Jump to content

JayLDD

Senior Member
  • Posts

    1,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by JayLDD

  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.
  16. If he has an endless budget, I would certainly agree. If he's a regular person being on the hook for a surgery with a high level surgeon every 2-3 years at 24 years this isn't particularly realistic. There's risk of a poor result too which would further the requirement of chasing losses. You should always have money for both the procedure AND a backup in my opinion, higher order for someone at his age. A "great hairline" with a bald crown doesn't work. No one has a black hole at the back with a dense NW1 hairline. If he goes for a high density NW1 for it to appear natural he will have to at least provide thin but relatively complete coverage in the midscalp and crown. Certainly the midscalp as well. I think your techo-optimism is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But again, if he has the money (his parents happy to shell out 50k no questions asked for example) I would personally go for it. Currently the science in this area is an embarrassment when it comes to the future, the only promising treatments involve essentially cloning grafts and transplanting them. Which of course would be wildly expensive. Same goes for any wildcards that arrive, even if they eventually exist you have no idea whether or not they'll be affordable.
  17. You’re almost completely bald. This is 90% loss of hair, at this point all of these remaining hairs would need grafts planted into them so the only coverage you have is effectively worthless. Age has nothing to do with the question contrary to what people here might throw out without anything to back the claim up. If there’s a competent surgeon nearby it would be worth having them analyze your donor and try to find is there is any miniaturization in the donor area, below the NW6 pattern. Also the donor quality, specifically density and size of follicules, as well as hair texture etc. You should primarily consider FUT imo. Clinics like Hattingen and Hasson/Wong. Assuming you have a reasonable donor area and optimal laxity as many grafts as is safely possible would be worth considering. Probably 8000 grafts for a substantive reconstruction of all areas over multiple procedures. Dr Zarev has some fairly miraculous graft numbers with FUE, however his pricing is very high. The fact that your hair has a curl to it means that behind the hairline and in the crown the amount of grafts required for good overall coverage might actually not be that high, potentially closer to 5000. If your desired outcome wasn’t full coverage and just a modest hairline, then you’re still very likely to have reasonable success. I would personally wait 6 months to a year to see how the Finasteride works out, otherwise I would get going now, with the awareness you will probably need multiple procedures.
  18. As someone who does investing for a career, I totally agree with your comparison of hair transplant forum opinions to stock market prices. The unhinged and hyper emotional approach along with the rampant herd mentality only seems to get worse over time. At least this is a positive when it comes to finding opportunities in markets and knowing when to sell.
  19. I think its plausible to suggest that it is surgeon error, however I have seen multitudes of necrosis cases even for the absolute top end of surgeons. Plausible that even top end surgeons will make mistakes 1/200 cases, for a fine detail surgery such as this human error is absolutely something to think about. There are certainly cases though such as people who are regular smokers and alcoholics for whom maybe they should not have been admitted to begin with, but you can't entirely blame the surgeon for necrosis occurring. Realistically physiology is probably having some impact and there are times where a good surgeon under standard protocols will still have unexpected consequences such as necrosis. I would disagree with your post overall as speaking in absolutes for which quite frankly you have no clinical data or medical knowledge to claim isn't helpful. However I would say that all surgeons who have cases with severe complications such as this should be offering refunds on top of any aid they can to rectify cases such as this, even if they aren't entirely to blame for them. It should be the standard of care in an industry with this much profit to rectify the situation for all patients, particularly instances that are especially negative as necrosis is even if the doctor isn't at fault. But that doesn't mean you should blame the doctor for what realistically will some percentage of the time occur outside of their control, even if they ought to rectify the negative result.
  20. Considered writing this in all caps just so you would get the message. The work you had done is God awful and you should completely rethink your decision to have a second procedure, you should consult members and research for at least 20 hours and a few months AT MINIMUM before you have more work done. This is barely a step up from a botched procedure. DON'T get a second procedure because you are a poor judge of quality at this point and need to do more research. You're pissing money and donor down the drain. Regroup and take a serious think about what you're doing. If this sounds like an extreme response, good because you need a wake up call. The work you had done is not at a standard ANY clinic should operate at in 2022. It looks awful, but you can get such a better result with a competent doctor.
  21. Reddit is a garbage source for anything transplant related, it’s like a group of clueless sixteen year olds. Nowhere in the industry is perfect by any means but for whatever reason Reddit is almost always clueless on the subject. There are Hasson (him being an example of extreme dense packing) cases of similar graft numbers with a similar area of coverage. This appears somewhere in a similar ballpark of density. If I was looking at the front and temples, I’d guess 2800. It’s clearly an above average dense pack. From your claim that some grafts are in the crown, (let’s say 3-400) which would only just be roughly 10% and appear relatively small, this number seems reasonable. Id still guess a bit less, but to be very clear a frontal hairline due to the numbers of single hair grafts and required higher levels of density for illusion of coverage means that virtually any hairline case is using a bare minimum of 1500 grafts. Going back and retaining a high level of density behind as is shown here, then temples, then crown it’s easy to see how that number can be reached. People who are saying 2000 have no experience or understanding, period. To me work looks quite good and I’d assume a clinic at this level is unlikely to stiff you on grafts. The donor also appears much closer to 3500 than 2000 grafts as well.
  22. I feel sorry for the doctor that inevitably is going to get called an evil butcher by you after your result isn’t completely perfect.
  23. If you’ve had sides already it would be stupid to continue messing with the drug. Avoid it entirely and accept that you’re likely to need multiple surgeries over time and will continue to lose hair. Consider ketoconazole shampoo as a mild anti-androgen. Hardly going to replace Finasteride but potentially can slow the process. Minoxidil has an extremely low success rate and some people aren’t responders period, it’s possible you’re in this category if you’ve never noticed any growth at all. in terms of how much longer you have, we’ll there’s no point asking people on the forum that because you’re the one living with it. The best you can do is take photographs, in my opinion it’s likely you’ll be in a position for surgery within 3-5 years and likely need two surgeries over the next decade or so. But that’s extremely vague guessing, you’d know better than anyone from your own experience and family history with balding.
  24. I don't think its unfair to suggest this or for anyone to feel some bias for their doctor especially in the case they had good work done. Its a big psychological impact to consider, very few people are above it. The sad part is it still seems as if Diep has a substantive number of very strong cases even recently, the ethics issues, punch sizes and lack of micro-irregularities are all issues that could be rectified. The reality is he could cut his caseload 50% and still likely be making what most would consider obscene amounts of money. It feels like the clinic has trended in the opposite direction over time but the guy is obviously a very talented surgeon.
×
×
  • Create New...