TrialAcc

What? Clearly because most people don't care to that degree or are willing to accept it. Taking fin is insane to the majority of guys who are losing their hair, we just lose sight of that because we've been normalized prevention methods and HTs in our minds though membership and discussion on sites like this. I mentioned fin to one of my friends who is starting to thin as well and he looked at me like I was crazy for suggesting he takes drugs for years to prevent his hair from going.

You cannot compare Yelp and the accessibility of opening a restaurant with a permanent surgical procedure. Of course this forum isn't made up of movie stars and millionaires, but that misses the point completely. The point is that if you do not utilize a forum like this one, open your cheque book for a minimum of 5 figures, know that you will respond decently to medical treatments and not get side effects and be willing to travel around the globe for a good doctor, then you're probably going to end up with a poor result. Even if you do all that, you're still not guaranteed to have a passable result. Those are not the characteristics of a stable/reliable procedure that average people should be undertaking. If I order food without checking on Yelp first I'm not doomed to have food poisoning.

I don't think he's wrong on the "just shave it" front in todays age. When he was losing his hair, shaving it was very much more taboo, to the extent where some places even associated it with racism and neo-nazi beliefs through the "skin head" movement. Now there is basically 0 real negative stigma or views attached with shaving your head, it's actually the route that people with extensive hair loss are expected to go. The horse-shoe on a young guy is much more taboo and socially unacceptable then shaving your head. That being said, being bald/shaved does eliminate you from the traditional Hollywood "lead man" persona unless it's in action movies, but Joe was never that guy anyways so would it even matter? As for the hair transplant opinion, he's clearly biased because it didn't work long term for him. That being said, I still don't think he's wrong in the sense that HTs certainly are still not for everyone. I know being on this site it might not be a popular opinion, but you can't just cherry pick the best results and be like "hey look how great this procedure is and how great these 4 people look" when it's honestly basically a crap shoot if you're going to end up looking worse then when you started based on dozens of different factors ranging from doctor, price, hair quality, graft survival, extent of loss, etc. The average HT result industry wide is still not even close to where it needs to be in order for the procedure to be widely acceptable and an option for the average person. If it were, sites like this wouldn't need to exist, people would just go get the procedure done because it was widely known to be a successful procedure & option rather then the negative and "plug" stigma it currently has.

Here you go. Have it alongside the entire front and center leading back to the crown. Also it's at the nape area as well but no thinning present there that I can see.

Has me worried to, I have both sebderm/psoriasis that seems most active when my loss speeds up. I haven't had a HT yet but if it can affect the outcome I may have to rethink my planning. Also, it does seem that the native hair is gone behind it but there is no way the remaining hair at the front is ~3000 graphs. Men get entire frontal triangles rebuilt with 3000 graphs.

Hi all, Been exploring the possibility of a frontal FUT procedure to restore my frontal zone (currently NW3 heading to 4A with some crown thinning) and have seen a couple posts along doing my research in regards to psoriasis/dermatitis in both overall hairloss and with transplants. I was going to schedule some online consultations as covid restrictions start to get lifted, but right now we are in full lockdown in Canada. I'm 28, hairloss was greatly slowed by finasteride but every few months I will get bouts of insane itchiness, red scalp pimples/inflammation and bumps all around the hairline/mid scalp where I am about to experience thinning. I always assumed this was just aggressive genetic hairloss, as I see people talking about the "itch" associated with loss. After seeing these threads though, what I experience seems likely scalp psoriasis, and I'm wondering how much this could have played a role in my hairloss and my future as a transplant candidate... I would assume that the possibility of a scaring alopecia could exist as well, but I think my loss is pretty patterned and I don't want to assume things until I see a derm. Has anyone experienced something similar? If this is a chronic condition should I avoid hair transplants all together? Anyone know of any treatments outside of the basic coal tar/nizoral/head and shoulders? I know I need to see a dermatologist for a biopsy but like I said, we are in lockdown and I'm experiencing a pretty severe bout of it right now coupled with shedding. I can post pictures later if it would help but I just showered and styled my hair so they will have to wait! Thanks guys!

Best of luck! Maybe you should give it a bit more then a month to see if everything clears up? Did they give you an idea if you'd need to be on this long term to prevent the same outcome? Unfortunately this is has made me really question if I should bother going down the HT route. My actual hairloss has always been accompanied with psoriasis/dermatitis, to the point in which now I'm questioning if I should be going to get a scalp biopsy immediately to see if my hairloss is even male pattern despite being in the frontal zone....

Huh? Just go read your last posts. "a blanket statement and insufficient proof" "Do you have a specific example or is this just your personal theory?" "You are claiming you have seen examples of cases 1 year + out due to the surgeon's decisions for graft placement/ slit size? Can you provide an example, as I have not seen this." We don't have this type of evidence available to us, for obvious reasons. Most people who have successful hair transplants are not doing what people on these forums are doing and discussing every detail about them, they are just out being normal people. We are just trying to contribute to the discussion and explore different avenues for why these results are seen in some people and not others. As for Elon, he's probably on finasteride or some similar variant. Personally (and I don't mean to call anyone out here), I don't see why you would ever bother with a HT if you were not on finasteride unless you were legitimately a NW4/5/6 already and been that way for years. If you're going to make this type of investment in your personal appearance with so many routes for it to go wrong even if you do everything right, why would you take the added risk of the rest of your hair going to shit in the meantime.

You came in here with an awfully conducted study and subsequently have dismissed or asked for proof from every person who has tried to supply a theory for why these hairs have fallen out, when you yourself have supplied none. There is no way that these transplanted hairs would have gone through androgenic cell death within 5 years after being moved from the NW7 zone to the top of the head. DHT is present at the back of the head as well, and would not have killed the entirety of those follicles within that span. If you want to have a civil discussion as to why this is happening, then be open to different avenues of discussion. Elon Musk is a perfect example of why there is more to this then simply disproving donor dominance. He got his first hair transplant over 20 years ago and still has frontal hair from that and the subsequent surgeries, and he was almost fully bald in the frontal area by 30, proving aggressive MPB. What's the different between him and these guys? Probably the quality of surgeon, for one. I'd say that's a good place to start further diving into this if you want. Check the history between the top surgeons and the back ally clinics beyond the 12-18 month mark. I would be shocked if you didn't see a significant trend of poorer long term results from the cheaper clinics.

With all due respect, the study you presented is hardly any sort of evidence or scientific validity against donor dominance, a well established principle that was verified using much more comprehensive measures then some hairs being gone 5 years later on a few guys. It makes more sense to look at a broad variety of reasons for why these hairs are not permanent, especially when this study didn't actually examine the follicles to see if DHT initiated inflammation was present (which is the entire reason donor dominance was accepted, they actually examined the cellular structure for signs of damage).

No, it would not. Much as organs can sustain damage on transplant, take immediately, and start to fail again in a few years, damage sustained to follicles and the surrounding tissue probably act in the same way. The cells are probably damaged and the lifespan is reduced.

For FUE, sure, no argument. But this study is FUT. There is absolutely no way these men had FUT hair taken from above the donor area when most are NW6/7 to begin with.

No I think the 12-18 month period is fine for determining your result, however I think there is more to it then this. Without world class technique, I have to imagine the FUs sustain some extent of damage in the transplant process. This is why some die off and don't take right away, but I think even the ones that grow yet were damaged could lose proper function over a period of time. What I am saying is that this study is useless in disproving donor dominance because there is 0 effort to determine that the donor hair is dying in the same fashion as hair susceptible to DHT.

I just think that none of those look like particularly well done transplants from the get go, which would indicate that the extraction methods and surgeon skills are probably lacking as well. There is more to transplants then just "donor dominance", because most of the men in the photos have incredibly poor donor to begin with. When you couple this with more stress/damage to the FU during surgery then a quality surgeon would inflict you probably have some cell death rather then miniaturization. This is why the study is useless, because to disprove donor dominance you would need to prove that these hairs are actually miniaturizing due to DHT, not damage.

This study findings are through a person observing? How does the observer know that a NW4 didn't just progress in the 5 years while the slight reduction people are just the NW6s who were mostly stabilized? I understand they would be looking at the visual appearance of the transplanted area but surely the rest of the head would factor into it even at a subconscious level.. This study seems pretty useless without actual measurments of graphs per sq.cm over the entire period. I have been asking this question myself though, because I do not see many images posted of people 10+ years removed from their work being done. I'm okay with the look of well done HTs, but if the work were destined to be gone in 10-15 years anyways but you also have scaring, it's something I'd rather avoid all together. Tough to know because the improvements in techniques have come so far in even the last decade that it's hard to compare.What you could be describing here could easily be work done by poor doctors who's damage to the FU's caused early cellular death. I also see that you have experienced severe thinning in your transplanted areas in as little as 3 years, which is 100% not the norm. I think you could be approaching this from a place of bias.

Wow this looks amazing, is your crown transplanted?

You're comparing 2100 graphs to 8000+, dark hair/white skin vs blond hair/white skin. Add another 6k graphs on this guy and he'd probably be able to grow his hair out as well.

Yeah the guy had a pretty decent youtube following now. His hair looks great overall but unless he knows for a fact that people in his family don't lose anything further, he's pretty much cooked himself for later in life. 3k graphs for a hairline lowering in your early 30s doesn't leave much for later, especially when some some people are doing 3500 alone for an entire front and mid scalp.

Lol bro I don't know what the fuck that guy is saying, these results are amazing.

I was listening to a interview where logic was talking about potentially getting a 100k HT. He said after the consultation the doctor pretty much told them they were ready to go whenever he was. These guys 100% get their pick of the time that suites them most, and for most of these surgeons, I'm sure they can't wait to operate on big names if they are confident in their work. Word gets around in that industry and it markets itself, just like one of MGKs surgeons was leaked by one of those Paul brothers.

What does it actually take to achieve what he did? His results are what got me looking into HTs in the first place, and he had more aggressive loss then me at a younger age and I thought I would be a poor HT candidate because I am a NW3 with some crown thinning at age 27/28 (granted been on fin for a few years). What kind of graph count takes you from a Nw3/going Nw4 at age 24 to where he is at now? Is he likely going to be in trouble down the line when it comes to further loss?