Shadow of the EMpire State

Seriously, someone explain the man's hair arc. Makes little sense to me. I think the Bieber hair was a wig to cover up a then-recent procedure. The faux-hawk pic, taken only a few months after the Bieber pic, makes his hair look extremely thin. A year after that and he's back to very nice looking density. Is he getting his follicles cloned? Benefitting from some other advanced technology? Something is afoot in the dude's hair loss arsenal. I wonder what.

The pic on the far left is from 2002, not 2003. It's right after he won the Super Bowl with the 2001 Patriots (the game was played in January or February 2002). He was about 25. And now, 14 years later, he has more hair than he did then.

It's probably a transplant---and a good one.

Shadow,

 

The fact that "Professor" removed his comments shows that he is untrustworthy, amongst many other things.

 

Youv'e been a member here for quite sometime and you always have a way of finding and focusing on the negative instead of the positive about everything.

Respectfully, I focus on what I believe to be true. Am I generally more negative than other posters? Maybe, but I think that says more about the fanboyism and political correctness that prevail among prospective patients than about me. I call it the way I see it. In fact, I often find that if I make a critical comment, subsequent posters will admit that they agree with me. Meanwhile, before I posted, it was all praise. Is that a coincidence, or am I simply acknowledging what "some" other posters think but are afraid to say?

I've been a member of this forum for years, and I don't tell the moderators which doctors to recommend or ban. I leave that to you; it's your forum. But I think I'm within the rules when I give an opinion, even if some people think I'm a negative poster.

LOL - I actually pulled a similar story for my first procedure a year and a half ago, so couldn't do it again.

Tell him that you've become a "cutter" in the time since your last operation; that you just started a new relationship with a hot number; and that she sliced your head up during a particularly zealous sexual encounter.

I've stopped participating in this thread because, frankly, I don't really care what happened. The clinic involved was never on my short list, so it's not that important to me.

I write now only to say this: never forget that this industry is not "medicine" in any traditional sense. It's a sales-focused business in which ethics isn't often atop the list of priorities. Caveat emptor.

Fair enough. My only point was that this forum is still a relatively small channel. The top docs are booked 3-6 months out regularly, demand is not an issue.

Thinking yourself indispensable is a good way to ruin your business. Every business has to answer to customers. If it doesn't, it will die.

I think we often lose sight of the fact that these guys perform multiple surgeries a week, every single week, and posting results to appease us is relatlively low priority.

"Appease" us? These are businessmen selling a product. They're doing it for themselves.

I think posting a letter or confirmation e-mail confirming the date of his apointment with Dr Feller listed as the surgeon goes a long way to establishing that he was in a fact a patient like he claims he was and had the surgery like he claims he did

 

Disagree entirely.The controversy here doesn't stem from his allegation that he was a patient or that he had surgery. It stems from his claim that he was baited and switched. So merely establishing that he was a patient would have no bearing on the question whether he got baited and switched. In other words, the "evidence" you want wouldn't prove anything.

Without this we have no way to know whether he is even a patient or just a random guy or ex patient out to get Feller and fabricating this story.

Even assuming that he was "an ex-patient out to get" the doctor, he would still have pictures and other documents confirming the fact of his surgery at the clinic, right? So how would presenting that evidence prove that he was NOT "an ex-patient out to get" the doctor? It wouldn't. After all, an ex-patient who was out to get the doctor would still have photos and documents.

If he can substantiate that he is a patient and did get the procedure done, then it is reasonable for the moderators to ask Feller to respond to the allegation.

The assumption that he was not a patient and, by extension, that he's just a random psychopath who whiles away his days pretending, of all things, to be a hair-transplant patient is simply not reasonable, in my opinion.

That's the Beaty of the court of public opinion, we can believe whatever we want, but a reasonable man will want to see a degree of evidence.

What's more reasonable: (1) that a psychopath wandered onto a hair-transplant forum to fabricate a story about a doctor with whom he's never actually had a procedure; or (2) that a doctor who is the subject of such a serious allegation would choose not to refute it simply because the patient did not post photos or a confirmation email?

Query: what evidence could have possibly proved the allegation? Showing post-op pictures or some other indication that he had gone to the clinic would have done nothing to support his specific claims. And doubtless, had he provided that kind of "evidence" (I use the term liberally), that would have been the general response among the forum members. But because he posted no pictures, suddenly it's "the lack of pictures" that makes his story untrustworthy.

These are just classic forensic techniques. If one side knows that you don't have a certain piece of evidence---even if that evidence is of little or no probative value---they harp on it. They say, "A-ha! But he doesn't have the all-important X!" Meanwhile, if the guy did have X, they'd be telling you how little it means.

I still can't believe how dumb people are when it comes to HT. Going to Mexico to have some cut your scalp open - yeah sounds like a good idea! I wouldn't go to Mexico to take an advil.

Precisely right.

Surgery is not a consumer good. It's not something you want a deal on. If it's that important, save up and get it done with someone proven.

. Like I stated earlier the burden is on Professor to substantiate his claims, not on Dr Feller to respond if this hasn't been done.

You can't possibly believe that.

Now separately, I think if the allegations were completely unfounded, wouldn't Feller have still come out anyway to state this? I think his silence gives me pause for thought.

See! I knew you didn't believe that.

I think it's great that he has such thick donor hair, but 25 is very young to put 2,800 into the frontal third.

No shave, huh?

Very interesting. After all, the shave is what's kept me away from hair transplants. I'm a lawyer in a packed office, and I've worn my hair longer for years. If I suddenly walked in with a shaved head and a red scalp, it'd be obvious, and I'd be a laughingstock.

Perhaps the next breakthrough in surgical technology lies in reducing or otherwise obscuring the ugly-duckling stage.

What does Konior get for FUE?

I can't comprehend why this guy was so concerned about his hair loss in the first place that he actually wanted a hair transplant. I don't want to be disrespectful but he might have had a psychological issue rather than a cosmetic issue.

Anyone who wants a hair transplant has a psychological issue, although some have greater issues than others.

Well a couple of things Belgium and turkey safety wise are not far off from eachother, personally I think id feel safer in turkey there haven't been any attacks there,

Oh no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Ankara_bombings

Anyone who goes to Turkey now need to have his head examined---and not for hair loss.

You can't transplant a patient like this and ignore the temple points/sides.

When you have a Norwood 2 hairline and Norwood 6 temple points/sides, it looks like a bad rug. And frankly, that's what this looks like.

Frankly, this needed to be a much larger procedure.

Question mods:

 

Would it be too much to ask each clinic to provide 3 results per month in order to remain in good standing? Cherry-picking results or even posting intermittently doesn't feel sufficient any longer.

 

Everyone would gain from this. Top doctors could further validate themselves, up and comers would have an easier time gaining credibility, and poor doctors would weed themselves out. Win / Win.

Not sure whether that would be practical or even possible.

This forum needs to come to grips with the idea that held 10 years ago and has, in fact, secretly been the case all along: this is a sleazy business full of bad actors who are willing to say (and do) virtually anything to get your money. That's the reality of it. And no "recommendation" or other stamp of approval should be taken as a foolproof indication that a particular doctor isn't a bum.

Think about it--if you recommend a mechanic to your friend and the mechanic's repairs fail or he/she rips off your friend, your friend can't secure a legal judgment against you. You can't make someone pay you back for suggesting a concert that sucked.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but your analogy fails because in each of your examples, the recommender is not being paid (directly or indirectly) by the persons who are recommended. Here, it is. I think that complicates the question.

Life--and the legal system--demands that you take responsibility for the decisions you make using the information available to you.

I'm not so sure about this either. There can be negligence in referrals and recommendations.

Preparing a response?

When they have to "prepare" a response Then, im sorry to say, we Got a problem!

Especielly if they need DAYS to do it ?

 

If my wife asked me, "honey who was that girl i saw you Holding in your hands Yesterday"

"Hmmmmm, give me a couple of days honey to prepare an answer for you" !

LOL

This is becoming a BIG issue for This forum

Well put.

I don't think women or men laugh at bald men behind their back,

Bald men? No. Men with noticeable hair transplants? Without question.

But I think you're meaning people who've had really botched hair transplants,

Or any detectable hair transplant.

but I don't think that the majority of Norwood 6 men who go to good surgeons will end up looking like this,

That's where you and I part company.

I have to disagree with you shadow, that's your personal opinion and what you deem cosmetically acceptable may be different from what others may deem acceptable

I'm sure that's true. I have high standards in that regard because I know how people think---particularly women. Sure, there are some men who wouldn't notice if you came in with a raccoon on your head, but women (and men like me) will notice. And that, I cannot have. I'm not going to be one of the people who gets laughed at behind his back.

I don't know your age or level of baldness,

38, Norwood 3.

but I for one am a high Norwood at a relatively young age, I think a Norwood 6 can achieve a good result so long as he accepts the fact that he'll never have a full head of hair, now this may be unacceptable to you, but for me it's not, I'm totally fine with having a thin crown, I think having a framed face is important as I get older a thin crown will be less and less of an issue.

If you're talking about having a full head of hair except for a thinning crown, that's one thing. But unless you have superb hair characteristics (coarse, curly, low contrast, etc.), it's more likely that you'll end up with a bald crown if you progress to a full Norwood 6. Also, if they use more grafts to cover your crown, will there be enough for credible density in the front?

Sure a 30 year old guy with a thin crown may not look good right now, but what about when im 50 or 60, I think looking at Dr. Bhatti himself is a good example of someone who has some balding but definitely does not look unnatural

Did he have a hair transplant?

Are you saying that this Patient shows no detectable and cosmetically acceptable result? Are we looking at the same Patient case?

Anyone can cherry-pick patients like Bobman and Futzyhead (famous H&W patients from years ago) and claim that that kind of result is representative for advanced Norwood classes. But I've seen enough to know that it's not. You cannot disprove with one patient what has been proved with thousands.

Really? Please see the attached pictures.

I've spent the last 12 years looking at pictures. I've seen thousands of them. And I can say a few things about them.

First, in the hair-transplant arena, pictures almost always make the situation appear better than it actually is---sometimes radically so. If you've spent more than five minutes on a forum like this, you've seen a patient upload post-op pictures to rave reviews only to complain that it's not as full as it looks. By contrast, you almost never hear a patient gush that his hair is actually fuller than it appears to be. So rule number one is that pictures lie.

Second, clinics cherry-pick patient results. Every clinic has failures. They're unavoidable. But in 12 years, I've yet to see a clinic create a thread called, "Terrible Result from Our Office Proves that Results May Vary." Never happens. They show the winners. The failures never make it onto forums, and that's because clinics are in the business of selling hair transplants. And any clinic that does a reasonable volume will be able to post enough success stories to make good results seem routine when, in fact, they may not be. For example, until recently, Hakan Doganay seemed like Jesus Christ with a scalpel in his hand because his clinic posted one home run after another. It's only now, years later, that the more-checkered truth is coming to the fore.

Bottom line, I've seen thousands of transplant photos. And the vast majority are cherry-picked cases of patients with good hair characteristics or just abnormally good results. And even then, pictures often paint a more roseate picture than is true. So how do I know what to believe? First, I remember that all transplants are limited by math. In the vast majority of cases, you cannot cover a Norwood 6 pattern with donor hair in such a fashion as to make it look undetectable and cosmetically acceptable. The space is simply too big for the donor supply, so when you see results that appear too good to be true, they often are. Second, I always remember that clinics post exemplary results, not representative results.

Now, I ask you a question.......would it make sense for this Patient to "wait" another 15 years until he is 40 years of age OR do something about his baldness "now"? Would you not agree that your statement that "Demanding things "NOW" is a root cause of failure in all endeavors" does NOT apply here?

If you're asking for my opinion about the case to which you linked above, I would not recommend a hair transplant for that gentleman regardless of age because I think that that degree of loss is likely too extensive to produce an undetectable, cosmetically acceptable result for patients without extraordinary hair characteristics. But if he's of a mind to proceed anyway, then I don't see a significant downside to doing it now. After all, he's already so far gone that the surgical plan would presumably take stock of a terminal pattern of Norwood 6 or worse.

Again, I believe that there should be no set rules here. It should be a case by case decision. Also remember with the advances in the HT techniques and technology, a Patient has the option to tap into body hair to supplement the scarcity of scalp donor hair.

Body hair looks terrible, and everyone knows it. The bottom line is that the surgical aspect of the procedure can advance and advance and advance, but until they find a way to produce more scalp hair (via cloning, multiplication or some other similar procedure), the surgery will have limited efficacy, so donor hair must be conserved to the greatest extent possible.

Bill and David should clarify with Dr. Diep whether he personally performs all the scorings and extractions of grafts in his FUE cases himself or if his techs do some or all of them. He claims to personally do all the extractions himself using a manual punch of his own design, and he touts this -- the surgeon, with intimate knowledge of anatomy and physiology, personally "pulling each hair root" (as he puts it) -- as something that sets him apart from other clinics that offer FUE hair restoration.

 

His techs would be expected to participate in the extraction process by collecting, sorting, and inspecting the grafts as the doctor scores and extracts them, so it wouldn't be out of the norm for one or more techs to be right there by his side during the extraction process and working on the patient's donor. If any of them are actually scoring or extracting grafts, however, that is counter to what Dr. Diep claims and is information that potential patients should know. Bill and David, could you please clarify this with Dr. Diep?

 

At every clinic recommended here, techs routinely do all or most of the implantations, be it an FUT case or an FUE case. Implantation of grafts into recipient sites made by the surgeon is one of the primary jobs of an ht tech, the others being to dissect strips into follicular units for strip cases and to collect, sort, inspect, and store grafts harvested via FUE. So it wouldn't concern me if Dr. Diep uses his technicians for these tasks. The one exception, of course, is where implantation is performed using implanter pens. Techs should never be doing graft implantations in that case, only the surgeon.

 

If Dr. Diep is routinely double-booking in-person consultations and rushing potential patients through them, that is both poor form and poor practice. The in-person consult is crucial to providing information, answering questions, formulating a long-term strategy for a patient's restoration, allaying concerns, and generally providing a patient with informed consent. It should be more than a rushed intake (sign them up) or marketing ploy.

 

The doctor not at least checking in with the patient following a ht before the patient leaves the clinic is discouraging and can indicate a lack of interest in the patient or his after care. I hope that isn't the case.

 

It sounds as though aftercare might be disorganized at this clinic and that the patient's access to the doctor's direct advice and input following surgery could be lacking. Again, I hope this is not the case.

 

I would urge Bill and David to raise these issues with Dr. Diep, see what he says, and, if appropriate, ask that he formulate a plan to address them.

Correct on all counts.

I agree 100% waiting until your 40-50 sounds ridiculous, 20's are the most important years in a young mans life

Many young people tend to think life ends at 40. They suppose that they won't care how they look then or that it won't matter anymore. Then they get to 40 and they think, "Boy, I feel the same way I did when I was 25." And therein lies the myopia of youth.