Gasthoerer

I am sorry for you, but if the reason (of your loss) is that hair was taken out of the safe zone, you should be very carefull. Even with strip, you might not have enough grafts/hair left and you would not have been a good candidate from begin with. Good luck!

Update: Unfortunately, my conditions were not accepted by Dr. Feller. I still believe, even under these conditions, this debate would have been beneficial for many forum users. Dr. Feller, nevertheless I respect your passion. Maybe we get another chance like this again under different boundary conditions or with other people involved. Like the ideas I have shared in my PM.

Well, no one knows. Studies show only a slightly increased risk of side effects compared to FIN. Besides that almost everyone (!), medical doctor or forum member, warns for the bigger risk with DUT and recommends FIN as the first option. The reason: 5-alpha-Reduktase Typ I is exiting in more organs than Type II and especially in the brain. Hence, fear for side effects is much bigger than with FIN. The effect of DUT can be great: Twins Hair Loss | Stop Thinning Hair Loss | Dutasteride

Dr. Feller, Like mentioned before, I appreciate your passion for this topic. I would be very much interested in opinions of other clinics about this subject. Just like everyone else in here. Of course I would be into that and I do not have a problem to send you (!) my real name. But I do have some conditions: 1. My name is not exposed in the net (just to you and the third party) and I trust you to keep it secret. 2. We keep this nice and professional, during and after the call. 3. If none of the other clinics agree than they are not called out for it by anyone. I do not want to be involved into putting pressure on a clinic to go out into public in this debate. Personally, I think no clinic will not agree as they do not post here or on youtube anyway and they have nothing to “win” in this debate. My offer: I can send my key questions of mine in advance to help you and the third party to make up their minds about it beforehand. Keep in mind that, unlike for you, English is not our first language. If there are some questions which anyone doesn't want or simply can't answer we can drop them. P.S. Just to be clear. The names of the clinics were mentioned by you first and have admitted that I have met with only two of them.

Well, all data shows DUT to be 20-25 % more effective than FIN. There is a great chance this is due the improved blocking of Type II and not the additional effect of Type I blocking. New medication with > 20 % improvement to the current status is huge!

Everyone is talking (and researching) about fancy stuff like hair multiplication etc. We have FIN blocking approx. 70 % 5-alpha-Reduktase Typ II. DUT blocks > 90 % of 5-alpha-Reduktase Typ II and Type I. There was even a 5-alpha-Reduktase Typ I blocker investigated with no results. Why is no one working on drug with > 90 % efficacy in 5-alpha-Reduktase Typ II reduction only? Less risk thank DUT but more gain than FIN. Seems not as unrealistic as other stuff.

All of them are in belgium but one is technically a german ;-) I visited Bisanga and Feriduni and will go for a second visit to Feriduni (right around my corner so to say). Because I am a difficult case (DPA with bad hair/skin contrast and low hairline), I am planning carefully. I have to decide between several options to start (Front and top, only front, only front in a very conservative way). FUT or FUE depends also on the options I pick. Therfore I am going back to check, after now 2 years on meds, how stable the loss is and which option is best.

I second this choice of surgeons. Personally I had a consultation with two of them in the past, and going to have a further consultation up soon with one of them. My questions will be after the ongoing discussion here: - Why did they not recommend FUT but FUE for my case exactly (the gave some explanatio but I will deep dive and ask again). - Which number of grafts is there borderline between FUE and FUT (in average) in their opinion By the way and without judging the methods by this statement: Both of them told me that their majority of work is FUE today. Only one mentioned a number (or maybe from only one I recall) and it was > 90 %.

100 % agreed. I think there is no scientific data which give us any hope that donor regeneration works. If (big if) growth occure both hairs seems to be pitiful.

Sorry, my mistake. Run against the brick wall head first yet again and hope it will fall this time. I should have known better. Like I said, I agree with most of your points, I just think you are not helping your case (which I hope is helping hair loss sufferers) by your approach. Maybe I will play your game and ask questions, let us see if this works out better.

Of course FUE puts more trauma to the grafts. Of course the perfect FUT scar is smaller than the sum of the FUE scars (for major cases). The questions are: How much is the difference in the end and what is a "major case" ! And this should be added to all questions above as it has to be balanced against the risk of a bad FUT scar or the fear of public exposure of a standard scar. From my point of view it should not be difficult for an HAT-Researcher to really come up with a formula to compare FUE vs FUT. This would really benefit all clients. Formula would be sth. like that: FUE yield % = (1-Transection during extraction) * Growth rate of inserted grafts (non-dissected) * Factor for reduced shaft diameter of hairs * … (other parameters) FUT yield in % = (1-Transection of grafts by the Strip) * Factor for mismatched number of grafts (#) * Growth rate of inserted grafts * Factor for reduced shaft diameter of hairs * … … (other parameters) A lot of these parameters (e. g. how many grafts in % are damaged by the strip) are a function of number of grafts (and other factors like number of multiple grafts etc.) itself. Still we could get a nice graph: “Total Yield” vs. Graft number. If you enter a range for certain parameters like transection rate of 0.X-0.Y one could even plot a range for different hair types, estimation of different clinics etc. This would make the decision for FUE vs. FUT much easier. In my opinion this graphs should cross at a certain graft number, as growth rate and shaft diameter are higher for strip. I understood Feller thinks that 500-1000 is the crossing point. Dr. Law (?) in the video sees it at 1200, if I got it right. The scaring effect on the donor below the skin which was mentioned is of course unrelated to the formula above and has to be taken into account separately. Especially when further procedures are expected.

This is completely expected. After 1 month every transplanted graft should have shed. And maybe shockloss on top. LIke everyone you are below baseline after 28 days. After 3-4 months you will see if you had sucess or not. Before that --> Just patience is required. You DOc should have told you that.

Thank you for this thread. This should be shown to the "after 30 I won't care any more abour hair" fraction every day.

Sth. like that woul be great! Couldn't the e. g. IAHRS makes this as a part of their memberhip conditions?

Appology accepted, thank you. I still believe you could convince (or educate) more people if you would change your approach, but who am I to judge. If you have more data/papers to share, I am sure many members would appreciate. Maybe we (forum members) surpise you as well with their understanding of it. I have a third consultation in August and then hopefully make a wise decision...

1. I start with one of you last statements. This just shows, how your mind works. Anyone who ask questions has to be an enemy. I am NOT a rep of any clinic nor ever have I promoted a clinic here or elsewhere (I am in a domestic forum as well). I would be a terrible FUE rep anyway, cause, if you read my posts carefully, I admit that I think you are right with a lot of your thesis. I am just questioning your way of bringing it across. But I am more than happy to give all my details including my scientific background to one of the moderators. After that you owe me an apology. 2. You have shown a lot of wrong “data”, you have shown few scientific data (as there isn’t much available) and most of it doesn’t answer my questions. 3. Yes, I do need this data, but more important: YOU need it as a HAT surgeon. As I had many smaller and bigger injuries from sports (to user your analogy) I know: Some (minor) injuries heal well over time. There are no longtime negative effects remaining. My questions was the same: Will the grafts heal if the trauma is minor and what is minor and what is major. 4. a. This coming from you (see 1.) is rather ironic. b. This is rather scary though. The surgery itself is just a small part of hair transplantation research. I really hope you are listening to other researchers in this field even if they do not perform surgery themselves. 5. That is completely false. None of these papers are exclusively for hairtransplant surgeons nor do you know my (or others) scientific reading comprehension. 6. I think this topic was addressed before (see 3.) 7. You have repeated this very often. I understand your point, but I like data more than opinion (even an educated opinion as yours). To explain my question a little more: Friction has a non-linear dependency on velocity. Hence, there is an ideal velocity cutting through any material (also skin) depending on the material combination and the sharpness of your device. Operating above but also below (!) this speed creates higher friction and in you case higher effect (damage) on the grafts. To sum it up, I am not against FUT. I believe (!) FUT gives better results in average and is the best for all "bigger" cases. I believe FUT gives you more grafts in total. I just believe there is a crossing point (besides other topics such as skin laxity) and below this number (of grafts) FUE is better. I personally think I am close to this borderline, hence I want to understand more to make the right decision for myself (sorry, this comes across selfhish but it is true). Finally, I have visited two clinics in europe to discuss the best options for myself. Both are highly recommended in this forum and both are performing FUT and FUE.

Thank you for you detailed answer, which I again have broken down a little bit. 1. Then please show us the data from scientific research which are so clear. Most data you have provided so far (in your own thread), were just made about by you. And they all hints we have, leads to the conclusion, that they are completely out of proportion. 2. I think you talk about medical doctors, right? But anyway, (medical) doctors (might) know more than laymen in a very specific topic. However, being a HAT surgeon doesn’t make you more knowledgeable about physics or statistics as an engineer or physician. Being a surgeon doesn’t make you more knowledgeable about biology than someone with a graduation in Biology. There is your arrogance, as anyone is a laymen very close to what is his specific field of research is. 3. These are numbers which I have seen as well, but with very (!) poor data backed up. Because none of this work was performed by FUE specialists if I recall (and we looking at the similar studies). Also number of patients were poor (and therefore statistics). But if you have better studies, please sent us a link. 4. Ok, but what does this mean: Will this grafts grow worse any by how much (e. g. % of diameter reduction, % of non-growth? Will this effect reduce over time and give the same results but just later? Questions about questions… 5. You are right, but this is hardly an excuse to be non-scientific as well. If all would be as clear as you claim, then please answer my questions: - How does the extraction process affects the grafts growth in the long term (in % of diameter of the hair etc.)? - Does "stick&place" reduce these differences? - How big is the difference in yield by experienced surgeons from either procedure taking into account the dissection of grafts by the strip itself (which you never speak about) - What is then the mathematical break even for either method at a certain amount of grafts? At 500, 1000 or 2000 grafts? - Does fast extraction really cause more trauma then slow extraction and why? Background: Is fast extraction more critical cause you think the control of the device is the problem or do you think the stress on the grafts increases by the speed even if control of the device is not the problem. This is so important as it connects skill (control of the surgeon) with bio-physics (stress on the graft as a function of extraction speed). - Which hair type and pattern benefits more from FUT or vice versa FUE - Why are there still poor FUT results even from world class clinics? What is this X-Factor?

Like in the other thread were we have a dicsussion you are again on the the "extreme" side (so some would disagree). But I think you are right on track. I do not care about grey hair or wrinkles. But the hairloss really bothers me... By the way: Nice video. Patient must be very happy now!

Didn't he also had poor FUT performed elsewhere and also a small touch-up FUE with Feriduni after having FUT (or FUE?) with you?

Like mentioned in my previous post here: I really appreciate your motivation to educate hair loss sufferers in this forum. But like mentioned before as well, you do not help you case by being so one sided and, sorry, arrogant. To make it simpler, I highlighted some of you statements: 1. Your theory of the three forces is simple physics and the trauma of the donor (Under the skin) is easy to understand as well. The problem: You do show few (nicely said) data to back it up and which makes it still a theory not a fact. Personally I believe you are right, though. Question is: How big is this effect? 2. This could be a reason, but there can be a lot of other reasons why no other clinic joins the discussions. Also in other discussion few clinics are as active as you. And if fear of being attacked is the reason…you are one of the most aggressive attackers. 3. Again, you reason is very valuable, but it is no fact. The data is very poor. Do not misunderstand me. Again, personally I believe you are right. 4. All data shown in the other thread lead to the conclusion that FUE is getting more and more popular. Your 99 to 100 or even 999 to 1000 has not been backuped by anything. Also, there are many reason to perform FUT even if the results would be very close. Available grafts, hair type etc. 5. There are a lot of (great) FUE results here and on their own websites from FUT and FUE clinics. 6. Hasn’t Dr. X chosen the FUE only route? I think I have seen a Video in the net about strip scar and why FUE is superior. Again, I am not saying he is right. Also, if both methods go hand in hand, why giving up on strip? You logic is flawed. 7. In my country the most well known clinics perform FUT, even for very small cases. Actually with terrible results and poor skill level. Hairloss websites in my country recommend to go elsewhere (even for FUT), and my country is world class in other medical departments (and many other fields). Doesn’t make sense, but it is what it is. 8. Like I said. You are a major reason for this dogfight. Once again, I appreciate what you are doing. But as a hairloss sufferer I wish you argumentation would not be so one sided. Then I could not only trust more in what you say, but also a real discussion could arise like: - How big is the difference in yield etc. - Especially compared to the dissection of grafts by the strip itself - Is there a mathematical break even for either method at a certain amount of grafts - Does fast extraction really cause more trauma then slow extraction? - Which hair type and pattern benefits more from FUT or vice versa - Why are there still poor FUT results even from world class clinics? What is this X-Factor? Sorry again for my poor English as I am not a native speaker. This makes it difficult to be as precise in my words as I want to.

This! All this limits: Age, hair color, oly on top are just because the studies were made under these boundary conditions. Hence, the approval is only for this parameters.

Good result based in his status! But: Doesn't he also lose hair on the sides? What about the back? DUPA or other non genetic reasons are checked?

Thanks for sharing your story. Looks good and it seems you are now in the best time: Max growth phase. Would be great if you could share your graft count as it would make it much easier to rate your result. Did anyone at work comment about your procedure?

Wow, great result! Client must be very happy with this transformation. The donor after the first procedure is not just great, it is otherworldly. If this is not a mistake (and a pic before the first procedure, whch I do not want to imply) it looks like a virgin donor. He would still have had the option to completely shave it down to with razor.

I have read to the entire FUE vs. FUT thread and watched all F&B videos online. The contribution of F&B in this forum is great: 1. They (F&B) put a lot of effort to educate hair loss sufferer 2. It is very important to mention the positive aspects of FUT, as I believe many people see FUT as outdated which is certainly wrong 3. Hopefully they stay tuned and I wish more clinics would make similar efforts 4. Opinions (!) of F&B are more valuable than opinions from the average forum users as they have a lot of experience 5. I am still in between in the FUT vs. FUE and I would really like to hear the pro/cons of both sides But, F&B hurt their own case and set a bad example for discussion culture in this forum by: 1. Not backing up your claims with facts e. g. --> a. The famous 99 from 100 or 999 from 1000 FUT to FUE cases, especially when all shown data lead to the conclusion that they are completely (!) off --> b. The dissection and growth rates of FUE vs. FUT (some but poor data was given, if I remember correctly) 2. Directly, aggressively and repeatedly attacking forum users and even other clinics (maybe that is why no other clinic is contribution) 3. Failing to mention the negative aspects of FUT e. g. that the strip itself destroys grafts and this is for small procedures not neglectable) 4. Putting their opinion so blatantly above others (I mentioned that their opinion is very valuable, but it is still an opinion and no one is perfect), without taking into account that --> a. Many users here are very educated about hairloss (more than a lot of medical doctors I have met) --> b. The background of the users is not known (maybe some might even have a medical degree) --> c. We are talking partly math (statistics) and physics (three forces) where medical doctors have no (!) advantage about other educations (engineers etc.) 5. Promoting your own mFUE method without clearly stating it in advance in the FUE vs. FUT thread and also fail to give answers to simple questions to this method like diameter/area etc. Sorry for my bad English!