hair_boy

I think you are in a difficult situation. You where told, pay x-amount of money and your head would be full of hair - or at least to your satisfaction. The doctor obviously agreed that the results weren't satisfactory or he/she wouldn't have provided the extra 250 grafts. Here's my whole problem with this.. when you went back and saw the doctor for the 250 grafts.. did the doctor state that the 250 grafts would make the difference and provide the original stated results? I mean: it seems strange or at least not correct that the doctor did not mention the second time: "look you are continuing to lose your hair (doctor's stated reason that you mentioned). I believe that to achieve the look you want will require another 2000 grafts. Out of the 2000 I will do 250 grafts for free. Do you understand what I'm saying...

People are just looking because you look different. Think about it... if you saw some dude with a surgical cap on, wouldn't you take a look. Young people are just extra curious as they haven't experienced as much yet. But you can be sure that they aren't judging you... just being curious... And sure why not scream.. well, maybe not scream but say - "yup, that's right.. just had surgery - they say they got most of the tumor this time." And if she's hot, tell her it's affecting your arm motion and if she can give you a hand after class it would be great... work it to your advantange...

Old Baldy: you know, I can't take your comments to have any value. I say this because you believe that Dr. Rassman although pulling a bait and switch and using fear tactics should be judged from his past and not his present actions. That's just non-logical and I can't respect such unfair thinking. Once a god, always a god mentality, is too right wing for me... And Dr. Feller has nothing to do with my original FUE result concerns. He being a professional jumped in to do some marketing. I said already there was nothing wrong with that.. and there certainly wasn't anything wrong with taking a closer look to what he was saying. After all, he is one of the few that is providing warnings, however, you really have to read between the lines to find them. You know, you all say you want to hear the experiences people have. And then you all take each comment so personal like we were talking about your family. I think maybe some need a break from this board... And just because doctors don't provide all the information doesn't mean we are against them, and it certaintly doesn't mean they are quacks.. (that's just rude to suggest I implied such a thought). Not being given all the information just mean:. hey you know what... step back.. take a look from this angle before continuing... I think to see before we leap is important.

pmill: regarding those links again - personally, I prefer to look at people that are completely bald and how they look after. It give a much more realistic look at the quality of work performed.... after all, we don't know if part of the good results had something to do with a just started regiment of drugs the patient went on... could be part of the 'good results' factor. I'm not being negative - just trying to see it from all angles.

you're correct I was off topic.. I think it's hard to answer your question because you are trying to decide between two different HT centers rather than between two HT doctors. For this reason it's impossible for me to say. Based on the photos from both centers they seem very similar and based on the photos both appear to do good work. I think when trying to decide between the top doctors it has to be a personal choice. For example, I might select a doctor because I believe they have a bit more experience with temple work... or maybe because they don't try to over density areas however still maintain a proper denseness which would be satisfactory to myself. It's all a personal thing... I think as long as you follow the 3 rule process your decision will be the right one for you, 1. select a doctor that has maintained good results that you like, 2. talk to those patients, and 3. meet those patients. I mean, what more can you really do... Topcat611: I think your suggestion is more so for someone who is interested in FUE and doesn't want to jump in with both feet. I personally believe that if a person can't decide between procedures or doctors then they should absolutely not get a HT yet. They should wait a bit, research more and the clear path will come once they understand all options to a level that satisfies them. Waiting doesn't mean months or years... it just means: kick back, call a few more doctors, talk to a few more patients and before you know it, the right decision will be right in front of you. pmill : no brainer there - who wouldn't want to have great hair like that!

Please grow please: again I don't care about Dr Bisanga's results - it's just not part of what I was saying. Old Baldy: you know any doctor that pulls a bait and switch and apologizes for publishing misleading information online directly to his patients, deserves to have the story told online. And just because someone has done great things in the past doesn't excuse bad behavior now !!! I think it's great for everyone to see a bit behind the scenes as I've pointed out. And yes, you are mostly 100% correct that I'm not completely quite ready to get a HT. But then if you read all the threads you would know this because I said so... I'm really close but because of all the misleading and dishonest marketing by the doctors, I did have to take one step back to rethink which procedure is right for me. This might take a few weeks but I surely am not going to jump in a chair until I feel completely comfortable. I suppose in a way, finding out about all the dishonestly by the doctors even on a ethical marketing level is good, because, it helps provide a clear view to make a more concrete decision one will be happy with. pmill: as mentioned the numbers are just an example, I do believe the FUE risk range is about dead on from what I've seen. Now I'm not talking about 100% of the results - it just represents there is a high degree of risk of having poor results with FUE over strip and nothing more. It doesn't mean a doctor can't achieve an 80% follicle survival rate but instead represents that they will do so less often with a higher chance of low results. Also, you are taking the doctor example as actual doctors - note that was only an example to explain how ranges work on a scientific level.. If you do a search on Dr. Armani within these forums you will find a minimum of 3 patients who are said to have results in the 25% range. And do I believe this - absolutely 100%. I would think if the average top doctor was able to perform 100 FUE procedures per year.. I would think at least a few would experience a 25%-30% follicle survival rate. If you don't think they are out there you must not be looking at some of the same blogs I've seen. I've see a lot of blogs where people have transplanted high number of grafts and when you look at their results I can only wonder where the hair is... Also, what would you do if you did a procedure for let's say 3000 grafts and your survival rate was around 30%. Would you automatically go on these forums... absolutely not.. the first thing you would do is visit the doctor's office where you had it done. After all, a 3000 graft procedure is expensive and people are more concerned about recouping losses by getting a touch-up than spreading the word. And I think that's fair considering how we were raised. Don't think I'm saying that the doctors are out to get us. There is absolutely no mistake that the doctors do want every patient of heir's to have enough hair to look like rock stars. After all, if that happens they become one. So even the worst doctor will do everything in their power to provide the best results possible. Rule of thumb - find the best doctor... T.C. : you are correct the top FUE doctors do have the best results - that's the same with everything.... the best cooks make the best tasting food. However no matter a doctor's skill doesn't change risk. Sure it may curb highs and lows but the risk still remains and I think that risk should be highlighted. I think it would be fair to say to all patients: if you are interested in strip - you can expect about a 90% follicle survival rate with a fairly good degree of certainty and a scar running from ear to ear. And if you are interested in FUE you can expect an 75% follicle survival rate, however there is a higher degree of risk. Some patients do experience low growth in certain areas and this isn't uncommon. Lost my swagger: awesome post !! I love this part " there is a common thought process on these online forums that "as long as you go to a TOP DOC you will be just fine".... its FALSE... you only better your chances of being satisfied..."

lost my swagger: I was agreeing with your first statement.. your second one I agree for the most part though... Please Grow Please: okay, you still aren't following what I'm saying and that's okay - maybe it's my fault and I'm not providing good examples. That's okay, I'll explain again as it's important you and maybe other follow what I'm saying: First of all, I do confirm that I said "Dr Bisanga follicle survival rate is no different than any other FUE doctor." And I most certainly believe this within the context that I'm speaking. Remember, I'm talking about the survival ranges and boundaries and not referring to ability.... My comment is more on a scientific level. Let's look again at the ranges I wrote: Strip doctors' follicle survival rate = 90-99% (this is what I believe) FUE doctors' follicle survival rate = 25-80% (this is what I believe) I believe that all quality doctors fall within the above ranges when they do transplants, no matter who they are. Sure a percentage of quality doctors will maintain higher follicle survival rates than other quality doctors, however, at the end of the day they are all working within the range that is possible as of today's technology. Success rate chart example: * total patients for each FUE doctor = 100 ** percentage represents follicle survival rate Doctor 1 - 80 patients at 70%, 10 patients at 50%, 8 patients at 35% and 2 patients at 80% Doctor 2 - 65 patients at 75%, 25 patients at 65%, 5 patients at 55% and 5 patients at 27% Doctor 3 - 83 patients at 77%, 14 patients at 70%, 2 patients at 74% and 1 patients at 25% If you look at the above 3 doctors, doctor # 3 by far has the best results but not one doctor came up and beyond the range that I'm talking about. With almost everything regarding procedures there is a range. Sure bad doctor patients might fall below the range and the occasional might raise above. But, lows and highs are usually not considered in any study because they aren't reliable - there may be other factors why the results were exceptionally low or high.. because of that we can only conclude based on the results within the range. The importance of knowing the survival range for both the strip and FUE is not to help us select a doctor but instead to help us decide which procedure is better based on risk and reward. I hope that explains my comment in more detail. pmill: I've seen only photos on Dr. Bisanga's website so my comment is limited to that. Based on the photos I have to say that I dislike a few. When the photos are small they all look good, but, when I opened them up I didn't like a few of the hairlines. Maybe it's just me... Of course there were a few that did look very nice and one that I especially liked. Again, I can't provide a proper view as I haven't meet any of the patients. I think I would have to meet a patient to comment ethically.

Totally agree with lost my swagger.

Please Grow Please: that's just pathetic.. you choose to only read parts of what I write but then you quote me. Well that is just misrepresenting what is being said. I have the feeling you are doing this on purpose for one reason or another. If you look back at the original post on the first page of the other thread you will see that I spent the time to respond to you. Here's what I wrote: Here's what I wrote: ------------------------------------------ PLEASE GROW PLEASE & Franklin: You both took my comments out of context. I'm thinking I didn't explain my point in enough detail as it was continual - I apologize but this has nothing to do with how good a doctor is, instead I'm talking about the range. For example here are the ranges I believe are pretty close to being true: Strip doctors' follicle survival rate = 90-99% (this is what I believe) FUE doctors' follicle survival rate = 25-80% (this is what I believe) Think of it like cooking a chicken. I surely know it's going to take longer than 30 minute but definally under an hour. The range would then be 30-60 minutes... Now this range isn't going to every change no matter how good the cook is. As long as all the cooks have the same stoves with the same maximum temp settings... no one will fall outside of the range... So if we go back to my FUE point... It doesn't matter which FUE doctor, they will always stay within the range. Of course, each of those doctors will have differences within the range, but that's not what I wanted to stress. I hope I have explain the point a bit clearer. ------------------------------------------

Please Grow Please: I don't know why I respond to you... I don't mean to appear rude but you simply don't read what I write and then you make comments that are completely unrelated to anything. Please Grow please would you simply read all the threads... the answers to your questions are within those threads and you most defiantly will see that I made no such statement as you are suggesting here: "Then you say Im a victim of marketing because I believe fue success is different with different clinics." Again, I don't mean any disrespect by saying so... I'm just trying to improve the fairness regarding your thoughts. Bill: I stand behind those comments. I can only say again that if my points were sharp - I do apologize. You should also note that your comments in your first post to me, were completely baseless and for that reason I hightlighted your response with such clarity.

Bill : This has nothing to do with integrity and certainly nothing to do with a person's quality of performance. I think the problem you have is with the idea that the general public should always be skeptical of what corporations say. Now, when I say corporations, I'm referring to the staff - for example, sales people, consultants and / or the doctors themselves. It's not a personal thing of course. People just want to protect their decisions. I can tell you that I've personally hired hundreds of staff in my life to promote various products and / or services. I would say that 99% of the staff I've hired which didn't have the title of 'sale person', had no idea that I was hiring them to be my pushers.. Now I use that word with a negative twist but that's simply to highlight my point. Of course, all the people that were hired, were 100% professional, providing the best information they possible could.. and because of that, the company that paid me for their marketing plans profited. Maybe that example provides a better insight to my point. And if my point is sharp, I do apologize.

Topcat611: I've met Dr. Rassman and I don't think for one minute he would blacklist me. The reason he wouldn't is because I don't think he's that kind of guy. And if he did work on me, he would do absolutely everything in his power to perform the best work he possibly could. The reason he would, is because that's who he is. He's a person that takes extreme pride in his work... Just because he's a bit sidetracked lately doesn't change who he is...I most definitely believe Dr. Rassman will take my comments as constructive, and in the form of 'tough love' so to speak. In a sense to remind oneself of what's going on. Life is busy and sometimes we get side tracked.. Thanks for your comments regarding the strip, hearing your experience is very helpful. PLEASE GROW PLEASE: that's totally out of context.. When I referred to not reading Bill or other paid posters' posts - I most certainly wasn't referring to his replies within this thread. I was talking about when I read other people's threads and he responds... what you are suggesting would be completely disrespectful, I mean, if I'm going to reply to him, the least I can do is read what he has to say. It would be impossible for me to reply otherwise.

Bill: You write: "Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Dr. Rassman said that his FUE2 and strip were the same exact procedure (your words)." Please go back and read my posts again, I say this because you are again mis-quoting me. I never said that Dr. Rassman said strip and FUE were the same procedure. He did however say that the follicle survival rate for both procedures was exactly the same but the FUE growth wasn't as robust (another words the hair aren't as thick - I know this because I asked him what he mean by robust) - and if you do read what I wrote, you will also see that Dr. Rassman early said that the follicle survival rate was poor compared to the Strip. This was a contradiction made by Dr. Rassman himself... it was kind of my point right?... Please Grow Please: You write: "For a doc to say he can only do 1000 grafts fue ,then say 7000 strip is hard for me to believe. Even if it was bait and switch" You then write: "I obviously skipped through a alot of what you posted since I thought you were a bitter patients". That last sentence of yours is the problem. I would think you should reframe from commenting since you aren't reading what is written. I mean, I certainly would never comment about what you are writing, if I don't personally take the time to read what you wrote. If you don't understand something you should start by reading what is written first - is that fair? Please go back and re-read the session about the scare tactic. Not only did he say that, he said it multiple times. Note though, that Dr. Rassman did NOT say "he can only do"... instead he said. "He wasn't sure if he could even get 1000 FUE, even over multiple days"... there is a big difference. Also, he did not say 7000 - he said 6000-7000 and when he mentioned that I believe he was talking about my total donor availability vs. one procedure. Simply saying such a blind statement that he might only be able to get 1000 grafts, was surely intended as a scare tactic to complete his bait and switch. And when you do read what I wrote, you will find out that I'm not a patient... I'm a person who wants to get a HT but can't decide on which procedure. Do I take the risk with FUE.. and in the very best circumstance get an 80% follicle survival rate with a risk of going far, far lower below that. Or do I accept the scar from ear to ear and receive a 90-99% survival rate with fairly reliable odds that the follicle survival rate wouldn't go lower. We only have so many donor grafts available in our lifetime - time will go quick and I don't want to make a poor decision now that I will have to live with. latinlotus: 90% is definitely a passing mark... However, I don't believe I've ever attacked Dr. Feller's credibility. I do think you are correct about my marketing background though. I see maybe what others don't see on a certain level. And because of this, when I point out what is actually happening, it may be alarming for some people. Personally I believe it's a good enlightenment to what is actually happening. If anything, it provides a viewpoint not yet founded within this forum. Brian in KC: Not everyone is a paid poster and I was providing legitimate feedback and the experience I had. After all, if I was making this up, Dr. Rassman would have said so in his reply to my post. Instead he just did some damage control. Also, my post is more about the ranges of the FUE follicle survival rate, and how misleading all the information out there is.. That was my first and foremost point... Sure I believe Dr. Armani should fire who ever he has doing his marketing but that was just an experience I went through that really outlines how misleading the information is from some doctors. And regarding the bait and switch fear tactics by Dr. Rassman - well, that was just unprofessional on his part. omar77: I know you mean well with your recommendation, however, Dr. Bisanga is no different than any other FUE doctor. If you don't understand what I mean please read the prior posts as I did explain this in detail.

thanatopsis_awry: First of all, I don't think you need to be a doctor to see the positive photos regarding FUE2, however, they are meaningless and misleading. And you do know why I know this?... because the inventor of the FUE2 procedure told me so. I was told that the FUE2 results are poor. Say no more, as you can't argue when the person that invented the procedure who he himself dismisses FUE2 as second rate. I heard this with my own ears and I challenge Dr. Rassman to say otherwise. It came directly from his lips... Regarding the scar... I've personally seen a couple FUE patients and I couldn't find any scars whatsoever. Sure I saw hair missing in areas but I couldn't at all see any scars. However, I have yet to see a scar less strip procedure. If I had, it would make the decision a no brainer... instead, I've heard of lots of wide scars and scars widening as time goes on. I mean just because you put hair through the scar doesn't mean it's going to disappear... In fact some say as the scar spread it pushing the hair up so it grows in the wrong direction in time.. Note that I'm providing a neutral opinion as before you thought I was against FUE. You see, I'm just trying to locate the truth...

Topcat611: Okay, I understand what you mean... regarding the percentages. Brian in KC: Here's how you start your first sentence of: "HairBoy you need to adjust your meds dude.".. You see, you have the exact same rude starting post as Bill did... It's just that you're a bit more forward... If Bill didn't start off the way he did trying to discredit me for no logical reason, other than because it's his job... then I would have never commented. Bill is totally entitled to represent the doctors and their well being. And if you want to believe everything said by the paid posters and staff at face value, that's okay, I have no problem with that. It's just I personally don't feel so secure putting my total trust into what the paid staff say. Isn't that okay, it's not a personal thing against Bill or anyone else. I would think it's just a fairness that I should and everyone else should have.