paleocapa89

Bill, this topic was created a month ago, and it doesn't seem like there is much progress. Or at least it is not transparent at all what is happening behind the curtains.Your post's content and use of words, (deliberately or not) create uncertainty around the claims and alleviate the responsibility of the clinic. (your post doesn't seem strict at all I think we can agree on that) ..I do feel that their private explanation regarding all 12 to 15 cases or satisfactory as each case has to be taken separately.... ...(we) have suggested that the doctor consider getting more involved like he used to which may take care of any possible quality control issues that exist... ...perhaps we can give him another chance and possibly just put him on probation... ...Regarding the potential fake accounts, there is no solid evidence one way or another... ... as long as this behavior does not continue, I think this alone can be forgiven... These are the things that were discovered over the last month: - usage of fake accounts to praise the doc's work and recommend him - usage of shady tactics on another forum and getting banned from there - usage of techs in the operation long before it was publicly admitted. Deceptive information on the doctor's involvement - knocking out patients in the past, and when they woke up they found that the techs were operating on them, meaning they were making incisions and implantation with the choi pen. Those patients thought - rightfully - that their operation would be done 100% by the doc, this was in 2014! - the insufficient and rushed pre-op evaluation and patient information. No donor capacity assessment, no miniaturization check, no master plan. Nothing. - rotating techs doing all the extraction and part of the IMPLANTATION which in this case - due to the usage of the implanter pen - means they are making INCISIONS as well. The techs are basically conducting hair transplant operation. Were the techs prescreened as well? - the numerous cases of overharvestation, poor growth and misangled grafts. I think there is more than enough information to make a well founded decision. Either accept these as facts or disprove them. There should be no middle way. Ultimately, do you think that the patients that visit this site and will be influenced by it will be in good hands in this clinic? Would you have your own procedure at this clinic?

stig, I wrote IMO before my statement, please at least do the same. But I am really interested why do you so strongly believe that there is nothing promising what so ever going on in the field of research.

This is a very-very good list biolizard, I would only add two things: - start with a psychologist first and understand where the dissatisfaction with yourself stems from, and why do you want to have a HT. - be sure to understand the difference between wanting hair and wanting a HT - wait at least five years because IMO there are some really promising stuff in the research pipelines. esrec: I think my main objection stemmed from two things: - having a surgery that is indeed sounded and looked like an INVASIVE SURGERY when your head is CUT OPEN. I was so appalled by that thought that I didn't even get to the point of thinking about the huge life-long scar. - I was under the impression that someone really had to be vain and desperate to have a FUT procedure because it looked so bad and it didn't feel right to expose my body to such trauma. On the other hand FUE was advertised as if it was like a scarless quickfix for hairloss. I was honestly wondering why isn't it more popular, why people chose to be bald when this miraculous new treatment is available. I didn't even comprehend that it is also a SURGERY and that is also why I didn't research it thoroughly. FUT is at least an honest procedure, it does not want to look like something that it is not. But FUE is a sneaky misleading bastard, that will lure in many uneducated young guys. And that is why the doctors responsibility of assessing and informing every patient is pivotal.

I'm holding out, but to be honest I am not so optimistic about the future. Sometimes I find myself wondering what would be better, more growth or less growth. More growth is good if it it gives me a cosmetically acceptable result, but bad if it it doesn't, since I don't think I could go through another procedure to repair it. If it is bad, I will probably either have to shave it and/or remove some hair with electrolysis. 2500 grafts down the drain... The only think I'm glad about is that, no matter how things turn out, I won't have to deal with a strip scar. Although on the other hand, if it wasn't for FUE and all the scarless miracle transformation bullshit advertisement that lured me in I would have never went for a FUT operation no matter how bad my hairloss was. I wonder why this forum doesn't have a dedicated repair section where people can learn from other people's experiences and exit strategies. If I want to be cynical, I'd say it is because it would highlight the negative side of hair transplants and hurt the business... But honestly, a repair section would be great. I had to collect information from multiple sources to try to formulate what options I have in the worst case scenario.

Yes, my skin is still discolored and bumpy, but at least it's not inflamed anymore which I take as a good sign. Biolizard, I know you had to deal with huge amount of stress as well, but seeing your picture I think you are on a good path to a great result. you already have substantial growth yet you are only 3,5 month post op. I'd say - I know it's hard - but try not to worry so much,

Hi HTsoon I just took some pictures to show my progress. I have been lazy with the picture taking recently for several reasons: - I didnt experience much growth but some wiry hairs coming out in patches, mostly 2's and 3's, and I needed to go out so I shaved it - my native hair grew quite long so my donor are is covered now, I would need to cut it short again to check whether the overharvestation/shockloss is still there - finally found some peace and was able to concentrate on other things. Here are the pics, basically, the black dots are the hairs that are growing, I'll let them grow a little longer and take pictures later.

Exactly, my hairloss was not that bad but my mind made it look worse for me. This guy had a nice mature hairline yet he still took the risk of a hair transplant. It just doesn't make sense. But why does it hurt you so much if I raise the question whether it was a good approach to offer this guy a cosmetic surgery? In my opinion this guy took on unnecessary risk to have a HT. Was his judgement impaired? Should it be the doctors responsibility to reject a patient in this case? Thats a question for debate. Apart from that the result is outstanding.

I didnt mean it to be funny. Yes my hairloss affected me badly that lead to a bad decision. If this guy was a norwood 2 as stated than I was norwood 26 but my case has nothing to do with this one. It baffles me why this guy reached out to a hair transplant doctor in the first place. And I think it is debatable that he was found eligible for a hair transplant. Was it in his best interest to have a HT? Should a HT doc operate on anyone if the risks are told?

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.

I am sorry for your lack of results Xkos48

Is it a great surgical performance from the doctor? Yes. Is it a great advice for the patient to go through with the hair transplant? No. Even if the patient insisted, I don't think creating an adolescent hairline on someone who has barely any hair loss is a good or ethical approach.

Monty3001 Which points exactly did you find hard to believe ? Maybe I can help clarifying them.

LondonHTseeker I read that Dr Feller is a reputable doctor, so I understand why you use him as a basis of comparison, however I am sure that I could find an another reputable doctor, who does the whole procedure himself. I think the phenomenon of doctors doing very little part of the procedure and whether it is good or bad can be debated on it's own. However, I am pretty sure you can't find a reputable doctor who let the techs do the INCISIONS. It was discussed thoroughly how important it is that the doctor himself do all the incisions. Techs can then place the grafts in the holes. However, with the implanter pen, the techs are doing the incisions themselves and placing the grafts as well at the same time monty3001 (if your attack is towards me) you clearly didn't read through the whole thread, if you did, you would now that I am not stating irrational things, but the opposite, I am stating facts. If facts hurt someone's business, then maybe it is time to do a self-assessment.

Instead of discussing whether music should be played or not in an operating room (without the consent of the patient) please focus on DoganayPatient's original list of concerns. He's concerns are clearly not stemming from the dislike of the music that was played but the unprofessional environment and the possibility of a hygiene issue that caused him (and other patients) severe folliculitis.

I think the operating room should be a professional environment. Music can be played to calm or entertain the patient if he asks, but not to entertain the nurses.

DoganayPatient Thank you for sharing your story, I try to quickly answer some things that came up: - From your explanation, it seems that you arrived to Dr Doganay well informed. Sadly, I didn't. I didn't even research this forum thoroughly before my procedure. I come across FUE HT-s first in the TV through celebs having hair transplants and other commercials. I was young and depressed cause of my hairloss and I saw a window of opportunity to do something about it so I acted fast. I was a fool. It didn't even occur to me that this is something that I need to thoroughly research I was under the impression that this is a medical procedure, conducted by a doctor, and I do not need to understand every little aspect of it. I though I will receive all the necessary information and evaluation from a doctor who knows it better. I think there are lot of people like me out there and that is why it is paramount that the doctor assesses and informs them thoroughly. But the thing is, it seem in this industry the doctors should not be considered "doctors" but rather used car salesmen. (my apologies to the exemptions) - I was asked if I am on propecia, I expressed that I am not, and I don't take it due to sides. I also asked if I need to take propecia after the procedure, but I was told that I don't have to. I agree with you that, having a HT without propecia is a big mistake. But again, I though I could trust what I was told. Retrospectively it seems so obvious one needs to take propecia or he will be fu**ed. Hell, even with propecia people will lose their hair, that is why is so important to assess the donor capacity and the balding pattern and plan from backwards. I know that now, but I didn't know that before. I think many people have HT's to get a relief from worrying about their hairloss, but I see now that is a misconception. If these people were properly told that HT is not a solution for hairloss, and they will still have to take propecia, and they will probably worry even more about their hairloss, then these people would refuse the procedure and doctors would make much less money. - I didn't want to discredit happy expatients. I am happy for them if they are satisfied with the results, however after I opened my thread a number of alleged expatient appeared from nowhere and aggressively attacked and tried to discredit me. I do believe that Dr Doganay is capable of good work and there are a number of happy patients out there but the pattern and the behavior of these new patients seemed suspicious. - After the procedure I was pretty happy, but when I got folliculitis and for the very first time I could see my balding pattern and how progressed it is, that was the moment when I started to panic and did deep research on different forums. When I confronted Dr Doganay with my concerns all I got was bs, meaningless answers and evasion. And then I opened this thread. - I didn't know that folliculitis was this common with Doganay patients. If this is the case there is something wrong with the hygiene of the procedure or the place. Both seems reasonable, the implanter pens go through several hands before they are stuck into your head then they go through several hands again and so on. Or having the procedure in a general hospital is the cause. Hospitals are the best places to get infections. monty Thanks for sharing your story as well, just some quick answers: - Please do not compare young nurses listening to pop music to brain surgeons listening to classical music or whatever, I am not even sure whether brain surgeons in fact listen to music or it is just something from TV. - About the techs implanting: Yes top docs sometimes use techs to help them PLACE the grafts after the surgeon made all the incision holes himself. It is paramount that the doctor do all the incisions since the quality of the work highly depends on it. The incisions must be made in the right place in the right depth and in the right angle. This is a procedure that requires anatomic knowledge, artistry and many years of experience. When techs use the implanter pens it means that they are not only placing the grafts in holes but MAKING THE INCISIONS themselves! Do you think that is acceptable? I do not.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that running a forum like this has huge costs. Even if it generates a huge amount of traffic and employs some people full or part time. What do you need? A domain, some dedicated servers, some development and maintenance and some people who work part time as moderators. Even if I assume 200k/year for operating cost - which is an overestimate imo - , if the 65 recommended doctor indeed pay 10k/year that would leave us with 450k/year profit. Don't get me wrong, I don't envy them for making money, but I often read things that try to justify why they need to make profit to "protect the free speech" and to "keep this community running". I think it should be clear to all that this website is not mother Teresa, nor a non-profit venture. This is a for-profit business. And as such they will face conflict of interests and lobbying. How will they resolve it? I don't know. But in my opinion if you are dealing with such a delicate issue as hair transplant in such a notorious industry, and you state that your mission is to "educate the patients" then much more transparency is needed.

To Bill: This is a joke. After all the things that were discovered about this clinic, you truly believe the only concern is that "you are not exactly sure how involved the surgeon is during the procedure anymore"? But no problem because you have suggested him to "consider getting more involved"? After all the things that were discovered, would you recommend him wholeheartedly? Would you have your own procedure at this clinic?

I agree to disagree Stig. I think it is indeed misleading to highlight and use the word of "recommended" on the front page and have a disclaimer at the back which is not as evident to find and which basically says, "btw we take no responsibility for anything what so ever, so if you rely on any of the information that might not even be valid or accurate, it is your own risk". The two pieces of information are separated and the connection between them might not be evident to everybody. And even if these doctors were pre-screened and they met some sort of standards before they got recommended, it seems that these recommendations should only apply to that particular moment in time when the screening was done. It seems that there is no quality control in place that assures that they are in fact continuously meeting those standards. So it would be more appropriate to display them like: XY doctor last met our standards of recommendations when we screened him in 2014.04.21.

Yes, I did the same mistake. And many more people might potentially make the same mistake. The thing is, if one is uneducated and see the word recommended one might think that it can be trusted. Recommended is a very strong word, and in this case it can be misleading. There is not even an order between the doctors (except for coalition/non coalition) You probably did a very thorough research and you probably would recommend those doctors you mentioned without hesitation, and you probably would use any of those doc's services. Can the same thing be said about the many doctors this site recommends and the operators of this site? Would they go to any of those doctors for a procedure? Probably not. In that case isn't it a bit hypocritical to use the word "recommended"? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them for example affiliated clinics or something? I know, I am being naive again..

I think your attack towards me is uncalled for. I am not trying to blame anybody for my own faults, nor going after the moderators of this site. I have accepted responsibility for my own faults and my lack of research numerous times. (although I could ask how should one do a proper research if the source of the information disclaims any accuracy, currentness or reliability of the information provided). All I'm trying to do is to point out some inherent errors in the system to help it make a better and safer place.

Alright, I understand and accept your explanation. Legally it makes sense. I don't think either that they should carry responsibility towards the outcomes of the procedures. However, If I were a repair patient (and sadly I might end up as one) and my mission was to create a website to help educate people about hair transplants so future patients can evade the same mistakes that I did, my number one priority would be to make sure the quality of information and the quality of doctors I recommend are in fact reliable and unquestionable. That would mean total transparency and strict and continuous quality control towards my recommended affiliates. I guess it's a choice whether you want to be an aggregator of information (with no intent to monitor the quality or validity of information) or an "authority" over and a manager of an alliance of recommended quality HT doctors. In the second case in my opinion there need to be some kind of quality control in place.

Is it unrealistic to expect some kind of quality control from a website that wants to appear as an authority and a number one source in the world of hair transplants? In my opinion you can't recommend someone but don't vouch for him at the same time. You can't effectuate quality control but disclaim any kind of responsibility towards the recommendations and towards the accuracy and reliability of any information that is displayed on this website at the same time. Maybe you are right and I am just unrealistic and foolish. I guess I learned my lesson the hard way.

I just want to ask one thing that I often see on this site: I really appreciate that anyone can express his/her opinion on this site freely. However what I often see is if a doctor's ethic or work is questioned by a patient, then it seems to me that the operators of this site often come and stand up for the doctor in question. I don't understand how can they stand up for anyone or how can they recommend anyone if this site disclaims any kind of responsibility towards basically anything. To me the word recommend implies taking responsibility towards the recommendation. This is the Terms of Services: "...The physicians suggested on our Web Sites are to the best of our knowledge quality hair restoration physicians. However, Media Visions cannot vouch for these physicians, their experience, their credentials or the quality of their care...." "...Web Site visitors are expected to do their own due diligence and research in selecting a physician and/or treatments. Media Visions and the Web Sites, and their employees, our partners, affiliates, sponsors, providers, licensors, or merchants make no warranties or guarantees, express or implied, as to the results or quality of care provided by the physicians or treatments presented on these Web Sites. We expressly disclaim any liability arising from consultation with, or treatment from, any of the physicians and their clinics presented on these Sites. ..." ..."THE WEB SITES CONTAIN FACTS, VIEWS, OPINIONS, STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. THE SITES DO NOT REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, CURRENTNESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY ADVICE, OPINION, STATEMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED, UPLOADED OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE SITES. ANY RELIANCE UPON ANY SUCH OPINION, ADVICE, STATEMENT OR INFORMATION IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK..." I wonder whether they actually visited Dr Doganay in person before they recommended him to the audience of this site.

A wonder lasts but nine days. It seems like this topic was only interesting when the site's credibility was questioned..