Jump to content

JayLDD

Senior Member
  • Posts

    1,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

JayLDD last won the day on May 25 2020

JayLDD had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Basic Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    Australia
  • State
    AL

Hair Loss Overview

  • Describe Your Hair Loss Pattern
    Receding Hairline (Genetic Baldness)
    Thinning or Bald Spot in the Crown/Vertex
  • How long have you been losing your hair?
    In the last 5 years
  • Norwood Level if Known
    Norwood III
  • What Best Describes Your Goals?
    Maintain and Regrow Hair
    Considering Surgical Hair Restoration

Hair Loss Treatments

  • Have you ever had a hair transplant?
    Yes
  • Hair Transplant Surgeon
    Dr. Koray Erdogan
  • Current Non-Surgical Treatment Regime
    Propecia (Finasteride)
    Laser Therapy or Comb
    Nizoral Shampoo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

JayLDD's Achievements

Veteran Real Hair Club Member

Veteran Real Hair Club Member (6/8)

  • Helpful

Recent Badges

330

Reputation

  1. No one is looking at you from these angles in real life. Post a few photos from a NORMAL distance as people would see you. Like I said a year ago, doctor not up to standard and result subpar. Looks about half or less in terms of necessary density. I doubt you could style this properly as well with this density. Would expect texture to be a little different than the rest of the hair on top, a little thicker and wavier generally. Unfortunate reality of transplants
  2. You're too stupid to know what constitutes "evidence" and that's what it gets down to. Same with any doctor that can look at the studies from which finasteride was approved and suggests there's good long term data on in relation to young men and long term use of the drug. Simply doesn't exist. Nor does good data on what exactly DHT does and how its long term balance or reduction via Finasteride does. We have tens of thousands or more claiming long term side effects, and no good data on finasteride and long term side effects. Quite frankly, its criminal. Its one thing to claim the evidence for PFS is weak in scientific terms (which is ultimately true) however to claim that there's strong evidence that it doesn't exist or is a factor of mental problems is again, criminal and scientifically illiterate. The idea that everyone involved is simply mentally ill or has a mental problem is offensive and any doctor saying as such should be fired out of a cannon into a sun. Most people suffering from hairloss who also look for medication are going to have elevated levels of stress and depression as a result, according to this r3tard doctor any medication they take and claim causes sides can be carelessly ignored and blamed on mental illness. Doesn't understand the scientific method, doesn't understand how to interpret data. Like you, except with a fancier education.
  3. Density is far higher than a typical midscalp and crown focused case. Typically you won't see cases with density planted this uniformly across the area. Clearly looks like 4600 grafts, however its rare you'll see this without much more aggressive frontal work.
  4. You're philosophically and scientifically illiterate, he isn't. I'd bet a hundred million dollars if you showed this thread and your food analogy to a group of PhD logicians in the philosophy department of Harvard and asked them if this was an appropriate analogy they'd say it wasn't. They'd say its braindead. I'd bet another hundred million that they'd say your quote "don't want to mess with your hormones" is a strawman and on top of that, I'd bet a third hundred million with the English department that they'd agree that your use of quotes here is inappropriate. Also as GoliGoli said people who understand science and logic will virtually never state, especially for something like finasteride, PFS and the effects of long term DHT reduction in the body that one or two studies "prove PFS doesn't exist and long term DHT reduction has no effect on the body" or anything along these lines. As condescending as it sounds you and many others here are too uneducated to have a discussion on an subject like this and you *need* to stop using the veil of "science" when you have absolutely no understanding of what it means. When you're arguing that you have objective scientific proof and you can't even provide a study your opinion is less than worthless.
  5. In my opinion, and I say this as someone who very much likes his results a major portion of why he would be recommending the drug is that in a period of say 6 months it can potentially greatly improve hair quality and growth, hence after a transplant it will appear as if his results are more miraculous than they actually are. If you don’t want to take it, then don’t. If he asks if you’re going to use it it’s probably better to just say you will but when you get home avoid it. From what I’ve seen the drug can give quite impressive results and is obviously much easier to deal with than topical however long term dependence on it for me personally wouldn’t be worth it. Your transplant will be totally fine without it.
  6. You beat me to it. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I cringe and question the medical profession when people including doctors use this same argument about the vaccine leaving the body as if that has anything to do with enduring side effects due to changes in the body caused while the body processes the substance. Like you say, these same philosophy 101 failers would never make this claim about a drug like alcohol or using cigarettes, logically its a very clearly bad argument.
  7. A drug doesn’t have to remain in your body as you say to cause long term side effects. This had to be one of the absolute stupidest, most blatantly poorly executed claims logically I see everywhere about PFS. Example, if you take too much heroin you can damage your heart and liver in the process. Now you can stop doing heroin and the heroin itself will leave the body but it doesn’t follow that just because there’s no more heroin in the body you don’t have long term side effects as a direct result of heroin use regardless of whether or not it remains in the body. Your heart could still be damaged whether or not the substance that caused it itself remains. I can just imagine someone who gets severe brain damage from having 50 standard drinks in a night, the alcohol passing their body in a few days and while they’re drooling on themselves and can’t walk you’re there saying “ALCOHOL ONLY TAKES A DAY TO PASS THE BODY THEYRE FAKING IT!!!” If you’re going to say there’s a lack of high quality medical evidence for PFS that is probably true, but for the love of God please stop this absolutely braindead argument about how long term health issues can only exist if a substance is still in the body. Second bad argument is that just because the drug had left the body, and that it has stopped reducing hairloss doesn’t mean that sexual sides couldn’t persist due to other changes in the body. This needs to be tested, among a variety of other potential abnormalities of those who claim PFS against the general population. Also, we actually don’t know whether those with PFS who have ceased taking the drug go back to baseline hairloss because this is something you actually need to test properly, not just assume you know the answer while blabbering about “science” with no actual data.
  8. "Using" science as "evidence" would involve quoting or directing to you know, some actual science or data. Of which there is plenty that provides evidence to the contrary and even the largest scale studies on the drug don't test long term side-effects, and certainly don't provide a detailed understanding of broader effects on the body in users through trials. I mean for fork sake he couldn't even use proper English let alone use "science as evidence". Laughable.
  9. If you have a set of anecdotes, quite literally tens of thousands of anecdotes and you generate a hypothesis from that you don't have "no evidence" you have ten thousand anecdotes. That's the entire point of generating a hypothesis, to test the baseline *evidence* that anecdotes provide as a starting point in the scientific process. Its also more than enough to suggest caution is necessary. The reason the literature on finasteride is imperfect is because of scientifically illiterate like you that parade around with the flag of "science" while understanding nothing about the scientific method or the process of logic in understanding accurately effects of a drug, side effects and more broadly testing a hypothesis. A dodgy study from 30 years ago that you probably haven't actually read and doesn't even study long term effects is enough for you to have made up your mind. Moreso, like you also don't understand that a lack of quality evidence like randomized control trials proving PFS is prevalent doesn't mean you can make a claim about something you haven't even tested properly is false or about how you "understand the drug" when we barely have any good information on long term use of the drug at all, let alone potential consequences of extended reduction of A5r and DHT and external effects that can cause. Or potential broader long term effects on the body between populations based on extended use of the drug that go beyond the expected DHT reduction. On top of that, many people even dropped out of even the initial trials for the drug due to persisting side effects and there are ample studies, albeit not expansive that show the drug can cause persistent side effects. There are many countries who have health agencies that force health labels on packaging about suicidal ideation and sexual side effects. None of the people talking confidently about how they understand the drug could even give a 30 second explanation of the broader effects of what it does outside of reducing a5r and by extension DHT, nor have they read any studies outside of the conclusion section of the FDA trials, and probably not even that. Science isn't blindly regurgitating medical consensus and calling it a day, if you're pretending that experiences aren't worth using to generate a hypothesis and test (and pretending no studies exist that show conclusions in conflict with yours) then you shouldn't pretend you know anything about the subject because you lack the intellect to discuss it.
  10. Spoken like a true pseudo-intellectual scientifically illiterate.
  11. If you want to be an insufferable pedant then sure, you could say that he might be a great doctor but have no results visible online. But in reality when patients have a finite amount of money, time and need to mitigate potential risks no one would ever rationally land on a surgeon that doesn’t have ample results visible online to judge them accurately. Hair transplants are a game of probabilities and patient posted results immediate post op are the gold standard of understanding what those probabilities are. Your comment is what happens when someone takes one formal logic class and goes around spotting logic problems without any genuine comprehension of what is actually being said.
  12. Topical dut or fin definitely seems the best option to try for now.
  13. Glabella talk aside, the hairline height looks totally fine. In fact proportionally it still looks slightly high. This is nowhere near an ultra low or risky hairline, sounds like body dysmorphia talking. You didn’t go to the best clinic in the world, but the graft numbers are reasonable and the work looks not amazing but above average. At this point chill and hope for the best. It’s not half as bad as you’re suggesting right now. Still plenty of time for the result to emerge, at the moment you don’t have enough information to draw strong conclusions. 3000 grafts for this procedure is also totally normal. Absolutely nothing unethical or reckless going on in the graft count. Not saying I know the result will be good at 12 months, but I know at 4 months it would be ideal to take a deep breath and let things take their course. Also would recommend posting the donor.
  14. Simply put there’s no “strengthening” a hairline when you’re not on Finasteride if you don’t have money to chase losses. You require broad areas of coverage so you can comfortably hide further losses as you lose more hair. A small surgery to strengthen what you have is a huge waste of time and puts you on the hook for more surgery. You’ll have a small band of resistant transplanted hair and everything behind it will disappear. Stupid idea and doctors shouldn’t even entertain it. With the amount of money you just described I wouldn’t get surgery for at least 3-5 years in your position. Wait until you have broad losses and then go for procedures that create broad coverage with 3-5000 grafts as your losses go further into NW3+.
  15. I've seen a thinning and even heavily thinning crown before with a NW1, but I've never seen a clean "bald" crown with a dense NW1. Also transplants in the hairline at a NW1 need to have high and uniform density to appear natural, if you're heavily balding in the crown this isn't going to be the case on a natural hairline. Again I don't totally disagree with you but it truly comes down to money, expectations and risk management/planning. If the money or the planning for potential risks isn't there then its a bad idea, period. If I was in his position I would get the surgery, but I'm reasonably comfortable financially and could have afforded 3-4 transplants with good doctors if I absolutely had to over a 10 year period.
×
×
  • Create New...