JoeTillman

LondonHT, Because you are considering Skalp that means you are considering permanent SMP. It is rare to see permanent SMP clinics offering thickening procedures and I believe they normally don't offer this because permanent SMP needles typically go deeper than tricopigmenation needles, 1.5 to 2mm vs. .5mm. The typical hair follical extends roughly 4mm into the dermis so while there wouldn't be obvious carnage the miniaturization of hairs may exasperate the issue with excelerated if not temporary shock. This is admitedly conjecture because I've not read where any permanent SMP company addresses why they normally don't perform thickening procedures so take that for what it's worth. Stil, talk to Skalp and ask these types of questions. There is a tricopigmentation specialist in the UK as well, London in fact, if you wish to consider that option too.

My gut tells me it is the beggining stages of thinning. You should visit your local doctor asap to get a professional opinion and discuss the options that are available to you, including Propecia/Rogaine.

Johnny2000, Every doctor can and does have bad results but if you are going to Lorenzo you are putting yourself in a postion of having probably the best possible odds in your favor. There may be a few that are rougly equal but none that I know of that are superior. Some may disagree but it is a decision as safe or safer than any other.

Hi Spanker, In most cases they are unhappy with density, coverage, angles, direction or anything else you can dream up. Anyone else looking at the same result would see a miracle before their eyes but the patient sometimes can never be happy with the best hair transplant on the planet and I suspect in some cases they would not be happy with their own original hair. It is rare but it happens and it points to larger issues being involved.

I don't think there is a problem with that but I would recommend allowing Avodart to have a full year to make a difference for you before considering adjunct options like SMP. Avodart is powerful stuff and in my opinion the earlier you start in your thinning process the greater the chance for a strong comeback so you might wind up not needing SMP once one year has passed while on Avodart.

6000 grafts on a NW7 will not achieve what you ask, for the average patient. 3000 grafts for the frontal third would probably give you a nice result (assuming at least average characteristics) but with an additional 3000 grafts for the remaining 2/3 you will not get a direct ratio of coverage as what would be achieved in the frontal 1/3. In other words, your density won't be half that of the frontal 1/3, it will be much less. The rotational direction of growth found in all crowns, and the need to reconstruct this pattern, reduces the degree of coverage that can be achieved in the front due to the lack of "overlap" from one follicular unit to the next. When you think of tiles on a roof you can see how the front can have coverage just from proper placement to achieve a similar overlap for coverage. The same is much more difficult to achieve when the direction of growth is changing from one folliucular unit to the next as is found in the crown region. The general rule of thumb is that it takes roughly 1000 grafts per NW level to achieve a satisfactory result but it is my opinion that the number of grafts per NW level climbs as one increases on the NW scale itself with the real differences occuring once the crown opens up. The only way to get meaningful coverage for a NW7 with 6000 grafts is to pack them in the front 2/3 and grow the hair long to cover the back as much as possible. If you are hoping for shorter hair styles, your chances of meaningful coverage are next to zero. If you are a probable NW7 in the future then do whatever you can to prevent yourself from actually getting to this point. This way your question will potentially only be a hypothetical:)

Just stop, Bill. Please. You all know how to let me know these things privately. I'm done posting on this matter in this thread. If you have anything further to say to me please do so in private message or email. If you wish to continue posting publicly then start a new thread. Of course, calling me as you was originally suggested is the preferred method (as I've been saying all along) of discussing whatever it is that bothers you. Again, my apologies to Dr. Vories and the membership.

Agreed. Always thought so myself.

What concerns? First, the problem was that Bill said I'm duplicating the work of HTN. The two doctors I work with publicly refuted his claim. No more problem. Then the problem changed when both of you said I should have a link back to this website on my website. I have for thirteen years. No more problem. Why do the problems keep changing? Once one problem is shown to be non-existent, you come up with a new problem and then that too is rendered moot. What is it that you wish for me to do that no one else has to do? I've been waiting for a call since yesterday so instead of updating everyone on matters that don't actually exist try picking up the phone to call me.

Gil is right but I think the average is higher with 6500 grafts being on the low end and up to 8500 grafts on the high end. Averages being what they are there are cases where much more can be taken and of course much less due to extremes (plus or minus) of characteristics. Doctor skill absolutely has a major role on this too as some doctors recognize how to take wider strips than others with a higher degree of skill and with almost zero transection. Of course, on the flip side, even the best of strip surgeons can have patients with wide scars when getting a lot of hair. Regardless, you most likely have an easy 3000 left and more for subsequent surgeries if you so choose.

Hi Bill, Shall I post a screenshot to show you that there is a link on my website that points back to this one? It's done, so what is the problem? You asked for me to put a link on my website to this one. It was already there. Problem solved. Now we can move on, yes? Where did I refuse anything? So there is no confusion; Will someone from HTN please call me? I ask that you stop posting on this already decimated thread. It's embarrassing.

I don't. If I took on too many clinics in one geographic region then my input on local marketing strategies could potentially be viewed as "compromised" by the presence of another client clinic right next door, so to speak. Besides, I'm a one man show, so I can't handle multiple dozens of clinics with what I do. I can only handle a relative handful in comparison because of the involvement I have with each clinic so it is better for me and better for my affiliates for me to spread out.

Congratulations. I guess I can no longer call you Blake but instead call you "doc".

I'd like to apologize to Dr. Vories, and Dr. Karadeniz, for this becoming such an issue that they felt compelled to discuss our respective relationships. It should not have been necessary. However, I hope this settles the issue, whatever the issue was. Thank you to Dr. Vories and to Dr. Karadeniz for sharing your time and your thoughts. Pat, It is good to see you back. You've not posted in a very long time. I'm glad that you too have stepped in to give some sense to this thread. To address the issue of my "forum", if you take a second to look at it (as that is all it would take) you'll see it isn't a forum. It is a venue for people to ask questions directly of me, publicly, so that others may benefit. There is no option to start new topics outside of the scope of what the "forum" is intended to be. It does not see much activity because most people prefer to contact me privately, which is fine. Regardless, you have a policy of not allowing third party links and I was asked to remove any links from my profile so what legitimate reason do you have to question why there is or is not a link on my "forum" that points back here? I contribute solid content to this website (more so than on other forums I might add) which is worth far more than any link exchange, especially with the latest Google algorithm updates. Links do not matter nearly as much as they used to because content is king. Despite the policy of this website to not allow third party links I still have a link to this website which is placed in the section about my history. It's positioning is more relevant than a link placed out of context. I welcome the contact however I don't understand the purpose at this point. My future involvement should be no different than it is at this moment or as it has been for the past thirteen and a half years. I post to give my opinions and to answer questions. The only difference is that if I answer questions about a doctor I'm working with it will not be as their consultant. I will also continue to challenge doctors that present incomplete points of view or views I disagree with as this only helps to serve the community better. It provides invaluable content for your marketing and SEO purposes and it helps to educate the community as a whole. You win, your readers win. Done. Furthermore, both doctors that I currently work with have dismantled Bill's accusations about what it is that I do so there can be no further legitimate discussion about my work being a "duplication" of his own or anyone else that works for this community. I am not working exclusively with HRN doctors so it cannot be said that I am piggy backing off of your screening process either as I am currently screening a doctor in Europe that is not listed here. The two doctors I currently work with are members here by coincidence. For me to do otherwise would be disrespectful of your process. If I accept this doctor he will not be mentioned by me on this website as a courtesy unless of course he himself comes on board as a member. Once (or if, it is still yet undetermined) you see his profile page on my website then you are welcome to approach him for membership, as would be your right. Therefore any policy changes that are being discussed between you, Bill, Dr. Bloxham and David are irrelevant to what I do and unnecessary. Finally, there are two issues I think should be addressed. First is that of the poster "spectstronic". Bill has acknowledged that this account is that of another poster... The creation of the "specstronic" account is a violation of your TOS and a smear on a thread about Dr. Vories. I respectfully ask that you remove the post and close the account. To leave it in place under the guise of "free speech" would tarnish the very essence of free speech as it is nothing short of free speech exploitation by whomever created and used the account. I suspect that more mystery accounts will appear to continue the smear campaign but of course you can deal with those as you see fit. It's your site. The second issue is Bill. I believe that Bill was out of line by calling me out and smearing my character on a thread about Dr. Vories. If he felt insulted or hurt he shouldn't have started the mudslinging to begin with but it was not my intention to hurt his feelings. It is clear that the public dispaly he put on was designed to shame me somehow regarding his "concerns". I can handle it as it doesn't affect me personally but I do strongly feel that Bill should publicly apologize to Dr. Vories. This is a thread about Dr. Vories and not so much about me and whatever problem Bill has with me should have been taken up privately but unfortunately Dr. Vories (and Dr. K respectively) had to take time out of their own schedules to address the "issue" that Bill has with me. To discuss or debate this will only contribute further to tarnishing Dr. Vories's good name so let's move on. I wish to return to posting and sharing information. Have a great day and when I pass through Ashville on July 23rd or 24th maybe we can have a beer together at Barley's Taproom downtown (if your'e in the area) All the best, Joe

I'm still waiting for a quote showing how I'm supposedly insulting Bill or Pat and "undermining" their credibility. I would also like clarification on the multiple statements of how I'm "asking doctors" to pay me. I expected some new posters would come out of the woodwork on this one so I'm not suprised by "Specstronic" although I do appreciate the wit. However, I'm curious to see how long the account will remain active and the post will remain on this thread since it's very existence is a violation of the TOS. Bill acknowledges it is another user... Will there be more new posters slinging mud? If so, will they too be allowed to continue? What other surprises can we expect to find in this thread? Let's not lose focus on the issue. I've played within the rules and abided by the existing Terms of Service. If there has been a request to change anything about my profile or my signature or anything else deemed to be outside of what is considered to be acceptable, I complied without complaint. My current position in this industry is not sudden as I've been clear about my affiliations for two and a half months, since I first announced my "affilation" with Dr. Karadeniz. but suddenly I'm now being "contemptuous" and I'm "not contributing". My list of affiliations was made in the interest of transparency yet somehow this is being looked upon as nothing more than advertising. I can remove my signature and I can refrain from making any announcements of affiliations but then I'd be in violation of the TOS which states that everyone has to reveal if they have a professional relationship within the industry. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Had this been about me repping doctors that are not listed on this site, then I would absoltutely understand the "concern". I am currently discussing an affiliation with a doctor in Europe that is not listed here and I would not pretend to be able to advertise anything with him on this site due to his lack of presence here but the doctors I am currently engaged with ARE listed here and what this attack on me and my reputation represents is the idea that somehow HRN doctors can be told how to spend their money and whom they can associate with. And that is what this comes down to, control. I've played within the established guidelines yet I'm not only being singled out, as Bill put it, but I'm being smeared. What is sad about all of this is that Bill and I had an open line of communication for many years and I just can't wrap my head around how this has unfolded. A call, a private message, an email to ask me questions or to express concern would have been nice but instead Bill has resorted to a publc smear campaign along with false comments. If I ever have a problem with someone I have a long relationship with, one that spans over ten years, and I need to speak to them about it then I man up and pick up the phone. I don't try to make them look bad and make up stories about them in a public setting. I ask that Blake be removed from such discussions as it is an ethical conflict of interest for a doctor that has a partnership in a clinic paying money to this site to be involved in policy making decisions that involve the general community, not to mention competing clinics and those they choose to have finanical affiliations with. Ultimately, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do about this. I mean, no where can anyone say I've broken any rules to the point that such treatment is deserved so all we can do is wait to see where the goal posts will be moved to accomodate what should be embraced as simply great content.