Melvin- Admin

There is no proof finasteride speeds up the growth process, frankly I don't think there's any scientific evidence that would back that theory. What may be happening is that you may be growing some hair that you previously lost. It sounds to me that perhaps your side effects aren't that bad otherwise you probably would've stopped taking finasteride. It's my opinion that your sexual health is far more important than hair, but that's just my opinion, so it's up to you what you want to do, you know your body better than anyone.

Everybody's definition of good results is different, a Norwood 2 guy will never be satisfied with even the best Norwood 6 results, but that doesn't mean YOU as an individual won't be happy, most important thing before entering hair restoration is having realistic expectations, with that being said wish you good growth ??

If you're experiencing side effects you should stop using it, immediately the sooner you get off the less chance the side effects will be permanent. If your hairloss is stabilized it more than likely won't affect your HT. You can take RU58841 it won't give you permanent side effects like finasteride.

Yea I agree, his hairloss was minuscule depending on his age I'd say his hairline was actually normal if he's in his late 20's early 30's. It's interesting Blake you've stated that scar stretching is unpredictable, that's the very reason why a lot of men stay away from FUT so I'm glad you've addressed this concern with sincerity, I made the same point several times before but it was never addressed.

He's the one saying its a conspiracy, it's clear cut marketing, I don't know why he keeps denying this. It's not a big deal, the big deal is that he's continuing to say the two are unrelated and not meant to market off of each other. But that's not the point of the thread, so I'd rather keep the conversation relevant, as I've asked Dr. Feller why these 3 forces can't be decreased and or overcome.

David, what's alarming to me is that Blake aka Future HT doc was the first to congratulate a member for choosing one of the recommended FUE physicians on this site, he was the first to tell members they were in good hands. Now all of the sudden, he's telling members the opposite, we're talking a change almost overnight, so it makes me question the sincerity, maybe he had to say that cause he was a moderator or maybe he has to say that now cause of his business. I dot know but either way it's been something that raised my concerns. I'm not saying either are the case I really do hope that he was sincere, but I'd be lying if I said the thought didn't cross my mind. With that being said, I'd like for this thread to get back on course, I'd like to know why these 3 forces can not be reduced?

Dr. Feller, I'm contrarian because I don't like smear campaigns, I'd be saying the same things if this thread was vilifying FUT, since I started commenting on your thread my position has always been patient decision, much like physicians who perform both procedures regularly like Dr. Diep, I was actually the first one to state that these threads should be taken with a grain of salt because you as a physician have monetary incentives, just like any other physician on here, that's why I encourage patients to do research for themselves, but you've been so adamant that the yields are terrible in comparison, but no physician that I've ever consulted has ever warned me of this, so is it that every physician is being dishonest? the things I've been told is that more surgeries will have to be performed for FUE and in sessions I've never been told FUE is scarless only that the scars are small and spread out. So see it's hard for me to believe the yield is so terrible especially since this announcement has been made within two weeks of your new procedure.

How is that disclaimer any different from the information you have presented Dr. Feller? Basically all of the information you have provided has been solely you and your partners, Hair Restoration Network hasn't verified the accuracy of the information you have presented as FACT, as a matter of fact I'm glad you posted this disclaimer, because the same disclaimer should be used for this thread I believe that HRN feels the same way about the information you are presenting. As for mFUE conspiracy, how is it a conspiracy that both threads were created less than two weeks from each other both of which were by you. It doesn't take a scholar to put two and two together, but I guess that was just a coincidence;)

You know whats funny, is that when Dr. Bhatti exposed Dr. Feller's obvious marketing ploy to market his procedure mFUE he stated that it was a mere distraction, he also tried to change the subject many times, now that posters are actually posting statistical evidence that shows FUE is in fact becoming more popular than FUT, he goes back to Dr. Bhatti's video, who's the one distracting now? Isn't the title of this thread "FUT is more popular than FUE" so I really want to know what are your thoughts on the chart presented by ISHRS Dr. Feller.

You still can't admit that you were wrong inferring that Seth was a rep? I do recall Bill warning you as well Dr. Feller, as I recall he had to warn you a few times because you kept ignoring his posts, but let's get to the issue at hand. I wonder why physicians that perfor both procedures have less bias views. Here is a quote from Marcio Cristostomo M.D "FUE and FUT are both very good options for hair restoration. There are many discussions and opinions about what is best: FUT or FUE. My personal opinion is that there is no need for this "competition", both are very safe, well stablished ways to restore hair. In fact, they are only different ways of getting hair from the scalp: FUT through an excision of a strip to produce the follicular units (FUs) and FUE extracting FUs one by one with micro punches of less than 1mm. Both techniques leaves scar(s) in the donor area: FUT with a long linear scar (that in patients with good elasticity, properly operated with closure under no tension can be very fine and discrete in most cases); and FUE leavinf no linear scar, but hundreds (or thousands) of punctiforme scars that are usually very discrete allowing patients to have a very short haircut. Patients with a linear strip scar or with FUe scars (some FUE scars can be noticeable, if the punch used has a diameter higher than 1mm or if multiple sessions are done) can camouflage their scar(s) with scalp micropigmentation, if needed, orientated by their surgeon. Inittially Strip surgery preduced more grafts in one session than FUE, but nowadays, very experienced surgeons can produce megasessions of more than 3,000 grafts with both methods. In some countries FUE corresponds to maybe more than 80-90% of the procedures. In my country, Brazil, for example, FUT still is the dominant technique. FUT has been the gold standard for decades and FUE is rising in the last decade and is an actual tendency, even during medical congresses. But we should not say that one is the latest technique, or more advanced, because both can produce good results and the result doensn't depent only of the extraction method, but in reality a lot of other factors are involved as: proper indication, age and family history observed, good anterior hairline design, refined technique during implantation time, among others. For all this reasons, in my opinion there is no better technique. Instead of it, there is a better indication for each individual patients. And in some cases of more advanced degrees, secondary cases with limitations in the donor area or poor donor suply, both techniques can be used combined to achive more grafts and offer better results. For this reson, they are not techniques in competition, but instead, complementary to each other. So, I think a specialist can choose one technique to perform and to defend, but the ideal is to have all opitons available to offer individualized surgical plan for each case. These are some of my thoughts and I hope it can be useful information."

Scandinavian, Dr. Doganay does beard to scalp transplants, hes quite cheap as well, Dr. Umar though I think is the best out there for bodyhair, I don't think anyone is getting consistent results like him, but he's probably double the cost, generally his grafts are $7-8 for bodyhair, I dont know how much that translates in Euros.

Very astute observation David, and great question, what if this patient achieves a fantastic result, I believe Bill posed the same question that if a physician is able to get a good result in half the time wouldn't that add to the procedure. I'd also like to piggy back on what you said about the kinky and wiry hair, according to Dr. Feller's partner this only occurs in FUE, however you stated that you got this from 2 strip surgeries, which is interesting, but im glad it sorted itself out for you. I completely agree with your views as well. I also believe that the yield between top FUE surgeons is comparable to FUT surgeons and that the difference in yield is insignificant cosmetically.

Really Dr. Bloxham, I understand what you say about the growth, I wouldn't want you to perform FUE on a hairline as you just started hair restoration and the learning curve is high for FUE, so that I completely understand, but the wiry and kinky portion is just flat out false, this occurs sometimes in patients regardless of FUE or FUT and it generally sorts itself out. I'm glad this patient had a successful hair transplant never the less and I'm sure you are going to get even better at hair transplanst blake. Take a look at this video, a gentlemen who had FUE to his hairline by Dr. Nader in Mexico, this isn't even a clinic result, its just a normal guy doing vlogs on his on account.

LMAO i literally lol'd

I hope this has convinced you to let your hair grow out once you have your full result, unfortunately, density can not be matched in most cases, so keeping your hair short makes you look bald, even the crown looks better when your grow your hair out, as I said toppik could be used to blend it better.

Im glad you're happy and glad I could help;)

But FUE hasn't improved since its began back in 2002, but but the yield is poor, but but my mFUE technique is better. Guys don't pay attention to this evidence it's a mere distraction guys don't pay attention to it annnnnnd end sarcasm.

Matt no one has been as nasty on this thread as you, you resorted to personal attacks and several times have mentioned other members and spoken harshly on their results (including myself) just to get your point across, it's been in poor taste and uncalled for in my opinion. Not to mention every physician has had a patient with poor growth even your beloved Dr. Feller has said this, so I don't see how pointing out another members poor results is going to do anything for your argument, does it make you feel better about yourself?

A lot of physicians name their particular technique using FUE, for example Dr. Diep calls his technique DFC (Diep FUE curve). They're not necessarily gimmicks just names to distinguish their personal technique. Here are the pros and cons presented by Dr. Diep a recommended physician on this site, please note Dr. Diep performs both techniques regularly in his practice. The advantages of strip harvesting method are: 1.Less expensive 2.Mega session, transplanting up to 5,000 grafts per session 3.Used to treat moderate to severe hair loss The disadvantages of strip harvesting method are: 1.More invasive 2.Numbness at the surgical donor site 3.Fine linear scar on the back of the head 4.More painful during recovery period 5.More bleeding 6.More chances of infection The FUE hair transplant advantages are: 1.NO VISIBLE LINEAR SCAR after recovery 2.Less invasive 3.Minimal bleeding at donor site 4.No nerve numbness 5.Less painful during recovery period 6.Used to treat mild to moderate hair loss The FUE hair transplant disadvantages are: 1.More expensive 2.More time consuming 3.More demanding on the skill and time of the surgeon 4.Approximately 2500 grafts can be transplanted per session 5.Rare cyst formation which normally resolve by itself I think it's important to note nowhere does this physician state the yield is lower with FUE. Also it's important to note this physician is not bias towards either procedure because he performs both regularly. http://www.mhtaclinic.com/fue-procedures/fue-vs-strip-harvesting/

You look balder with a number 2 if I'm being brutally honest, everything looks worse, your whole head looks thinner compared to a number 8 where it just looks like your crown is slightly thinning. It's your choice but I think everyone would agree that your hair looks a lot fuller at a number 8 even your crown looks balder at a number 2.

? lmao

I may not be a physician but I have done enough research to consider myself well versed in hair restoration. I also believe I have done more research then the average patient. But this is typical from you, it's another word game played on specifics, just like you did when you called Seth a representative of an FUE clinic, you knew very well what would be assumed without mentioning the clinics name or stating he was paid.

I'd like to answer your question the girl who everyone wants to bang is more popular. here's another analogy, who's more popular the hot girl that guys want to bang but they can't, because she's high maintenance and they can't afford to take her out. Or the girl who everyone bangs cause she puts out easy and all you have to do is buy her a happy meal.Popularity is defined by popular choice not necessity. I think anybody would rather get their procedure done in one sitting, unfortunately for high Norwood guys like myself that's usually not the case even in strip procedures, so personally I thought what would I rather do have 3 less invasive FUE procedures that are the least noticeable to the general public i.e coworkers, or two FUT procedures that would carry the risk of bad scarring and would require more time off work and would be more obvious to the general public. These are my personal reasons for my specific situation, I've said it before in this thread but I'll say it again, if you're a lower Norwood guy who wears his hair long your better off getting FUT because you'll be able to get a full restoration in one sitting. However, if you're a high Norwood guy who will require several procedures you're better off doing FUE in small sessions, this will achieve a better overall aesthetic result in my opinion. Not to mention less time off of work with less detectability.

Dr. Feller there you go with the word play, we were speaking hypothetically, you stated if a patient had a poor results and saw Dr. Bhattis video that it would be grounds for a class action suit here in the states. I never said I couldn't tell the difference nor did I say I was a layman, I was speaking about your average patient who's never seen a procedure performed. . With that being said the key word was poor result, I will withhold my judgement until I see the final result.

Tav, did you do any body hair? I've considered Dr. Umar, because he's 45 min from my house not lucky enough to live in redondo lol. But the thing that's kept from going is the price.