Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About olmert

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Basic Information

  • Gender
  • Country
    United States
  • State

Hair Loss Overview

  • Describe Your Hair Loss Pattern
    Thinning Hair Loss All over the Scalp
  • How long have you been losing your hair?
    10 years +
  • What Best Describes Your Goals?
    Considering Surgical Hair Restoration

Hair Loss Treatments

  • Have you ever had a hair transplant?
  • Current Non-Surgical Treatment Regime
    Rogaine Extra Strength for Men

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can MPB disclose the names of the doctors that opined that more grafts survive under FUT than under FUE? I myself would not rely upon logic, but would rely upon a doctor's opinion, even if the opinion is based merely on anecdotal evidence.
  2. Does MPBsucks4545 have any citation or evidence that, when the transection rate is the same, more FUT grafts survive than FUE grafts?
  3. I asked this about ten years ago. Back then there was this herd mentality against FUE and for FUT. FUE has improved since. Anyway, back then a few people who claimed they were the experts of this forum vouched you can get more grafts by (first Maxing out on FUT's and then doing FUE's) versus (doing FUE's only). But when you pressed them for a reason or for why they thought so, they got all defensive and would give ridiculous rationales that were basically in the nature of 1+1=3. Of course, they did not realize that was the logic they were offering. It may be they were correct, but if so, they had no idea why. It may be they were incorrect.
  4. When I first started checking this forum 10 years ago, FUE had high transection rates, meaning you would lose 10% of donors. That was the big sell for FUT. I understand that now most surgeons say the transection rate for FUE and FUT is the same. 1. So what are the current advantages to FUT besides being cheaper? 2. Is it currently believed you can get more total donors by first maxing out on FUT before maxing out on FUE? (They were saying that too 10 years ago.)
  5. Never disregard the disclaimer " IMHO" or "I am not a physician and not employed by any doctor/clinic. My opinions are not medical advice, but are my own views which you read at your own risk." I am opposed to offering silly rationale that make no sense to someone with medical knowledge or with no studies or evidence supporting it, even when it seems to someone with no medical knowledge to make sense. This is why they do clinical trials.
  6. I gave up on it. I hadn't taken enough of it to get any color yet, and then I saw a picture of someone who was doing it. He didn't look tan. He looked sickly orange. Then I tried an expensive liquid bronzer. It looked so phony that I stopped it quickly. I might try a powder bronzer.
  7. Horrible. It is 3 months later. There was heavy, heavy internal bleeding in the recipient area. One guy believes the hair donation density was made higher than my scalp could handle, and that the doctor should have tested the area better to see if it could handle the density without bleeding because bleeding drowns and suffocates the donor grafts. I don't see much growth, and I see enormous shock loss. I will withhold judgment for another 6 months when the shock loss clears.
  8. Yes on both. A consensus of veterans like me who have looked at a lot of pics and heard a lot of stories is what puts a doctor in the elite class. Now there is no per se requirement that an elite doctor be expensive, but the laws of economics will make it end up that way. It does not matter how cheap a country an elite doctor comes from. He will charge the most he can get away with. And an elite doctor will charge a lot because his elite reputation gets him business anyway. Therefore, there is one elite doctor in Brazil and one in Thailand. They charge as much as a western doctor even though their expenses are cheaper. That being said, the Indian and (one) Pakistani doctors are so much cheaper than the rest of the world, that if you aren't a millionaire, it may be your optimal choice to go to them. They are not so much inferior as to justify paying more for others doctors who are not so much better. There are definitely people in tax brackets that make choosing Indian doctors the best course. At the same time, if you are a billionaire, you should not go to Bhatti. It is common for veterans to bark if you bring up cost as a factor. This is because veterans are hobbyists. You will never find a car aficionado recommending a chevy, instead of a trans am, even though a chevy might be the optimal choice because of price. The hobbyists act as if the cheap doctors charge $20, while the expensive ones charge $500, and therefore even for the poorest person, price should not be a factor. But getting 4 HT's will cost $8K from Madhu, the cheapest decent doc, and cost like $100K from Lorenzo. And really the difference between them is not life and death. And really there are people in lower tax brackets. So really for a lot of people, price should matter.
  9. LazyPirate, there was no need to look and see that your join date is within the past two weeks. Your posts make clear that as far as knowledge of HT goes, you are a newbie. Any veteran like me is aware that there are educated minds on both sides of the FUT/FUE debate. Anyone, such as you, claiming that that the debate is closed and settled is simply uninformed. This does not necessarily mean you made a mistake in getting FUE by Bhatti, though even among the most hard core FUE advocates there is a consensus that only the absolute top FUE doc's get a yield as high as FUT, and that Bhatti is not generally regarded as being in this elite physician class. If you did make the right decision, it happened by luck rather than through a studied analysis.
  10. Bhatti's FUE is so cheap that it takes price out as a factor in the FUE/FUT debate. But the poster's goal is to maximize the total number of grafts. And even Scar, the biggest proponent of FUE says you will get more total grafts by first doing a few FUT's before doing FUE. Personally, I have not heard any reasoning why this would be true. There is the reasonable argument that doing a second FUE is hard because of the previous scarring, but I don't see why you couldn't do a one procedure FUE to take every last graft out of you. Bhatti does 6K FUE's. Or alternatively, if you were to do two FUE's, I don't see why you couldn't tell them to do the left side on the first FUE, and then the right side on the second one. But I am perplexed why even Scar thinks you can get more total grafts by starting out with FUT.
  11. The status quo of doctors doing manual FUE in the United States will not continue. It is too physically draining on the doc, and there is not enough evidence doc’s do it any better than tech’s to justify the higher price. Scar cites doctor’s great knowledge of physiology as one reason they might do it better, but that is like saying a law professor’s knowledge of constitutional law will help him argue a traffic ticket. The discretion to pace oneself might help a doctor over a tech, but presumably that discretion could move over to the tech, the same way a phlebotomist has all the discretion how big a needle to use, with no doctor disillusioned enough to intervene in the phlebotomist’s field. There are three possible scenarios that will ultimately replace the American practice of manual FUE by doctors. 1) FUE results end up no better in the US but much more money, and too many American doc’s get carpal tunnel. In the end, American doc’s abandon FUE, and patients go to Europe. 2) The US begins to permit techs to do FUE extraction. 3) ARTAS or similar technology improves enough such that it works as well as doctors and tech’s. But the status quo of American doctors doing manual FUE will not last until the distant day when cloning replaces FUE/FUT.