Hoping

HAVING HAD BOTH FUE/STRIP, FUE IS W/O DOUBT THE SUPERIOR PROCEDURE.LESS TRAUMA,LESS INVASIVE,LESS RECOVERY,JUST MORE TIME IN THE CHAIR AND MORE MONEY.AT THE END OF THE DAY FUE IS THE WAY. ________________ I have to agree with hairbank here. I don't see how FUE could possibly be superior to the strip method if you require a significant amount of transplanted graphs. Too begin with, I would think it would be virtually impossible for even the very best surgeons to painstakingly remove one follicle unit from the back of the head after the other without causing significant damage to existing hairs. A few hundred? Maybe. A few thousand? No way. Second of all, painstakingly or not, it only makes sense that hair roots are going to be transected (spelling?) in the FUE process. Third, the cost will be significantly greater. Fourth, the time to complete the procedure is significantly greater. I see it like this: There are only so many guys who have the financial means or the will to actually have a hair transplant. There are lots of hair transplant doctors and it is a competitive business. To fill your surgical chair, what better way to do so but to find a manner by which your clients keep coming back for days of work when, with the strip method, its often only a one shot deal. And on top of that, you get to charge far more per graft. Sorry, I just don't buy that it is worth it except for the smaller procedures, unless you are the doctor that is. For what it is worth, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein did my HT almost four months ago. I have virtually no pain or soreness or numbness anywhere on my scalp at this point. The scar, under my hair, is barely visible and only to me when I look for it using a comb (its still a little red which makes it more visible). The recipient site is starting to grow some hair (maybe I'll post a photo)and from day one never showed any signs of trauma or scarring whatsoever. My transplant of 2800 grafts took only one day of my time and far less money then the FUE procedure would have taken. Bottom line, if you find a top and ethical surgeon, I could not imagine opting for an FUE unless you were looking only for a touchup. And being honest, I wouldn't be going for an HT if I was looking just for a touchup. JMHO.

Pat this is a wonderful forum for information. I luckily found my way to Dr. Epstein without this forum but its scary that I could have ended up with one of the butchers out there. It is unsettling but not surprising that there are doctors out there who have sold their souls for the sake of the dollar and have caused so much harm to so many people. It happens not just in the hair transpalant industry, but throughout the medical profession, for example surgeons who perform unnecessary surgeries, physician expert witnesses who lie in court for an expert fee, and it goes on and on. It is for this reason I am very wary of the FUE method. For small sessions I can understand FUE being preferrable to strip but it ends there. It seems to me that we must look with a jaundiced eye at any physician who regularly promotes FUE over Strip. FUE has not been proven superior, there may be more transection of hairs but we do know it takes more time and more money and more sessions, thus more money to the doctor's bottom line. Call me a cynic but . . .

Just searching prior posts, I see this subject has already been discussed several times. Still, Propecial may be a blessing or may put at us at risk. http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f...981005311#3981005311

Bspot, I started a new thread regarding Propecia and Cancer. It is food for thought.

Propecia and Cancer Somebody asked me under a different thread for any medical study linking Propecia with more aggressive prostate cancer. Here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/06/24/prostat...ncer.drug/index.html Baldness drug may reduce prostate cancer risk But it could trigger more aggressive form in other cases Wednesday, June 25, 2003 Posted: 9:21 AM EDT (1321 GMT) (CNN) -- A study released Tuesday indicates that a drug used to treat male pattern baldness reduces the odds of getting prostate cancer by about 25 percent. But there's some bad news: The same study seems to show that if a man taking finasteride does get the disease, the drug appears to increase his chance of getting a more aggressive form. "Finasteride is the first drug found to reduce the risk of prostate cancer," said Dr. Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the study's lead author. "The drug worked for men at low risk for prostate cancer, as well as those at high risk." The National Cancer Institute estimates that if 1,000 63-year-old men are tracked, after seven years, 60 of them would develop prostate cancer, with 18 of those men suffering with high-grade tumors, which spread quickly. If the same men took finasteride for seven years, only 45 would get the cancer, but 22 would have the more aggressive tumors. A low-dose version of finasteride used to treat hair loss is marketed under the trade name Propecia, while under the name Proscar it's sold as a treatment for enlarged prostates. In the study, which was funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the online version of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at 221 sites nationwide followed nearly 19,000 men older than 55 for seven years. About half of them were assigned at random to take either finasteride, a drug that lowers male hormone levels, or a placebo. By the end of the trial, those taking the drug reduced their risk of prostate cancer by nearly 25 percent over those on placebos. Mortality in both groups was the same: Five in each group died of prostate cancer. Promoter of mean types of cancer? But researchers were not convinced that men should take the drug to prevent the disease, which, after skin cancer, is the most common form of cancer among men. While the men who took finasteride were diagnosed with fewer cases of the disease, they had more high-grade prostate cancers, which typically are more aggressive than other forms. In all, 6.4 percent of the men on finasteride had high-grade tumors, versus 5.1 percent of men on placebos. The reason for that disparity was not clear. Thompson said finasteride may result in the development of more aggressive tumors either by preventing only low-grade tumors or by making the prostate gland more favorable to aggressive tumors. What really is finasteride doing here? Is it a promoter of mean types of cancer, or a suppresser of meaningless types? -- Dr. John Wasson Dr. John Wasson, director of the Center for Aging at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, and who served on the study's safety monitoring committee, said the tumor findings raised a number of questions: "What really is finasteride doing here? Is it a promoter of mean types of cancer, or a suppresser of meaningless types?" The study was stopped a year earlier than planned because it was determined that the extra time was unlikely to yield new information. In addition, Wasson cited concerns over the apparent increased risk of more aggressive tumors. Though the study is a major step forward, men should carefully weigh their options before opting to take the drug as a preventive measure, Dr. Harmon J. Eyre, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said in a statement. "There are still some important unanswered questions, especially regarding side effects, whether it can benefit men at increased risk, especially African Americans, who are twice as likely as white men to die of prostate cancer, and the mechanism by which men taking the drug develop higher grade tumors." Other side effects Despite the concerns, Dr. Nabil Khawand, a physician at Washington Hospital Center, said he would leave the decision to his patients. "I will tell him the result of the study and I will give him the option, whether he wants to be on it or he doesn't want to be on it." Apparent side effects went beyond tumor aggressiveness. Men taking finasteride were more likely than men on placebo to experience sexual side effects such as impotence. But men taking the placebos were more likely to be diagnosed with enlarged prostate and urinary problems. This year, prostate cancer is expected to be diagnosed in more than 200,000 men and kill about 29,000 in the United States. It is typically a slow-growing cancer and most of the men who are diagnosed with it go on to die of something unrelated, even if they undergo no treatment for it. For young men using the drug to promote hair growth, "I certainly wouldn't want to be taking a drug that potentially promotes cancer of the mean types," Dartmouth's Wasson said. "First, do no harm, that's the bottom line with any drug or treatment ... if you're a young guy, you should really be concerned about finasteride." He predicted the study results would lead the Food and Drug Administration to take a fresh look at the safety data on the drug, which is made by Merck and requires a prescription. No one from the agency was immediately available to comment, and a call to the drug maker was not immediately returned.

Propecia and Cancer Somebody asked me under a different thread for any medical study linking Propecia with more aggressive prostate cancer. Here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/06/24/prostat...ncer.drug/index.html Baldness drug may reduce prostate cancer risk But it could trigger more aggressive form in other cases Wednesday, June 25, 2003 Posted: 9:21 AM EDT (1321 GMT) (CNN) -- A study released Tuesday indicates that a drug used to treat male pattern baldness reduces the odds of getting prostate cancer by about 25 percent. But there's some bad news: The same study seems to show that if a man taking finasteride does get the disease, the drug appears to increase his chance of getting a more aggressive form. "Finasteride is the first drug found to reduce the risk of prostate cancer," said Dr. Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the study's lead author. "The drug worked for men at low risk for prostate cancer, as well as those at high risk." The National Cancer Institute estimates that if 1,000 63-year-old men are tracked, after seven years, 60 of them would develop prostate cancer, with 18 of those men suffering with high-grade tumors, which spread quickly. If the same men took finasteride for seven years, only 45 would get the cancer, but 22 would have the more aggressive tumors. A low-dose version of finasteride used to treat hair loss is marketed under the trade name Propecia, while under the name Proscar it's sold as a treatment for enlarged prostates. In the study, which was funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the online version of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at 221 sites nationwide followed nearly 19,000 men older than 55 for seven years. About half of them were assigned at random to take either finasteride, a drug that lowers male hormone levels, or a placebo. By the end of the trial, those taking the drug reduced their risk of prostate cancer by nearly 25 percent over those on placebos. Mortality in both groups was the same: Five in each group died of prostate cancer. Promoter of mean types of cancer? But researchers were not convinced that men should take the drug to prevent the disease, which, after skin cancer, is the most common form of cancer among men. While the men who took finasteride were diagnosed with fewer cases of the disease, they had more high-grade prostate cancers, which typically are more aggressive than other forms. In all, 6.4 percent of the men on finasteride had high-grade tumors, versus 5.1 percent of men on placebos. The reason for that disparity was not clear. Thompson said finasteride may result in the development of more aggressive tumors either by preventing only low-grade tumors or by making the prostate gland more favorable to aggressive tumors. What really is finasteride doing here? Is it a promoter of mean types of cancer, or a suppresser of meaningless types? -- Dr. John Wasson Dr. John Wasson, director of the Center for Aging at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, and who served on the study's safety monitoring committee, said the tumor findings raised a number of questions: "What really is finasteride doing here? Is it a promoter of mean types of cancer, or a suppresser of meaningless types?" The study was stopped a year earlier than planned because it was determined that the extra time was unlikely to yield new information. In addition, Wasson cited concerns over the apparent increased risk of more aggressive tumors. Though the study is a major step forward, men should carefully weigh their options before opting to take the drug as a preventive measure, Dr. Harmon J. Eyre, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said in a statement. "There are still some important unanswered questions, especially regarding side effects, whether it can benefit men at increased risk, especially African Americans, who are twice as likely as white men to die of prostate cancer, and the mechanism by which men taking the drug develop higher grade tumors." Other side effects Despite the concerns, Dr. Nabil Khawand, a physician at Washington Hospital Center, said he would leave the decision to his patients. "I will tell him the result of the study and I will give him the option, whether he wants to be on it or he doesn't want to be on it." Apparent side effects went beyond tumor aggressiveness. Men taking finasteride were more likely than men on placebo to experience sexual side effects such as impotence. But men taking the placebos were more likely to be diagnosed with enlarged prostate and urinary problems. This year, prostate cancer is expected to be diagnosed in more than 200,000 men and kill about 29,000 in the United States. It is typically a slow-growing cancer and most of the men who are diagnosed with it go on to die of something unrelated, even if they undergo no treatment for it. For young men using the drug to promote hair growth, "I certainly wouldn't want to be taking a drug that potentially promotes cancer of the mean types," Dartmouth's Wasson said. "First, do no harm, that's the bottom line with any drug or treatment ... if you're a young guy, you should really be concerned about finasteride." He predicted the study results would lead the Food and Drug Administration to take a fresh look at the safety data on the drug, which is made by Merck and requires a prescription. No one from the agency was immediately available to comment, and a call to the drug maker was not immediately returned.

This is a great message board but I do have one concern that few here seem to concern themselves with. Reading this thread and others, posters are recommending that a young man in his early twenties go on Propecia. And yet absolutely nobody knows what the long term effects of Propecia are going to be, especially somebody taking it for twenty, thirty or more years. I'm 51 and just started taking it after my recent transplant, but I'm concerned even at my age. Also, there is medical evidence that those stricken with Prostate Cancer after being on Propecia (at a higher dose to treat prostate enlargement) have a higher rate of more aggressive prostate cancer, when stricken, than those never on Propecia. The point is this, we know that some of what we thought were safe drugs, like celebrex can kill us. We know that Propecia effects the hormones in the body. Nobody knows long term what the possible effects of Propecia might be. Just my two cents.

Hi. I had a HT by Dr. Jeffrey Epstein about 11 weeks ago. Reading this forum, I know that hair growth starts at about three months onward. I had 2800 FU's transplanted in the front 1/3 of my scalp. Many of the hairs toward the back are already growing, some as long as 1/2 inch by now. But I see barely any hairs growing in the very front as of yet. Is this because the hairs in the front are one hair follicular units as opposed to three or four in the back? Is this normal. Also, when people say that you should see hairs starting to grow at about three months, do you mean the baby fine hairs you can only see with a magnifying glass, or do you mean strong growth? Just getting a little impatient. Thanks.

Hi. I had a HT by Dr. Jeffrey Epstein about 11 weeks ago. Reading this forum, I know that hair growth starts at about three months onward. I had 2800 FU's transplanted in the front 1/3 of my scalp. Many of the hairs toward the back are already growing, some as long as 1/2 inch by now. But I see barely any hairs growing in the very front as of yet. Is this because the hairs in the front are one hair follicular units as opposed to three or four in the back? Is this normal. Also, when people say that you should see hairs starting to grow at about three months, do you mean the baby fine hairs you can only see with a magnifying glass, or do you mean strong growth? Just getting a little impatient. Thanks.