CuriousJungleGeorge

Yes, I feel that's the best use for the "on-line consultation": setting up communication between a person interested in the procedure and a doctor.

CuriousJungle, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Can you explain this statement please? Or perhaps Swagger can since he seems to be enthusastically agreeing with it. Bill Bill, I think Lost My Swagger constured my point correctly (even if I don't quite agree with his agreement... ). I mean to say that it's unfair to imply a doctor employed by M.H.R. or Bosley or any other chain is a megalomaniac intent to do shoddy work and rip people off: Nothing suggests any given coalition doctor is bound to be more "ethical" than a non-coalition physician. This Web site's recommendations, as I take it, are based on skill, not so much on morality. As consumers, we are likely to encounter all sorts of clinics, some ethical, others not -- I feel it's unfounded to think a doctor is right-minded simply because he or she is named on this site, and, moreover, morally-bankrupt just because he or she is employed by a chain. This idea that "Bosley" is in it for the money always makes the implication that Dr. Coalition-Member is not. I believe, typically, they're all in it for the money -- as for whether or not a physician goes about trying to make it morally, it depends on him or her rather more than on by whom he or she is employed.

dont do it man.. your likely not ready for this yet.....MHR=bosley..... i dont care that they were nice with you and made you feel warm and fuzzy...they are salesmen trying to line their pockets. they do not give a shit about you. you will find that to be that case with MANY in this very dangerous indusrty. are you even sure surgery is right for you?? is it in your best interest to do this?? what exactly do you think can be achieved by hair transplants?? have you taken into account the scarring that never goes away and limits your ability to buzz your head?? have you taken into account future hairloss and how your transplant will look?? how about the fact that if you are, or go bald you will NOT be able to achieve true density througout your entire balding area. but rather the illusion of desity AT THE VERY BEST and ONLY after multiple HTs??? this is a procedure that has both helped and hurt many lives.. chosing a chain like MHR inproves your chances of being HURT by this decision.. the proof you want can be found through research. just spit ballin here. All right, that's a little lop-sided. If M.H.R. doctors are "pocket-lining salesman," there's no reason a coalition-physician is not one. The problem with chain clinics isn't that their surgeons are somehow predisposed to being greedy little pricks intent to screw you and drive off to Miami with you 9000-graft money; it's that people choose "brand name" rather than "physician reputation," and the brand happens to have no bearing of results while the doctor's skills are indispensably important.

There's a problem innate in the inquiry: 30 units/sq. cm. on one patient cannot be meaningfully contrasted with 50 units/sq. cm. on another. You're unlikely to fine one "guinea pig" patient who has varying-density work spread across his hairline.

Bill, I think some of the coalition doctors simply do not perform on-line consultations; Dr. Bernstein, for instance, even in his video interview, says his clinic opts not to, as he believes on-line consults. are predetermined to be inaccurate.

This concern for "technician competence" persuaded me to start a thread on the topic. Check it out, if you'd like to.

I think Dr. Alexander's advice is followed by most doctors, though I've heard of stitches' typically being left in a bit longer than five days (maybe about two weeks). It's give-and-take: you don't want to leave sutures in for too long, because problems may occur, but taking them out too soon, as well, can cause complications (not least of which is an opened donor region).

Give the doctors about a week to reply (note, some will not; they just don't do on-line consultations). Understand that these responses are not tantamount to an in-person consultation, and that, if you are seriously considering this, there's no alternative to meeting with a doctor face-to-face.

But they also work differently. One tech. might spray a hell of a lot of water (or "stuff") on the recipient sites throughout the process, whereas another might have preference for working mostly dry. The latter style probably will feel different, for the patient, from the former.

I imagine using body-hair for the hairline would be bad because of its own length and texture. As for neck-nape??“hair, I believe it's in a region not immune to balding.

What were the side-effects? When did they appear? Thanks.

I think your questions are practical. I suppose a doctor could lie, but do you think it's likely one will? By the logic of potential for deception, for all you know, everything in that clinic is a fraud: the degree, the results, the demeanor.

It takes at least three months for most people to see their grafts begin to grow (they might do so sooner, but they mostly will fall out within a couple of weeks). If your look tends to be "razor-shaven," why, exactly, are you considering spending so much on a hair-transplantation procedure?

I should hope, at least, no coalition physician works with "traveling techs.," then.

You contacted nine locations; that really is inadequate to draw a sound statistical conclusion. We can make all sorts of extrapolations, of course, but my neutral comment is, "It's very hard to provide an accurate estimate of necessary grafts based only on photographs."

Good point. Of all the coalition doctors, only a handful are really "prominent" names on this forum (e.g., Dr. Feller, Dr, Rahal). It's dubious the rest are worse than these stars, but if a review on any of them is years old, how can we be comfortable with him or her?

Thank you.

That should be the motto of this forum -- lol. Anyway, I did find it strange to read Dr. Epstein's presentation of your situation. Concerning it and the image he posted, I think we find ourselves at a difficult line (no pun intended): Doctors might freely be attacked or challenged by former patients. We expect them, in turn, to respond. What, however, is an appropriate reply. Indeed, posting any personal information about a patient (including photographs) without his or her consent, feels wrong; but, what will be the defense, then? I'm not claiming to have an answer; I just think there's a legitimate question present.

You were worked on as a teen-ager? That, itself, is very unusual. Plenty of guys, by eighteen or nineteen, might notice their hair-line is a little higher than it was when they began high school. It's absolutely absurd for a surgeon to agree to lower that for them. Hell, some men that age might want to just lower an unreceded hair-line; I can't imagine a doctor's agreeing to perform that operation. Talk about unethical.

Thank you.

Dr. Feller, but, does "technician style" matter? That is, two very good transplant surgeons might do excellent work but have different styles that lead to good-but-different results in a patient. Is this correct? Likewise, is it likely that two good technicians -- say, one working on the left side of a patient's head, the other, simultaneously, on the right -- produce two different-looking sides of the scalp from the same session? Thank you.

As I understand it, transplanted hair, for the most part, retains its native characteristics (if it didn't, it would fall out, and transplantation would be a moot point, altogether). So, body hair will look and feel like body hair no matter to where it is re-located. Look at your chest (legs, arms, ass...); look at the length and texture of that hair: are you really eager to have that sprouting from your scalp? It might be OK for filling in some empty spaces, but it'll be short and coarse and, when looked at directly, it's going to look pretty damned strange. Grow your hair out too long, the scalp hair will totally dominate the B.H.; cut it too short, you'll clearly see the difference. Be careful about avoiding any surgeon who tells you how wonderful it will be to pluck out the follicles from your forearms and shove them into the skin on your head.

I've seen many negative comments regarding Bosley on this forum, and I've heard a few from other surgeons in the field. I think ??” to frame the points better ??” it's not so much that Bosley clinics are of poor standards or that their doctors all are unskilled. Rather, Bosley is simply a chain clinic: there are many locations spread throughout the country, and when you visit one, you expect a uniform standard of service. Of course, this is medicine, not McDonald's, and people really mustn't try to think of how good "Bosley" is, but must consider how competent any given physician who works at a Bosley location is: I'll bet almost anything at least a few of them are talented. If, for whatever reason, someone is intent upon this franchise, rather than jump in for the "name" (or run from it), I think he or she ought to learn about the specific physician who will be in charge of him or her. If that information is unavailable, probably, the doctor ought not to be considered (why gamble so largely with your head)?

The advantages/drawbacks of either. When either is more appropriate. Etc. Thank you.

The advantages/drawbacks of either. When either is more appropriate. Etc. Thank you.