GoliGoliGoli

2 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

It certainly seems like you’re using this case as an attack vector. There are no results to speak of, the journey has just begun. Even when patients go to the most notorious hair mills I don’t sew seeds of doubt. Only time will tell how something will turn out. 

And it certainly seems like you're running cover for the clinic out of a profit motive. I guess we can agree to disagree on what each others motivations are.

Look, what does it matter what the results are in 12 months time? If someone is a candidate, why would grafts ever been taken from an area that is CLEARLY miniaturizing? Even if he the results are fine at 12 months  are these grafts expected to stand the test of time? Is the expectation that we're supposed to wait 5 years for the results? Give me a break man. If this was just a one off case with this clinic I wouldn't be in here driving this point home with multiple posts but this is repeated issue for Eugenix. But this will be my last (fr frfrf this time) 

17 minutes ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Others have chimed in, not just me. I am paid, if you believe that makes my opinion or remarks worthless, okay fair enough that’s your opinion. But Al is a Norwood 7, above that he’s a true repair patient who was butchered in the 80s. He’s someone who has heard “you’re not a candidate” so he empathizes with this patient, which isn’t something you can do because you’re not in that situation. I believe he’s very qualified and unbiased in speaking his mind and sharing his opinion on this particular matter.

You’ve made it very clear you think Eugenix is a hair mill, unethical, have poor results, and are one of the worst clinics in your opinion. All of that is totally fine. I believe there’s absolutely room criticism of Eugenix, and every other clinic because everyone has poor cases. You’re using this patient as an attack vector, disregarding how posting something like this may affect him personally. Essentially, he’s collateral damage to get your message across about this clinic and their “unethical” ways. 

You’ve asserted yourself as an authority to tell other users whether they are candidates or not. When someone challenges you on this, you’re dismissive because they moderate the community. This is like an appeal to neutrality, listen to me because I’m neutral, so what im saying is right. I don’t believe that’s fair or right. I would recommend anyone reading this forum should use critical thinking. Do not take my word for anything just because im an admin. Being an authority doesn’t make you right. Conversely, being a neutral user doesn’t mean you’re right either. Look at the crux of the argument and not the individual. 

I'm not using this case as a vector to attack Eugenix, I'm using this case as a vector to point out what is a repeated pattern of unethical behavior and lack of best practices on the part of Eugenix. Plus, someone has to be a true advocate for patients here. Maybe that seems melodramatic or hyperbolic, but quite frankly I think it's something you and the other Mod's are failing to do. Quite frankly, I think it's fair to point out that financial motivations might be part of the reason. Key word here is "might". 

Yes or no question for you Melvin: Do you think it was negligent on the part of the clinic to suggest lowering the hairline and adding temple points in this case? 

frfr, this is my last post here. I've said my piece. 

2 hours ago, TakeAction said:

You and @general-etwan for example have each had 8-9k scalp FUE with little to no visible donor depletion. I’m sure there are plenty of others.

I did an in person consultation with a doctor recommended here and was told that I have 8-10k lifetime FUE grafts which I found very hard to believe. But maybe nowadays Drs are starting to take a more aggressive approach across the board.

Respectfully, in all 3 of Etwan's surgeries grafts were taken from areas that are visibly miniaturizing. Do with that info what you will. 

As far as your own consultation, my advice is to never take any HT surgeon at their word. Get multiple consultations done at multiple clinics that are known for ethical behavior and turning patients away before making any decisions. Also, if the consultation is only you are submitting pictures (AKA not in person or by video), it's quite possible (And even likely in some cases) that the person you're consulting with is not the Dr but one of their employee's. 

9 hours ago, Al - Moderator said:

It's easy for someone who isn't in the situation to just tell someone else they shouldn't do it or they aren't a candidate.

Conversely, it's easy for someone who is a moderator of a forum that is compensated by a clinic known for unethical practices AND taking on 'high risk' cases to say "Almost everyone is a candidate!". The difference is, I have no financial incentive or conflict of interest in what I say. I'm not saying you don't believe what you say, or that you personally are compensated in your role as moderator, but Melvin is, and because of that there is a conflict of interest on your parts but not mine. 

Look, they tried to talk OP into lowering his hairline and getting temple points even though it's blatantly obvious that was not in his interest...... In sales this is called an "upsell". In medicine this is called "negligence". Eugenix is incentivized to get the patient to agree to extract as many grafts as possible, regardless of whether or not they take them from areas that are miniaturizing. Just calling a spade a spade. 

Of these options, I would go with Gur and it isn't even remotely close. 

Most of the benefit of FUT is for guys who have good "scalp laxity". For guys like me who doesn't have much scalp laxity and only "moderately" aggressive balding, FUT would be pretty meaningless and result in a gnarly scar, longer recovery time, and greater potential for nerve damage and other side effects. 

That said, for guys heading towards NW6/NW7 with good scalp laxity, it definitely has a role. People talk about how "everyone's safe donor is different" and while that's absolutely true, a lot of doctors seem to use that an excuse to take unnecessary risks in extracting in a very big pattern. Hell, all the time on here we see doctors extracting from areas that are quite visibly thinning.. but that's another story... Either way, you can't tell me that a doctor looking at a 29 year old and doing a basic examination can tell what his donor will look like at 60 years old. So I do cringe a bit when I see young guys getting FUE with a big expansive extraction zone, and I do worry about their long term results. Today's Norwood 2 with no signs of retrograde is tomorrows Norwood 6 with severe retrograde. People on here always try convincing themselves that their "balding had stabilized" but it's mostly just cope, even for lots of those on serious 5-ar inhibitors. 

1 minute ago, Melvin- Admin said:

I have to push back on this, speaking as a Norwood 6/7 that heard the same thing about my case.

Retrograde alopecia doesn’t exclude you from being a candidate, the hair can change with medication. I’ve witnessed this myself. I’ve had grafts removed from my nape, which prior to meds looked weak. Now after meds, my nape looks better even after harvesting. I had my first HT 10 years ago, and my hair hasn’t changed, and has gotten better. OP is on medication, as long as he stays with it, I don’t think he will be any different.


 

I feel you’re saying this to attack the clinic, but the person who’s gonna feel unnecessary stress from this is the patient, not the clinic. I respect your opinion. But I will agree to disagree here.

Ok, this really will be my last post in this thread.

The difference Melvin between the two cases is that your retrograde alopecia improved after taking meds. OP has already been on meds for 3 years he said, so the comparison isn't valid. Is the idea that 3 years into meds this area is going to bounce back from him in a way that it didn't bounce back in the first 3 years? 

1 minute ago, Bandit90 said:

This type of analysis right now isn't necessary nor helpful. As the OP begins to document his journey, there will be lots of scope for analysis. it's evident you really don't like the clinic which is fine, but i've been following your posts in recent months and you do go in quite hard towards this clinic again which is fine. I just want to avoid causing the OP any undue stress. 

Well, it's a question of what is the point of these threads and what is the point of this entire forum to begin with. Is the point that we're supposed to offer our honest opinions, feedbacks, and criticisms in a polite way so that others can learn about best practices in the HT industry? Or is the point to glad-hand each other to the degree that we bite our tongues when we see a clinic demonstrably behaving in a way that makes it clear they prioritize profits over patients? 

I'm willing to be passive-aggressively bullied into silence, so I wont post on this thread anymore. But I would like to hear from @Eugenix Hair Sciences what their thinking was when they extracted grafts from an area that is clearly undergoing significant miniaturization. 

1 hour ago, Melvin- Admin said:

I don’t believe this is fair to say, there’s more than enough cases here similar to his that have been successful. @Gatsbywas essentially the same. 
 

This hair looks very healthy 

I know you’re not a fan of this clinic, which is fine. But I think fair is fair. 

@Bandit90 looked essentially the same. I think there are certainly cases that should be turned away like this patient. 

But OP has some healthy donor and good quality beard. He isn’t someone I would say is not a candidate. 

In OP's pics you can see that the clinic extracted scalp grafts from below his FUT scar in an area that is miniaturizing. Any time a clinic says "Oh ya you're a candidate" and then immediately starts harvesting grafts from what is at best a questionable area, I think that speaks to the fact that they were not a candidate to begin with. I've seen this in other Eugenix cases where they harvest grafts from what areas that are clearly quite miniaturized. If I had gotten back from my HT and noticed a ton of grafts were taken from areas where I have retrograde alopecia, I would've been apoplectic. 

Also, good on you for not allowing them to lower your hairline or add temple points. It's absurd that they would have suggested that plan for someone in your situation, and truly borders on negligence. 

Sorry to say this OP, but you were/are not a good candidate for surgery and should have been turned away by Eugenix. I think most reputable clinics would have not accepted you as a patient.

Some peoples balding is so aggressive that they don't really have a "safe donor zone". Or if they do it's so small that even when combined with beard hair there simply isn't enough grafts available to really provide a real aesthetic benefit that will last long term. You also seem to have a wide head which means the area you need to cover is larger than someone with a smaller head. Eugenix also seem to have extracted scalp grafts from well below your "safe area" (This is something that seems to be common with them) and to me this area looks very prone to miniaturization so all of the grafts taken from their will probably miniaturize over time.

What's done is done and I don't say this to be negative, but I think you deserve to hear the truth (At least as far as I see it). I think you have realistic expectations and that's good, but I'm afraid that you don't have enough donor supply to even go in for a "second session". People in this thread keep saying "you'll need a second session" but they seem to be forgetting that you already have had 2 HT's so that in combination with what was already a compromised donor is not a great sign. 

15 hours ago, BeardedArbor said:

So is Dr. Turan a bust then? I'm not sure what to make of him now as there was this review by the Balding Bosnian plus several others here where they seemed to indicate Dr. Turan rushed through the procedure. 

I want to do a hair transplant this fall and was giving strong consideration to Dr. Turan, but now I'm not so sure.

I'm not currently in the market for a HT, but personally, Turan would have been high on my list for a 2nd HT before a week or two ago. But after reading the recent reviews on him I would say that yes he is a bust in the sense that I would no longer consider going to him. 

1 hour ago, Melvin- Admin said:

This is one study I quickly pulled up. It may not be the low-dose study. He has dozens of studies on pubmed i’ll ask him to send me the link. End of the day, im only relaying what he’s saying he’s observing clinically. Im no doctor or researcher, so you can form your own observations, and by no means do you have to follow what he says. 

Well, the issue is people often cite his LDOM and LDOD studies as proof that LDOM and LDOD are both safe. However as Kevin Mann has pointed out, in both of Vano's studies that I've seen onm the topic there is this line about only including people in the study who had already been on these drug for considerable amounts of time. So in the study mentioned above, it appears that only men who had already been on LDOD for 12 months already were included in the study, thereby excluding anyone who got sides earlier than that and making the "safety" aspect of the study totally useless. 

Maybe I'm not understanding his wording. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong. Would love to hear him explain why they chose to only include men who had already been on the drug for 1 year. 

19 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Dr. Galvans protocols are based on his own clinical trials which have been published. He found the best results were 0.5mg taken over 3 consecutive days. Now, you can adjust this based on what you can tolerate. But this protocol is based on what he observed clinically. It has nothing to do with marketing. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337865413_Effectiveness_and_Safety_of_Oral_Dutasteride_for_Male_Androgenetic_Alopecia_in_Real_Clinical_Practice_A_Descriptive_Monocentric_Study

"Male patients with androgenetic alopecia that had received OD for at least 12 months were included." 

Terrible study design. Make it make sense. 

5 hours ago, GeneralNorwood said:

And your surgery was done not by some juniors from Eugenix, who are not recommended by hairrestorationnetwork. The surgery was done by "super duo", Dr. Sethi and Dr Arika Bansal, the owners of the Eugenix, who are recommended by this forum. 

It's one thing that Sethi and Bansal did a terrible hair transplant. That would at least be excusable in the "all clinics have bad results" sense. But what makes it clear that they're an unethical clinic (In this case in others) is how the result is bad  due to lazy/poor planning, and then also how bad they are about gaslighting the patients once it's been shown that the result is a botch job.

Sethi and Bansal should not be on the recommended list. It's really that simple. 

To be honest I don't think your hairline needed any work at all. It will probably look great when it grows out but from a planning perspective I would've focused only on the crown for now and save the hairline for later or at least only minimally touch the hairline. It's just a pretty darn aggressive hairline and you might wish you had saved those grafts later. Are you on Fin and Min?

For reference, our crown's are fairly similar in size (I had a bit more loss than you I think) and I had 2000 grafts put there and it still looks "thinning". I also had A LOT of 3 hair grafts which aided my coverage. So hopefully Turan put close to 2000 in the crown but looking at it I think it's closer to 1000 or less. 

On 11/18/2023 at 12:08 AM, track_rat said:

Will provide a thorough update soon mate. I was treading lightly and not posting recently as I was still pleading with Eugenix to try to make things right. I was finally able to get a few minutes with the clinic last month but Sethi suggested I look elsewhere for care. 

Can you go into detail on your conversation with Sethi? Did he take any responsibility for the situation? Did they offer a free repair? Did they just tell you "you're on your own"?

Not to blame you in any way, but I think you're being far too lenient on the clinic throughout this post. They did an extreme disservice to you that could've been easily avoided if they had simply done their jobs in a proper way. And to think this was Eugenix's "founding doctors" and not any of the new ones they've hired.

Another one for the Eugenix Wall of Shame. Hopefully Konior can get this straightened out. 

This is worse than hairmill behavior, this is scumbag behavior. Ignoring a patient in immense pain; Dr's overloaded by the number of patients they're working on; patient blaming in instances where they clearly f'd up; deceptive and relentless marketing tactics; surprise bonus doctors in training cutting into patient's heads without their consent or foreknowledge. How far do we have to go to find rock bottom for this place? 

I hope you get good results OP, and I think there is a decent chance you will. But why people continue going to this place is beyond me given that it's a spin of the roulette wheel. Places like Fuecapilar are cheaper I believe and at least you won't have to worry about surprise bonus doctor's in training cutting into your head without your consent. 

Only a matter of time before the usual Eugenix fanboy crew comes talking about how "this thread doesn't serve a purpose" and overall running cover for a what is clearly an unethical and poorly run clinic. 

38 minutes ago, BackFromTheBrink said:

Well, that's quite the mic drop. Plenty of time to seek a consult with  Dr jjalay to validate Dr Zarev's cursory glance at your head. 😉

In all seriousness, you've seen the world's best and will put yourself in the best possible position for a great outcome. I'll follow with great interest - if I'm not mistaken you'll be the first Zarev repair case documented on here.

 

Not sure this will truly be classified as a repair case unless the plan is to move the hairline a bit?

Zarev is really setting the standard and changing the game. Who would've guessed a Dr out of little old Bulgaria would be emerging as the Michael Jordan of HT's. 

Great result - you've had no side effects since you've been back on Fin? 

On 3/10/2024 at 8:46 PM, Petroholic said:

Adding Oral minoxidil: Well, as we all know this Hair loss med has gained a lot of traction recently. So how could I be left behind🤣. I just cannot tolerate topical minoxidil. The negative cosmetic effect negates any gains for me. Had used it for 2 years from 2013-2015 and hated it. I still can't believe how such a simple modification was right under our eyes. Anyways, Dr. Bhatti asked me that I can start oral minoxidil 2.5mg daily for 4 months and then report back. I have arranged a 6 month supply from India because I don't know how to get it in Canada. I am yet to start it though for 2 reasons. Firstly, I am terrified of the shedding phase. Secondly,  I plan to add just one treatment at one time since I know I will have to continue the treatment forever. For now, I am still on the break from finasteride phase.

Can you elaborate on the "negative cosmetic effect" you experienced from topical minoxidil? 

The correct answer is "No one really knows". This guy Dr Sergio Vano has run some large N studies that say it's safe but frankly they all seem quite flawed in their methodology at least as I interpret them. 

8 minutes ago, Westview said:

I read somewhere its the propylene glycol that can cause dark circles under some peoples eyes, not so much the MX.

Not sure if thats true though

Could be, but I'm not sure why that would be the case. Seems more likely that both the bloating and dark circles are caused by increased fluid/bloodflow to the head due to Min's vasodilation effect. 

My personal experience with topical: It works pretty darn well to grow hair. However I did notice that it made my face more bloated and also seemed to have increased the dark circles under my eyes. I've always had dark circles but minoxidil did seem to make them worse. The face bloat seems to go away pretty quickly, and the dark circles do improve after being off for about a week but only slightly. 

Most concerning: I'm 95% sure it started making my eye/eye area twitch pretty excessively. This only started about 1.5 years into using it. And yes I'm fairly certain it was the minoxidil and not lack of sleep or magnesium deficiency or something. Full disclosure, I was only using once a day 5/6 times per week, but was using at least double or triple the recommended amount simply because it's hard to cover much area at all with the "half a cap full" recommended dose. I've now been off a week but plan on re-starting again maybe 3-4 times a week with a dosage closer to the recommended amount. 

15 hours ago, Gatsby said:

@Buffaloboy that's a fair point and one that I myself like to point out that no surgeon/clinic is free from a bad result. Every surgeon has had a bad result and that's not meant as an excuse on the surgeon or techs in the slightest. 

This is of course true, and there are a lot of cases where a patient gets a result they aren't happy with due to no fault of the clinic. The difference with Eugenix is, there are a lot of cases where the bad result is ABSOLUTELY the fault of the clinic's poor planning/execution and yet people act like this isn't a trend that is repeated over and over and over. Instead the response is to expect everyone to bury their head in the sand and put their hands over their ears.