BaldingBogger

Congrats willit. Looking great.

I guess that makes it 201 successfull FUE results! :rolleyes:

Dr Feller your own online rep, Spex, has told me via email that in his opinion there is no difference in yield between Dr Feriduni's FUT and FUE. I can forward you the email if you like. What do you think of that?

Must make things rather confusing for a propective patient with such unaligned clinics working to a different MO.

Yes i have been quite open regarding my status, I have now had 3 FUE surgeries in total so unlike a lot of people on here who talk 2nd hand tosh i have first hand experience . I had around 85% yield from my first procedure which my grown in density was measured. People seem to be unaware that you can actually measure grown in yield density.

The situation improved post 15 months but there was still a weak area which was attributed to scabbing in 2 small areas which caused lack of growth in which i also mentioned in topics on here. Everywhere else grew in perfectly.

The subsequent 2 FUE procedures i think were close to 100% as you can get. I have shared my photos and story with other posters on here offline like Mickey85 at the time. I initially shared pictures on another forum and was recognised which i did not want so i have kept them off here.

I dont feel additionally compelled to share them with a Jack Russell if thats OK. I am passionate about FUE cause i got a great result from it. And because certain clinics tried to tell me FUT was all i could get which i just didnt buy.

I dont think i am maligning anyone or FUT. I clearly state it gets great results. I am responding to what i see as false information being posted on these forums. I am telling things how it is in my opinion. If you are a fan of a certain clinic or procedure and are offended. Deal with it. We all have our opinions and in this case it is formed from experience.

I dont really need to be still around here . However I did a lot of research before pulling the trigger and want to pay it forward and try educate prospective patients where possible with some experience. And in this case what i feel is BS propaganda being spread regarding FUE capabilities in the name of the almighty dollar.

Thanks "Sean",

I certainly respect Doc Blake's opinion and he clearly is an accomplished trained professional. However, to folks like us, its hard to understand the debate. I suppose FUT proponents believe the yield may be better and its worth having the obvious linear scar the rest of your life. I believe the FUE process is arguably...just as good and has a wonderful trade-off, NO VISIBLE scaring to the untrained eye.

John you make some great points. The tide is Moving the people have spoken and Market forces are at work. The Market force of public demand demands a less invasive procedure. FUT for me is 1980's. In this day and age we should not be restricted to keeping hair long to cover a large linear scar.

Posters and Doctors can argue all day long until they are blue in the face about yield %'s, it is just semantics. There is no denying the results being acheived through the FUE procedure of which i myself am a beneficiary.

Hell we even saw Jotronic and even Spex jump on the FUE wagon they changed to represent FUE clinics citing to the quality and consistency of the results coming through.

For FUT i think it can yield great results and if the patient is fully informed then great go for it. I just don't like the idea of impressionalbe prospective patients railroaded or 'persuaded' in FUT in which i think they will majorly regret when they discover they could have got a similar result with an FUE.

A prospective Patient can be overwhelmed in a Consult by information and be too trusting and intimidated in to a point of view by a Surgeon.

Irishsailor,ontop, as i said in the first post its just a were and what? at this particular point in you would have.

Either you know what you would prefer or you are undecided.

So baldingbogger your going fue but not in turkey? so would it be the US or europe or elsewhere?

Like i said in original post short answers please its not meant to be a discussion there are plenty of threads for that already.

Thanks guys

Only FUE Europe. Lorenzo/Bisanga/Maras/Feriduni

Lol GarageLand. I would say if there was one mans who's hair i would like to have its George, His hair quality is immense!

And yes fully agreed thats the best advice on timescales i have seen too..

I would always opt for FUE as based on research and personal experience i dont think think is a big variable in yields when done by a top clinic. I would not recommend the turkey large scale sessions though.

Most importantly to keep the 'Get out of Jail' card and shave down if loss progress's beyond means or future Donor area thinning.

Lorenzo work

 

Blake you know better than to cite a single operator study with only a handful size cohort and call that settled science.

 

A very valid point in which I mentioned earlier. The entire angle and trajectory of this latest attempt to discredit the FUE technique .

 

Is merely based on one Dr's study who to be fair would not be near the top of anyone's list for a HT.

 

I think most right minded people can read through the smoke screens being created. I would really implore any prospective patients to not just view results online but to meet ex patients offline to see the reality of HT results.

 

There is far too much agendas and vested interests online for the prospective new patient.

I think a lot of guys have issues from it and don't even know it. They just attribute the negative effects to getting older.

100%. Bear in mind theres a lot of guys out there with not that active sex lifes and getting a bit older. They would just atrribute any side affects to that. Every drug has side effects. Add to that the lack of long term study and you have the potential for a time bomb.

The drug is mega powerful and i would put it on a par with anabolic steroids in terms of its strength, side effects and hormonal altering properties.

You're a strip doctor Dr. Feller. Not a FUE doctor. I'm my opinion that means you're not qualified to make his statement. Maybe YOUR FUE is not as consistent as strip. But I’m sure that Feriduni, Rahal, Lorenzo would all disagree.

 

Please stop this silly mFUE nonsense. It’s misleading to patients. It’s strip. Period.

Spot on. I would have no issue believing that Feller / Lindsays FUE yields are probably around 40% and this is what they are basing their findings on.

But i have a major problem for them to come out with this sweeping statement and protray it as fact that all FUE clinic's are hitting this range despite the obvious results to the contrary.

Speaking to a lot of people in the industry i've been told FUT bookings are in the sh1tter so this all just smacks of desperation IMO.

Merks side effects percentage of 2% for Propecia is Science Fiction! Personally having tried i would not go near this stuff again.

Hair loss sufferers really need a better option.

Ironically I don't believe he did!

But his look is unusual in he has hair at front and little elsewhere.

His look still looks good as his face is framed. Even if FUE patients cannot cover all their loss as time goes by they still have the option to buzz down and sport a similar look.

Now Imagine Zidane with a strip scar

But wait, I thought strip surgery was a barbaric procedure that left you a slave to a scar? Great results? Can't be!

You must be confusing me. I have no doubt that you CAN get a great result with FUT just like you can with FUE, However what i have an issue is Horsesh1t been spread around regarding FUE capablilites to suit a clinics agenda.

Personally for me FUT would never be an option. But if people who never plan on shaving down short and back and sides decide its for them all well and good.

The key for me is if their loss escalates and cant keep up with it either via cost of transplants / Donor or medication stopped working they have given up the shave down get out of jail card and move on with a framed hairline. Think Zidane look. That is the deal breaker for me.

HairJo, now I think you're getting it.

 

Mav,

Online it seems that many patients are not concerned about the increased damage to the donor area FUE is guaranteed to produce. However, when they are given the whole story in detail during consultation almost all people understand and make the right INFORMED decision. That is, when it comes right down to it, wishful thinking aside, most people will opt for the strip procedure to maximize their chances of cosmetically significant growth.

 

 

This for me is quite a concerning comment.

 

I for one have serious issues with this approach and would never recommend this clinic. Railroading impressionable LESS INFORMED patients in to FUT on the day of their surgery is not my idea of Ethical.

Love Dr Maras's and HDC work. Ethical sensible staggered approach. Great clinic. Look forward to seeing the final result.

I also do not agree at all with these 5000 FUE single sessions from Turkey. Far too much trauma for scalp in one hit which can affect yield and donor.

That Strip Scar looks awful btw. Really hope the patient FUE's in to it in the future so he can keep a close cut.

The best one i have seen in Football is Antonio Conte

Just to let you all know I sent my pictures to spex who forwarded them onto dr feller who came back to tell me my hair loss was way too advanced for fue and I would need two strips!

Only through my research on this site I found dr lorenzo who informed me I could achieve coverage from fue procedures! All I can advise anyone is research research research don't rush into anything. For me fue was the only way to go I've got the option in the future of getting out of the battle by shaving down. Just had a hair cut today on the Sides and back down to a 1 grade one month after second procedure total 6152 grafts and absolutely no visual scarring in donor. This is key for me when this battle is over I will shave down!

Good for you. Doing your research paid off big time. I think this precise point is what people are getting most worked up about for this whole issue. There is an element of hoodwinking patients or pushing the less informed in to FUT when they could really be FUE candidates.

Obviously a strip scar is a very big deal for a lot of people and cause real depression and issues post op. And if their hair loss progress's and they cannot keep up with it they are up sh1t creek with Strip as they cannot shave down close and move on with a framed face unlike FUE.

Let's just look who is coming out with these outlandish yield and technique comparison statistics.

North American Dr's who can't have tech involvement to cater for the large session FUE market.

Of course there gonna push Strip or MFUE or

Mweneedmoremoney. Get educated and ensure to research thoroughly to make the right decision. Strip is only good for some who are never gonna shave down and some just are not candidates for either.

But There's no going back once your cut wih strip.

As people have said I would agree the top FUE is better than the best FUT I see from feller / Lindsay/ Charles etc.. No brainer.

I have been researching and looking at many before and after pictures and have met with a few of Dr. Fellers previous patients and I am very impressed with his work I think I have already made my decision on going with him. I have to discuss with him my options of either doing a standard strip or a Modified FUE

I am sure you will probably be in a for free sugery as well given the Marketing campaign you are bombarding the forum with.! Right after just literally joining! Hmm.

If I were younger, I would say it is a disgrace. Far from me to question any doctor's ethics or medical credentials, but as for their marketing game, it is fair game, and Doctor Feller's latest attempt to regain some credibility on that score is pitiful.

 

Hasson and Wong have degraded themselves going for Artas (if it as bad as it appears to be - once again I wouldn't know, the specifics , just the marketing) and Jotronic knows it. He jumped ship at the right time.

 

Dr. Feller's video is a sham and it is vital that everybody watches it.

 

Firstly,

 

The name mFUE is a disgrace. It is not FUE. How does Dr. Feller address that? He simply says in his dodgy video, "It just really means non-strip" lol "I just see it as non-strip...fine!" he quirks.

 

It is just an insult to any hair loss sufferer and hair transplant recipient when he says, "Massive donor damage" in reference to FUE (that's real FUE) The strip scar is a red flag,,,FUE is not.

 

He also says, "FUE by defintion an alternate procedure"

 

Gold Standard spin for sure. Coming from one who bemoaned the 'FUE hype' and now cashing in on FUE's success by making up this dodgy mFUE acronym and then explaining it away by saying it is non-strip.

 

Well, I guess Donald Trump and any scalp reduction guys out there must be pleased that they received FUE.

 

We should take these clowns to the cleaners. What a load of BS. Such a pity they have to stoop to this level. America has the technology, the know how to be brilliant and now this dribble.

 

If ever there was a reason to get on a plane and get out if the US for an HT, this is it.

Wow, I was interested in seeing how this new technique develops and then i see that video.

I also think its very important everyone watches that video. And then goes and look at some Dr Lorenzo , Dr Bisanga , Dr Feriduni or Dr Maras FUE results and especially those with shaved down short back and sides . And contemplate to themselves the scare tactic garbage this man is talking.

"FUE like taking pump Shotgun blast to the back of the head' "Massive Donor Damage from FUE compared to strip" "Just harder to see in some people"!! Lol,

"starting at massive disadvantage" "Damage much much greater over much greater area".

I really feel for patients in North America. Particulary ones that would not know better and go to Dr Feller and end up with a nice big Strip Scar just because they hadnt done much research prior to going in to his office.

Why cant the powers that be get it together and just approve full tech involvement in FUE somehow in the USA like Europe and put an end to this farcical facade.

Nah i tend to be more satisfied by seeing like you know ,actual results in person. Rather than reading 'Data' which depending which Dr has compiled it could be totally unobjective and would only reflect that particular Dr's ability at the technique.

Good luck with your Data, I still recommend you do more research.

No, the burden of proof is you to demonstrate regular 90% yields among "top clinics". You have not done so, yet you continue to call out others for their argument. Poor logic.

If you actually believed in your 'logical approach' and your 'burden of proof' you would see you are contradicting your own advice.

You are publicly doubting the yields can be achieved yet offer absolutely nothing in any form whatsoever to back your statements up. Quite laughable really.

If I was inclined I could easily link some FUE yield study here but like blakes earlier study i don't think that is necessary nor particularly informative for people.

The proof is in the pudding and people who do proper research can easily view a Panthanon of successful FUE results just by doing a quick google search or arranging to view ex patients in person

Sounds like you need to do a bit more research .

But you have NEVER established the point that FUE clinics are producing 90% yield. I have nothing to refute as you are doing the work for me! It is foolish to look at a result and divine the precise yield of the transplant.

I think i have and not only that it is widely accepted in the industry by way of density measurements and reasons i mentioned that leading FUE clincs CAN produce this yield range.

Your point that these clinc's cannot holds no water and obviously you have nothing to back it up so i think you are the one looking foolish.

Bye.

Great result Grigiman, Congrats.

A 2nd pass should see you set-up nicely. Did BHR give you any indication as to what you have left in the bank Donor wise?

Ah but you didn't answer the question. Where is the evidence, as you claimed that these results show 90% yield? Hmm?

 

You're quick to blast people like Blake for pushing ideas you claim as "debunked" but I don't see anything from you that backs up your claims.

 

So again, please show me the evidence that these results had 90% yield.

The answers in there. Given the number of grafts used if these guys are not sporting 90% yields. Then everything known to date regarding graft numbers to cover the frontal third of the scalp is wrong and Dr's have been lying to us since the outset of hair transplantation regarding the number of grafts needed . Dr's can measure density of grown in grafts and decipher quite accurately the % yields.

Your quick to retort but you also present no evidence to back up any of your claims and just avoid the point totally that leading FUE clinics are producing 90%^^ and strip range yields.

This is the crux of my point. To counter the impression coming off this thread that all FUE is hitting yields of 60-70% which isn't correct. I haven't blasted anyone either like you say. I have commended Blake for the innovation and welcome further analysis.