JayLDD

On 11/15/2023 at 3:37 AM, dufik said:

Hi,

It's been a year since I went through surgery and here is my update.

Now, one year post-op, I've taken some time to evaluate the growth and overall results. Honestly, I expected a denser look by this point. The hair has grown, but the coverage isn't as full as I had hoped for. The texture of the new hair is also noticeably different, and the growth seems uneven in some areas.I've contacted the clinic for a follow-up consultation to address these concerns. I think it's crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of what's normal at this stage and what can be done if the results are indeed subpar.

I've included some pictures for reference, but please note that they were taken under harsh lighting to better show these details. In person, it looks much better, and these images might not perfectly represent the actual look.

My only question is about the texture of the hair. Does it change?

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 

On 11/14/2023 at 10:13 AM, TheGreatPretender said:

Condescending? More like ignorant, most of all without any basis in reality or as you'd say "braindead". Its also funny how much lack of respect you show to the rest of the forum by calling us "iliterates" pretending that knowledge lies solely with anyone bearing your opinions.

I gave the food example merely as a metaphor since there are people around the world that also claim that things like Fluoride gave them side effects and are against taking Colgate, yes this is real check this:

https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/

But in truth there's people who died for eating peanutbutter for being alergic to the ingredient, should everyone stop eating it just because few had negative reactions while eating it? Finasteride as far as we know didn't really cause any deaths directly to any patient as far as we know.

You want the opinion of PHD doctors regarding studies here you have it and I quote:

And I will say this once more, no drug in the world comes without the risk of side effects, thats a fact. Howeaver Finasteride and Dutasteride have been used by millions for an eternity and they have a very good safety profile already made with all subjects recovering from them upon cessation or letting the body adjust to it.

I don't need to place the studies that have been approved from Merk which led to the FDA approval.

And regarding the importance of DHT this one should actually lay everything to rest. You can talk everything you'd like but the scientific comunity hasn't really acknowledged much use of the hormone itself after the individual finishes puberty. But just because you have side effects it doesn't mean it is because of the lack of DHT, correlation doesn't always equal causation since its highly possible (and likely) your body converts T into Estrogen with the patient being more sensitive to the hormone itself. The studies Goli (no disrespect to him) placed are all unfinished and do not prove anything, I could also post one that links DHT to heart disease but I don't because the evidence is still scarce, same goes for the importance on the DHT. 

So in a nutshell there are four things we can conclude:

Evidence for the existence of PFS is scarce and not scientificaly acknowledged as a whole.

Evidence for the importance of DHT in adulthood is scarce and not scientifically acknowledged as a whole.

Evidence for DHT causing Prostate Growth is high and acknowledged by the scientific community and several doctors and urologists.

Evidence for DHT causing MPB are well acknowledged by the scientific community and several doctors and dermatologists.

Do with it what you will but next time please don't come here fearmonger and insult other people's inteligence because you hold yourself in a higher pedestal. Other people aren't to blame over your iliteracy. 

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.

10 hours ago, BaldV said:

Doesnt look like 4580 grafts, good like with your results.

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. 

On 7/5/2023 at 8:41 AM, TheGreatPretender said:

Anecdotal: "not necessarily true or reliable"

And those case reports that you talk about lots of them deal with broscience. Hard to take them seriously.

Its not just food. Its literally everything you do and bragging about having knowledge on something to prove a point doesn't necessarily make you right. 

Stopping Finasteride due to its side effects is valid and understandable. Not trying it because you "don't want to mess with your hormones" and treating it like you're going to take cocaine or ecstasy is just plain dumb, simple as that. And because of that fearmongering more and more people are driven to surgery when they could have saved their hair all those years ago and they didn't because they gave in to online fearmongering.

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.

13 hours ago, Moddy said:

I am a strong 2.5 norwood scale, I'll be 40 soon, I am taking Finasteride 1mg daily for a long time and now I take Dutasteride a couple of times per week so I combine both and have no problem in taking them for the rest of my life.

I have a Hair transplant of 2000 grafts scheduled for late this year for the hairline with one of the top docs, De Freitas and he recommends I add oral minoxidil to the combo, I don't want to add minoxidil into my stack and be dependent on another medication that I don't wish to take, just dont want to do it.

How important is it for the results? are there any actual studies besides anecdotal stories?What are your experiences?

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.

46 minutes ago, baldfighter said:

Think about things like alcohol, or smoking, even if you stop using it, the damage has been done.

I am not comparing the effect of fin to alcohol or smoking, just want to say you can’t always reverse the effect of something you have been using for years, even if you stop using it.

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.

4 hours ago, Turkhair said:

I didn’t watch the video but Haircafe has done extensive job debunking this PFS BS. Refer to his videos.

If finasteride lingered in the body forever, we would take it once and then never have to worry about hairloss. Indeed, when hormonal profile of PFS sufferers were checked, it was all back to normal and baseline. 

There is no doubt side effects happen but for them to be permanent would be magic especially neither hairloss or prostate size is affected permanently - something measurable physically but only the side effects PFS sufferers want to stay permanent. 

Many of the PFS sufferers also live loser like lives, one poster child that appeared on TV was living in mom’s basement, lacked confidence. I mean that is depressive enough on its own. Give them a yacht with many girls on it, PFS would disappear in a moment 😂😂

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. 
 

1 hour ago, TheGreatPretender said:

Riiight. Lets just forget the fact that there is barely any evidence of permanent side effects of these drugs and the fact that people that lurk in forums supporting the idea even say that Minoxidil gave them ED. Worse, some of them even go and talk about how Saw Palmetto ruined their sex life. 

Its ironic that you describe him being "intellectual scientifically iliterate idiot" when in reality he is using proven science as evidence to back up his words.

Are we really going to believe in the findings that have been proven by valid clinical reesearch with hundreds of patients that point out all side effects going away after cessation of use or the words of people who use annecdotes and theories to prove their point?

"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.

22 hours ago, Chrisno said:

He provides hypotheses based on no evidence at all. You need to be critical. This guy is on a podcast to generate views/listeners. It is obvious he doesn't know basic statistics. He might be a doctor, but he's not a researcher, I can tell you that.

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. 

On 7/1/2023 at 11:37 PM, Chrisno said:

You are free to believe what you want. If you understand how Finasteride (and Dutasteride) works, then you also understand why permanent and irreversible side effects of finasteride is total BS.

Spoken like a true pseudo-intellectual scientifically illiterate.

On 4/7/2023 at 2:38 AM, Mike10 said:

I do not know if Linkov is any good. But I know for a fact that what you are saying is wrong

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. 

9 hours ago, Mat16 said:

I will try to acquire topical dutasteride and try that out for a while. That’s kind of my last hope so I really wish it’ll work for me so I can jump into the operating chair asap 😀

Topical dut or fin definitely seems the best option to try for now.

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.

21 hours ago, Mat16 said:

Well I am not really in a situation where I could evaluate how I will manage financially in the future. I’m sure though that the first round would be very fine. I have got some quotes from some surgeons before and it was around 3000-3500€. And they were recommended surgeons on this forum. But the idea to have a better hairline (I’m not saying I want classic Norwood 1, I just want to strengthen my current one, not necessary lower it) is really appealing to me.

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+. 

33 minutes ago, Rafael Manelli said:

You've got some good points but I beg to differ on the matter that I've seen plenty of guys who bald at the crown first. In other words, they develop a big bald spot before the hairline recedes. Ergo, a strong front with a bald crown can look natural, as it occurs in nature. It looks natural but it doesn't look particularly good. Obviously. None of us think balding looks particularly good otherwise we wouldn't be here. 

 

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. 

13 hours ago, Rafael Manelli said:

You're a Norwood 2 with receded temple points. Your hair looks straight and fine. You're receding young, and it might be aggressive. Finasteride has been ruled out. 

None of these are good signs. 

Diagnosis complete. That'll be $99 thanks. Jk

Try topical dutasteride. It might restore those shrinkers at the front. 

People telling you to wait until some arbitrary age to get an HT are just regurgitating what they've heard, to be honest. It's not that they're wrong, strictly speaking, but it's not a bit lazy in terms of advice. 

What's the point of waiting? So you can see how bad it'll get in ten years? It could still get worse even in 20 years. And if you wait to become a Norwood 5 and then get 5000 grafts, how is that any different from getting 5000 grafts now and then eventually becoming nw5 (but with transplants)? It's the same end result but you don't have to deal with many years of highly visible baldness if you get the transplant upfront. This isn't the advice most people will give you but take it or leave it. 

Your hair is falling out. It will continue to fall out without DHT meds. Topical finasteride or dutasteride is your best bet. Personally I'd suggest dut. It's stronger and apparently less systemic, so fewer sides. 

Your hair still looks pretty good. But I understand wanting back a wicked Norwood 1. You could get it, you know. It could be done. If you keep your hair that short, you probably want a fue rather than a fut. If you lock yourself into a Norwood 1 hairline, you're going to have to risk the possibility you'll need to keep getting surgeries to recoup any further loss you experience, and eventually you may run out of grafts have to settle for a bald crown. 

My opinion is it's worth settling for a bald crown in ten or twenty years, while maintaining a great hairline until then and after. I'd rather have that, than tolerate balding for ten years, only to restore a modest nw3 hairline and dense crown afterwards. But that's just me. 

Personally I'm a techno optimist. I'd be surprised if any of this matters in twenty years. Better/more solutions will be available. People will say don't rely on future technology, but that's just me. 

If all else fails you can just get a prosthesis. 

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. 

4 hours ago, Hairtransplants4life said:

First picture is october 2022 

second picture is today 

Is it still too early to get a hair transplant? When should I be looking to get it done. 

Currently on Fin 0.5mg and minoxidil 5% twice a day

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. 

On 6/18/2022 at 1:02 AM, IMM1979 said:

@Hair transplant is a hugethank you for your comments. Im with you. I dont trust any comments about hair clinics on this forum. My view is stronger than ever that its a herd mentality and people follow each other without conviction or real opinion. The stock market is the same. My impression so far is people on this forum get paid from promoting certain clinics. So in reality, there is nothing special about this site. I will continue to post my photos mainly for myself so I have a record on the progress. 

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. 

On 1/6/2023 at 4:45 AM, BaldV said:

100% fault of the surgeon

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. 

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. 

9 hours ago, Gatsu said:

I used to a lot. I have a wrestler/MMA background so neck work was something we did quite a lot. I try to maintain today by doing it sometimes but not enough if you ask me.

It used to be bigger 😄

Beast 

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.

4 hours ago, TurkishHair said:

This thread is bs no offense but if I’m paying $35k for a transplant I’m expecting my hairline to resemble a 16 year old teenager hairline. If I just want illusion I would get a transplant at an hair mill in Türkiye. I’m paying $35,000 for a transplant with a top doctor so my hair will turn back into 18 year old me

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.

6 hours ago, Mat16 said:

I mean you don’t have to tell me you see a non-balding head. I have been living with this hair for quite a long time and I could see parts of it just go away so😂. However, I would like to know how much time (at least approximately) I have in this current state. And if it is wise to stop oral minoxidil even if I can’t take finasteride.

maybe some advice how to overcome the sides and go on it again

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. 
 

1 hour ago, Fue3361 said:

From my point of view, it was an obvious “remove”.  But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  You have to realize that Melvin had a successful surgery with Dr. Diep, and personal experience can cause a strong bias, as it tends to weight a lot more than anecdotal evidence from other sources.

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.