You hit the nail on the head "lileli". Thank you for bringing up the topic. Most practitioners do not understand this since they consider a mere 1000 FUE grafts as megasessions. What I have shown in the video is a megasession, more than 5 times the size of this definition done over 2 days. If there is no speed, the viability of grafts shall go down and will lead to poor growth and eventual yield will suffer. This is the reason why most clinics have not been able to improve their FUE yield. The video is proof that in my practice and in those of many leading FUE megasession hair transplant clinics worldwide, the 3 forces alluded to do not occur. It is evident from the excellent FUT-like growth we routinely get and publish. Also, please consider the fact that the "stack" of before and after pictures have not been posted by my clinic but by happy patients themselves. You may be happy to know that well researched and discerning members of this forum have appreciated my posting this impromptu video. I have received unprecedented enquiries from prospective clients in the last 3 days!

Thank you, David. Good to know I was not 'brutal' with you!

Dr Feller count the grafts here... how many have not grown in your opinion. What is the yield you think? The details of the case are at- Please note that a conversation of cross recriminations is not the right way to proceed scientifically. I challenge you to share your FUE case of the day every single day till this thread is alive and kicking and I will reciprocate. Lets see what bad cases you get daily from FUE, Please post and show and so will I. Let the members on the forum decide for themselves. Plain rhetoric has no place on this thread. Members want to see real stuff now. They are bored of your semantics. See the TRP rating of this thread has begun to dip. Lets breathe some life into it, Sir. We all want to see the FUE cases you get so commonly with bad scars. You show yours in realtime and I will mine. Respectfully,

As we all know the best in one field cannot be compared with the worst in another. Traction, torsion and compression does not happen in my practice but Dr Feller will not understand. Scars of FUE are minimally apparent when compared to the best strip scars. For instance see this FUE case I am doing today. He underwent an FUE procedure around 2800 grafts 11 months back. He is a young Caucasian male who has come for some addition of density (500 grafts only) in the midscalp area where he has started to bald. His result after one year of FUE is at- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCKu...k&spfreload=10 Dr. Bhatti- 2889 FUE grafts for hairline, midscalp and temples - Forum By and for Hair Loss Patients I show his scars clicked today. And he is just a random case from today's surgeries (the newspaper proves that) and not picked from my large storehouse collection of FUE/FUT scars. You can also see the other patient I did a few weeks back. We posted his pictures yesterday- http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180591-dr-bhatti-1800-fue-grafts-patient-intense-scarring.html Comparisons are odious you would say !

Spanker, I thought of this very same thing. Problem is there is so much variation from inch to inch on the scalp in the same person that it wouldn't be valid. However, in a full chapter dedicated to the subject of graft survival in the fourth edition of Unger/Shaprio's text Segar and Beehner did independent studies on survival rates for chubbier FUT grafts vs. thinner FUT grafts very similar to your suggestion and found, predictably, that the chubbier grafts grew far better. That is to say, the thinner ones did not grow as well. Since thin grafts produced by avulsion and injury during the FUE process are by definition more traumatized than FUT grafts purposefully cut thin I think it is safe to conclude without clinical experimentation that FUE grafts start at a great disadvantage over their FUT counterparts. " The Beehner study was focusing on skinny vs. chubby grafts for implantation with the focus being from FUSS. FUE was not a factor in this study so while one may make "assumptions" it is better to have actual involvement of the procedure you wish to critique rather than draw conclusions from an unrelated study. Writing in a text book versus viewing quantifiable results with one's own eyes is hardly the preferred method of observational science, which is what hair restoration is all about. Had you been at the 2013 conference in San Francisco you would have learned about the patient described by Dr. Limmer. One half of his patient's scalp was addressed via FUSS, the other side via FUE. The point of the discussion was to showcase the first, and to that time, the only side by side direct comparison of methods on the same patient by the same hand. The results favored the side that was addressed via FUE. The result was fuller, had stronger visible density and coverage than that of the side that received the FUSS procedure. To say that such an experiment would be invalid due to the high degree of variance "from inch to inch on the scalp in the same person" discredits every successful hair transplant result on the planet. If we are to believe such a variance exists, to the degree that it would affect any final outcome, then it is indicating that the theory of donor dominance is rubbish and that the recipient sites overwhelmingly influence the result, not the viability of the donor hair being transplanted. Your methodology is of extreme suspect. Best.

Ofcourse, Dr Feriduni is a great FUE surgeon. But more importantly, a gentleman and a good human being.

To clarify, the "truth" I speak of that is staring us in the face is the hand of Dr. Feller and his unusually long and unbalanced FUE punch extension, which, consequently does not appear to be in use by any FUE practioner that I know of nor have I heard of it either. But the real truth that you and the other respected readers should consider is the result that is achieved on a consistent basis by top FUE physicians. The argument being presented here by Dr. Feller is entirely academic, if that, and amounts to nothing more than the opinion of one doctor with zero evidence to support, much less prove, his assertions. This is the fact, not the lone opinions he presents. I cannot stress enough that in science and medicine claims must be reinforced by the scientific method. If the claims being made here were presented in a proper medical venue as they have been in these 70 plus pages of drivel Dr. Feller would have been shown the door for lack of evidence, not to mention misconduct. But this is a forum "for and by patients" but in reality it is also a marketing vehicle in which claims do not necessarily need to be so scrutinized as validation tends to come in the form of anonymous approval and is not subject to proper medical and scientific inspection. In medicine, debates are not won by determining who is the loudest and wittiest, it is determined by a centuries old investigative ethic that starts with an idea and is supported by repeated observation and logical deduction. That is the truth and is why video and photos are so supportive of this process. The video I presented was not a 'cherry picked' production. As Bill requested it was made in direct response just two days ago. My photos, as numerous as they are, are no more selective than any other clinic and I feel honored to have any photos at all as it only indicates patient satisfaction. However, in addition to my own photos there are plenty of those offered by my patients independently of what is found on my website and that is the ulimate compliment, not to mention validation, of what I and my wonderful team accomplish on a regular basis. I could scream, bully and kick about this for 70 plus pages but I'd rather just show the evidence. For instance- 3750 grafts. Patient recently posted a 2.5 year post-op update http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/169005-hair-restoration-procedure-w-dr-tejinder-bhatti.html ................................................................................................... 1821 grafts. 4 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178929-1821-grafts-%7C-dr-tejinder-bhatti-%7C-march-23rd-2015-a-3.html .................................................................................................... 2412 grafts for David (HRN Moderator). 5 months post-op update http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178637-dr-tejinder-bhatti-2412-fue-february-23-2015-a.html ....................................................................................................... 3305 grafts. 7 months pos-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178931-my-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-oct-2014-a-11.html ............................................................................................................. 2640 grafts. 4 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178898-dr-bhatti-20-year-old-patient-2640-grafts-4.html ....................................................................................................... 2560 grafts for a female Patient. 1 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180338-dr-bhatti-2560-fue-grafts-female-patient.html ............................................................................................................ 1854 grafts. 5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178723-my-hair-transplant-dr-tejinder-bhatti-1854-grafts-fue-february-24-2015-a-3.html ..................................................................................... 2364 grafts. 16 month post-op update Hair Restoration Websites ............................................................................................. 3567 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180047-dr-bhatti-3567-fue-grafts.html ................................................................................................. 2712 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179986-2712-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-10-months-update.html ............................................................................................................... 4000 grafts. 15 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/167897-hair-transplant-dr-tejinder-bhatti-darling-buds-chandigarh-india.html ............................................................................................................. 3678 grafts. 1 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178911-dr-bhatti-3678-fue-grafts-single-session.html ........................................................................................................ 2812 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178924-dr-bhatti-2810-fue-grafts-define-hairline.html ............................................................................................................. 3700 grafts. 2 years post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178355-dr-bhatti-3700-fue-grafts-restore-hairline-crown-area.html ................................................................................................... 2883 grafts. 2 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178372-dr-bhatti-2883-fue-grafts-indian-celebrity-patient.html ....................................................................................................... 1766 grafts. 7.5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178268-dr-bhatti-1766-fue-grafts-restore-hairline.html ................................................................................................................... 2453 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176579-dr-bhatti-2453-grafts-traction-alopecia-patient.html ................................................................................................................... 2472 grafts. 11 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177612-dr-bhatti-2472-fue-grafts-type-3-patient.html .............................................................................................................. 2432 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175802-my-hair-transplant-2432-fue-grafts-done-dr-tejinder-bhatti-5.html ........................................................................................................ 1106 grafts http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177597-dr-bhatti-1106-fue-grafts-hairline-definition-temple-point-restoration.html ........................................................................................................... 3420 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175073-dr-bhatti-3420-grafts-2.html ................................................................................................................... 876 grafts. 15 monhths post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177260-dr-bhatti-876-fue-grafts-restore-hairline.html ............................................................................................................... 1394 grafts. 9.5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177038-9-5months-update-dr-bhatti-i-am-happy.html ................................................................................................... 3000 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176934-dr-bhatti-3000-fue-grafts-single-session.html ........................................................................................................ 800 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176081-dr-bhatti-800-fue-grafts-burn-patient.html ........................................................................................................... 2675 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176578-dr-bhatti-2675-grafts-type-3-patient.html ............................................................................................................... 2304 grafts. 4 months post-pp http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/174644-2304-grafts-fue-dr-bhatti.html ......................................................................................................... 4346 grafts. 12 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170853-4346-fue-grafts-dr-bhatti-india.html

Thanks for the links HTsoon. Very enlightening! Dr Feller should thank his stars he does not have this senior doctor to contest Dr Feller's claims!! LOL!! Do you get what I mean?!

I believe that after watching your video, Sir, I am in a much better position than you would have the readers believe. You have yet to address the scientific method and the fact that it demands that you prove your claims before one can disprove your claims. That is the very foundation of modern science which you obviously believe will somehow change if you ignore it. What we have observed in this thread thus far are the following: 1. Dr. Feller made a statement of fact that "FUT is more popular than FUE". This is akin to saying that coal is more popular than alternative fuels. It is misleading because if one technology is much older, thus having time to become ingrained in society as the norm, it does not mean that it is more popular. It means it is more convenient. I'm sure it could have been said at one point in history that horse & buggies were more popular than internal combustion vehicles. 2. Dr. Feller has made a statement of fact that there are three "detrimental" forces on individual follicular units as a direct result of the procedure known as FUE; torsion, traction and compression. The scientific method demands, by definition, that he prove these forces not only exist but more so that they are so detrimental that they cannot be overcome. It is his responsibility to prove his position. I have done my best to prove otherwise. My posting the video which shows that skilled technique and speed of harvest and plantation (Rapid FUE harvest) give consistently good results for FUE megasessions in my hands. The results seldom vary since I do not hire fly-by-night technicians - all extractions on all my patients till date have been done by me ; and therefore my procedure for megasessions is pretty much standardised. There is a reason why megasessions have to be quick. My approach for lesser sessions (<3000 grafts) is pretty much different and I shall post a case for under 3000 grafts very soon. In this video I shall show through professionally taken close-ups how there is not the slightest torsion and that grafts are merely being picked up and seldom pulled after they pop out with minimally invasive 1.5 mm scoring by the punch. 3. Dr. Feller is the only doctor in the world that says, even preaches, that these forces are so detrimental that yield is, at best, 75% if performed by Dr. Lorenzo (as stated before his most recent edit) and if his opinion is to be believed Dr. Lorenzo is at the top of the yield game. I happen to believe Dr. Lorenzo is an excellent FUE specialist but his yield, as is my own and that of many others, is significantly higher than "75% at best". If it were any less it would get reflected in the final density achieved- the final density would be 25% lesser.! Which it is not! Our results are at par with those of FUT. 4. Many FUE physicians have demonstrated, on a regular basis, excellent results for several years. Dr. Feller's claim is that these results are rare and they would have been much better (at least 20% better to get to 95% yield based on his Dr. Lorenzo reference) had the procedure been FUSS instead of FUE. If 75% is the top tier of what one can expect, what does Dr. Feller tell his FUE patients to expect for yield? Or is it that Dr. Feller feels his FUE is as good as the recognized leaders in the field, the ones that perform FUE day in and day out, and he tells his patients to not expect more than 75% from his own FUE procedure? 5. Dr. Feller is implying that every other doctor that makes claims of high yield from FUE, including Dr. Vories and myself, are either mistaken or even being dishonest about the procedure we offer our patients and that somehow the "silence" by the FUE community at large is affirmation of his claims overall. In science and medicine, silence by those that are being attacked does not prove one's attack is valid. For those patients of FUE doctors that are reading this now, understand that he is saying you have been mislead, intentionally or otherwise, by your physician, and even with your excellent results that you are happy with you should understand that you should have expected more with FUSS. The very notion of this possibility is so incredible that it defies convention. I believe I have actual evidence of why Dr. Feller has such a low opinion of FUE that is more powerful and telling than all 70 plus pages of his opinions combined. One need only view his 2009 video to show that the issues he blames for his low FUE yield are due more likely to his shaky hand. If one is not aligning the punch with the follicle properly and the punch with a SHARP cutting edge is wavering so much side to side before an injury is attempted, low yield makes perfect sense. The truth is staring us all in the face.

"fortune 11", it is unusual that the forces are transferred that far. You seem to have a soft pliable scalp to have experienced this. However if it did happen and the wrinkles came back after 30 days, the stress was transmitted elsewhere- some other place bore the brunt- either the crown expanded a bit or the strip scar became wider. Forces get transmitted since the whole edifice of the scalp is based on loose areolar tissue which glides easily and hence any tension will be transmitted to areas far removed. After a facelift a plastic surgeon conceals his scars behind the ear and in the temple area. These scars are along relaxed skin tension lines. This is the reason why facelifts need to be revised only after 6 years when skin folds reappear. However, in the case of the strip, the scar undergoes maximum tension when muscles under the skin that are directed at right angles to the scar, contract to exert their pull. In most tight scalps, the patient complains of a widening of the scalp after the procedure. Please do not misunderstand here when I say the crown stretches- not all crowns stretch. Also only 40% of the stretching force is transmitted elsewhere. That is what I said in my earlier post and what Dr Feller misquoted. I request members who are undergoing strip surgery to measure their crowns before and after the procedure. That is when the truth will come out. Take for example this patient whose procedure I did today after one strip surgery done at the clinic of a ‘recommended’ FUT surgeon. He complained that his crown became larger and just after one procedure. To validate that I do not refer back to my library for such posts I have taken his picture alongwith today morning’s newspaper!

Thank you, Dr. Feller, for your continued opinion of FUE in general and your insulting comments about my FUE specifically. I was hoping that the discussion would not degrade to such a point but I suppose that is the manner in which you feel you need to conduct yourself. Well done, Sir! To address the two videos you presented. From 2002... I would expect a slow process since it was 2002 and you yourself were very new to the procedure. From five years ago... My impromptu video, obviously, comes as a complete surprise to you since you never once imagined a megasession FUE procedure could be done without much transection, torsion and compression, and with great speed ( all hallmarks of a minimally invasive procedure) the 3 bugbears in your FUE practice. May I , Sir, suggest 4 points in your technique that you need to change if you wish to negate these 3 physical forces (torsion , traction and compression) in your practice that you are so petrified of- 1. I watched this video three times to figure out why your hand appears to shake before the punch sinks into the tissue. I believe it is from the length of the extension from the hand piece that prevents proper balance. The hand must be nearer to the punch to better guide and control the application without a shaky touch. Perhaps this is why you have formed the opinion which you are so voraciously defending. Compare this to my punch. It is a mere 3 mm long (not 4 mm as you presume it to be). Please use modern day punches and it should be just fine. 2. More detrimental with your technique is the time spent under the skin around the graft with the punch engaging it for a full 4 + seconds or even more. Contrast it to with technique- my punch remains inside for just half a second. So you are spending 10 times more time inside the skin making your grafts do a merry go round- what you call torsion. This badly wrings the graft like you would a towel. On the contrary, Sir, not a single one of my grafts seem to undergo torsion. You can see them popping out after the punch engages with them a mere 1.5 mm! Can you see them undergo torsion. No you cannot. It is there for all to see. 3. Third but the most important is the fact that your punch goes in about 5 mm under the skin. A sure shot recipe for the damnable force of torsion in your hands. This is another reason you are discouraged by your FUE technique. To each his own Dr Feller. You are a brilliant FUT surgeon but I am not convinced by your FUE techniques if the evidence you have produced is what one is to go by. 4. Last but not the least, you spent around 6.5 seconds to pull it out- like a troublesome child being pulled out by an arm from a candy shop. Very forcible pull, Dr Feller! My grafts need not be pulled or sheared. They just pop out and are only being gathered by my technician. Watch the video one more time and you would appreciate it. There is no brute force exerted in gathering grafts. How do I manage this? There is a small trick which we shall discuss some other time. With the video you have demonstrated I do not believe you can even do 700 grafts in a day, Dr Feller. Or is your video only for demonstration? That is unfair the, Dr Feller. You pulled out an old, clean edited video from your library, Dr Feller. Why don’t you post your full harvesting in your next FUE case like I did. Much like I prepared my video just yesterday on my very last patient when the request from Bill for a video came in. . Let it not just be a war of words. I am sure you will since you do not leave any of my questions unanswered, Dr Feller. You just avoid them for the moment- atleast not on this thread. Regardless, I think what is being overlooked at this point is that while you can say that what I am doing in my surgery might not be different than what was done 14 years ago I believe the results of such cases is telling a different story. I will remind you, sir, that I am not questioning anything that you are doing in your practice. You believe what you believe based on your experience and there is nothing wrong with that but it is YOUR experience. You are inferring that all procedures are performed the same if only because the tools are no different. Assuming this is correct, if we are to compare every FUSS surgeon and clinic must we not say that they too are all performed the same? They all use a scalpel. They all use technicians for microscopic dissection (assuming FUSS) and they all place grafts with forceps, some with stick & place and some with pre-made incisions. Some use needles, others use blades but they are doing nothing different than the next clinic. However, I think we can all agree that there is a wide variance of results from one clinic to the next outside of the better recognized clinics. Take the aesthetics out of the picture and just consider yield and I think it is safe to say that some clinics get better yields than others. The same applies to FUE and those that perform it daily, in a dedicated environment vs. those that may not have such daily dedication. For every bad FUE case that you can point to I can point to ten more FUSS cases that are equally as bad or worse, not to mention the inclusion of the donor scar which, consequently, is still present no matter how thin or not. You said that you routinely see patients that have had failed FUE procedures come to you for FUSS to have these procedures filled in. I would wager that the cases, the majority at least, are not from recognized leaders in the FUE procedure but in fact are made up of no-name clinics that may be utilizing highly mechanized vacuum systems or other similarly disassociative FUE platforms. A quick (20 second) glance on Google reveals at least six or more vacuum FUE based clinics in your immediate area alone. Now before you accuse me again of trying to use deflective tactics I will repeat my assertion that you have not supported your position on the three "detrimental forces" of FUE by showing, proving, that they are actually as detrimental as you would have us believe. You have only talked. They may have been prohibitively detrimental in your hands but you cannot make blanket statements across the board based on YOUR experience in YOUR clinic and have it apply to my experience and my clinic, much less that of any other leading FUE physician. Proof of your claims is demanded by the scientific method, sir. I will repeat that while you make the assertion that no one has proven you wrong as the only validation of your position it is you that must prove your position to be valid in the first place. We cannot disprove that which has yet to be proven. The forces exist but I posit that said forces are not as detrimental as you say they are with the right touch. If they were I would not have a successful, high profile practice that is susceptible to the success or failure of each and every result that I produce with my own hands. This is the case for my many colleagues as well so what this means is that either you are wrong in your assertion because it is based on your limited sphere of experience or I, along with my many colleagues that specialize in FUE are not only ALL wrong, but are ALL dishonest about being wrong, despite having published dozens of results by, may I remind you, HAPPY patients. It is this fact alone, and yes it is a fact, that makes this entire discussion purely academic with little real world validation. Your voracity on this subject is unusual considering before the thread was started that compares your new "mFUE" to other procedures, started in June of this year, your previous post was nearly a year and a half earlier in January 2014. The only posts in between this time frame were made by your "FellerMedical" alias to post a result six months before your "mFUE" thread was begun. If you are so adamant about telling "the truth" as you see it why have you been silent for so long and what event occurred that gave you such a bark? Best.

Bill, In continuation of Dr Feller's informative thread on the benefits of FUE vis-a-vis FUT in modern day practice of surgical hair restoration, I post herewith a video taken yesterday after you asked me to do so. The video was shot impromptu in a case with extensive balding and we could harvest 2406 scalp grafts, 1312 beard grafts and 1177 chest grafts. Such megasessions were unheard of till the advent of modern day FUE. If you see the video closely, the forces of compression and torsion have clearly been overcome. The force of traction does exist but it does not adversely affect my yield and therefore it does not worry me. The fourth force of transection has been reduced to almost 1-5 %. Partial transections can go higher. Due to better honed skills,a few tricks in the FUE bag and a larger number of clients available to do FUE on, today the results of FUE compare very favorably to those of FUT. This was missing in yester years when FUE was done for small indications alone; and this continues to be the case with centers which do under 700 per occasional patient. Lack of experience will never hone surgical skills. I would like to add that I do all extractions myself. I have never employed another other doctor/ technician to do my harvesting for me and I never will. This is the most essential part of the whole procedure and only if the doctor harvests the grafts himself can he ensure quality and consistency of results in his practice. In my opinion, any doctor who has the requisite eagerness to learn and the right amount of patience for the arduous procedure can acquire reasonable skills in FUE harvesting after having done one case each day for 6 months following adequate mentorship. I would humbly submit that I have done over 7.65 million graft extractions (viable grafts only) MYSELF during my practice. However, Dr Feller calls me a newbie! (@ Dr Feller: But, Sir, since you have been in the hair transplant industry for longer, I have no reservation in granting to you this liberty.) Best wishes to forum members and I hope to hear your comments about my technique. N.B.- The person being counseled in the video is not on whom the procedure was done. The procedure was on a healthy type 5 pattern Indian male. He did not give permission to be revealed.

My basic training is as a plastic & reconstructive surgeon and I wandered all over the United States from 1997-2001 trying to learn the pearls of cosmetic plastic surgery for which I visited Drs Sherrel J Aston and Daniel Baker in their Manhattan hospital, Dr Ian Jackson of Detroit to learn how to manipulate the skull, Dr Bhangoo in Buffalo to learn all the tucks I needed to learn and last but not the least I spent time with DrsTessler and Aronovitz in Southfiled, Michigan to learn the tricks of FUT hair transplant surgery. I never knew all the principles of nips and tucks that I would learn would come to naught and have no meaning and set me thinking after your sweeping statement that skin does not stretch, Dr Feller. Well, how does facelift, necklift, tummy tuck, body lift, and even scalp reduction work then? Well if crowns won't stretch , can you please throw some wisdom on why they do not in light of above accepted principles of plastic surgery!

Dear Dr Feller, One does not "quit" having a debate with a stone. One simply realizes the futility. Thus far there have been great discussions and an immense amount of detail which is simply an opinion of one doctor. The forces of physics existing are not in question. A claim was made that these forces consistently create an atmosphere of failure for all FUE procedures from all FUE physicians in all FUE clinics compared to equal parameters applied to a Strip procedure. This claim is an opinion not a fact as the scientific method has not been followed, on a macro level much less a micro level. Therefore there is no debate because I cannot disprove something that has yet to be proven. You have observed the consequences of these forces to such a degree that you have reversed your position on FUE (by your own admission earlier in this thread), of which I am not questioning which is the reason you obviously have a great passion about this subject. I however have not, nor have a long list of other FUE specialists. My point is not that these forces do not exist. My point is that for you these forces are detrimental but for me they are not. And I do not take offense, even when you resort to condensceding comments, calling me a "relative newbie". Sometimes it takes "newbies" to do things a bit differently than those that came before and through newbies we can learn how to handle things with a little more care. I believe Mike Tyson was a relative newbie when he won his first championship at the age of 20 so being a "newbie" is not necessarily a bad thing and in many cases can be an advantage. Best wishes.

Dear Mr "Hairthere", Your points are well taken since it perfectly illustrates how these forces that Dr. Feller insists are causing carnage and devastation are not nearly as consequential as he would have us all believe. FUE does indeed take a great degree of care, much more so than is necessary for Strip. However, the problems Dr. Feller presents are obviously not insurmountable. And I agree completely about some ways that FUE is being pushed on the unsuspecting patient. It is a travesty and only serves to affect all of us who strive to educate our patients and perform the best procedures we can. I am aware of the former well respected member of which you speak and his activities in discussing and exposing the truth about the technician only clinics where twenty patients per day have their procedures in the same clinic. This is not limited to Turkey but occurs in other countries as well. It is a blight on the industry as a whole as it cheapens our profession and threatens to turn this highly specialized procedure into a simple commodity that can be traded and bartered for, like produce. But the marketing of the procedure compared to the science of the procedure are two separate issues when considering this thread. Regards,

I repeat, Dr. Feller. I concede nothing.You have twice stated that I have conceded whereas I have stated exactly to the contrary yet you continue to insist on your interpretation. This is why it is not in my best interest to beat the proverbial "dead horse". The volume at which one makes a claim does not make a claim to be true. I repeat to you sir, the scientific method demands that if a claim is to be made it must be proven by he who makes the claim and it is not up to the community at large to disprove that which has yet to be proven. This is the fundamental of science.

I concede nothing except that I realize this is a waste of my time. Do not confuse the two points. You have not only dismissed the evidence that surrounds you that contradicts your position, but have gone so far as to invest two years of your time (if I remember the announcement correctly) to develop a "new" procedure to supplant the very procedure you are damning. What argument, facts or common sense can I present that will discredit your financial and personal investment for your business? Are we to believe that there is a chance you will recant your position and toss away your investment, all based on my words? What else are we to do aside from trusting our eyes? I believe you are assuming too much, Dr. Feller, as it would follow the scientific method in which for you to make a claim it is you that must prove such a claim and it is not up to others to disprove your claims. You claim that torsion, traction and compression create an environment that prevents FUE from being as effective as Strip, yet you only have words to present your case. Logical? Yes. Verifiable? No. I agree with you that these forces exist but it is up to you to prove they are detrimental to the procedure as a whole. We have dozens of specialists that show their excellent results on a daily basis and you cannot prove that your "facts" have impeded these results in any way. It is simply your opinion based on your experience but I think we have learned a long time ago that the experience of one does not dictate reality for the masses.

Hi David, Its the same problem with my post made a couple of hours ago in response to Dr Feller's last post! However moderation is welcome. Best.

You are very welcome but I am not certain why this is a significant development to acknowledge this. There are many forces applied on our bodies during surgery and these are simply common sense concepts. However, I believe that by my "acknowledgement" of these every day forces it somehow validates your position that these are problems that cannot be avoided and this is why we disagree. Myself and many MANY other FUE physicians have a strong track record of excellent growth which flies in the face of your entire argument. The details that you wish to debate are one thing but I feel you are too encumbered by these details to recognize that many have overcome them, indicating that they are not as problematic as you would have the readers to believe. Debating details is one thing, but debating what we see with our very eyes and how our patients respond positively is another altogether. I realize now after having engaged you that you are going to do whatever you can to discredit my points in this "debate". I have to again apologize to respected members following this debate for my English as I may not be conveying my points as I should but it is the best that I can do. Furthermore, it is my opinion that no matter how logical my responses may be, regardless of how well I may or may not express myself, you will still disagree and we will not have any movement forward on this issue. You have your opinions, which you are certainly entitled to have, but they do not reflect the reality of what I observe in my practice and those of countless other FUE speciality clinics. Besides, every point you have made about the three forces that are exerted on FUE are your opinion and cannot be proven one way or the other- therefore we only have demonstratable results achieved on a consistent basis to formulate our opinions. These results manifest through years of trial and error and allow me and others the luxury of stating as fact that we know what we are doing. FUE is a procedure that does have a higher threshold of entry compared to Strip. We do have to be more careful with our patients and we do have to consider more factors when planning the procedure but because we know that we have to be more selective we are setting the stage for a success that would not have been possible ten years ago. The success of an FUE procedure has evolved beyond the three problems as you see them. Patient selection, tool selection, having the right touch from experience and simply using judgement that can only be effective from having performed many many FUE sessions, that is how we know that what you are claiming to be three major obstacles are nothing more than issues to be aware of, not necessarily feared.

Dear Dr Feller, Lets move on. I have already given my viewpoint on your concerns last week. Regards,

In response to other misleading remarks posted about FUE- I described my “Golden Harvest” technique in 2010 on this forum itself and have been following cherry picking principles ever since to get better harvest of quality Anagen only grafts. “Cherry picking” is another agricultural term so typical of hair transplant like “harvesting”, “plantation”, “corn row”, etc. Cherry picking (Golden Harvest) denotes harvesting of “golden follicles” (anagen follicles in full bloom and at their hardy best). The advantage of harvesting golden follicles is specific to FUE technique and leads to- 1. Early results 2. Better growth 3. Better appreciable density The patient pays only for the grafts that grow best! How do we detect golden follicles? 1. MECHANICAL SELECTION: 3-5 days before the procedure the patient is advised to wet shave the donor area. The hair that grow out rapidly on the day of the procedure are seldom telogen hair. The anagen hairs are targeted effectively through this technique and we reap a golden harvest. What is apparent as 3 hairs always leads to a 3-hair graft, unless ofcourse there is a partial transection. 2. VISUAL SELECTION UNDER HIGH MAGNIFICATION: Using 6x magnification, clearly reveals the robust nature of a cluster of follicles. Only robust hair shaft in full bloom will give an anagen follicle. Cherry picking is an effective way to move the best quality hair with fuller body and with better potential for growth, a significant leap for the surgical hair restoration industry. Something to embrace and feel proud of by the surgical hair restoration physicians across allegiances; and not to be denounced.

I was away on a weekend break to a low connectivity area in India and I requested Voxman to post on my behalf. I herewith fully endorse all his posts as my thoughts on this thread.

Dear Dr Feller, Thank you for your kind thought. I do intend to stay on course and believe me I will not stray. Voxman posted the reply on my behalf already. The question to you is part of the discussion on the FUE donor area-if it is any worse than in FUT. So in all fairness may I have your reply! And I sincerely hope you are enjoying your weekend. Regards,