England

Brainwashing was perhaps a tad strong.

But here's some honest feedback for you, Spex.

I have been reading this forum for 7 years (I joined not long after you), I've also consulted with tens of doctors and had in-person consults with 4. I've also read probably every single thread in this entire forum, and every other mainstream forum regarding FUE. This doesn't make me an expert, in fact I've posted questions asking for opinions on FUE and in general I look to people such as yourself when making decisions. I know you have met more people, got more experience, and have more knowledge in general.

You have an approach and a stance on FUE, as honest as it may or may not be, which is by far and away the most 'extreme' of any stance I've come across, on forums or in consultations, in terms of how little belief you have in FUE. It's almost like FUE and anti-FUE extremism. At one end, there is the doctor who I can't name who suggests FUE is better than FUT. At the other end, I find myself looking at you - because you are far more negative about FUE when used in mid-size procedures (eg 1,500 - 3,000) than anyone else I've come across, including surgeons who have performed both for years. From my own personal impartial perspective, I find it compelling to believe in a 'middle ground' - which is roughly in line with most surgeons I've dealt with.

That middle ground is that, yes, FUE can be less consistent, and yes, it can yield slightly lower, and even more so in non-expert hands. But the overall consensus seems to be that it doesn't yield so much lower as to make strip the de facto standard as you seem to make out for mid-size sessions.

As a side note, I know you're not opposed to FUE in small sessions, it's specifically the medium size sessions where there seems to be a discrepancy. As for megasessions (3,000+) I'd say the jury is still out on that one, so I'm not claiming that they necessarily work as well as FUT.

On a personal level, I'm lucky that money is absolutely no issue for me, and when I recently decided to have an additional hair surgery I originally intended to consult with yourself. Mainly because everybody has good words to say about you, and you are regarded as one of the more impartial consultants who are employed by clinics. What put me off, was firstly your very harsh stance on FUE which seemed a little out-of-kilter with the message I was getting from everyone else, but also the attitude that comes across with comments like 'trot on', and similar sentiments I've found expressed to Corvettster for example in previous threads. I saw similar approaches from Dr Feller when facing unsatisfied patients which concerned me. The end result was that I decided against getting a consultation with either yourself or Dr Feller. I want to give you this feedback because I don't think anyone benefits from this kind of situation, and I'm sure I'm not the first or the last patient to think along these lines.

I still think you're essentially the go-to guy when it comes to hair transplants, especially when it comes to this forum - and I wish we had gotten off to a more constructive start.

Wow, the donor area looks amazing. You can barely even tell anything was done immediately after.

This!

Brilliant result with an excellent yield.

Dr Rahal's results are very impressive.

Gotta say, TakingThePlunge - over the past 4 years, I don't remember even one negative comment from you or about you. You're always supportive, encouraging, and balanced.

You're an asset to this website, keep it up!

All of what you said, Hariri, is something nobody has disputed, including me.

I've said, several times, that the vast majority of surgeons suggest FUT over FUE. The difference is that some are able to achieve yields closer to FUT than others. That isn't the same thing as me claiming they say FUE is better - which a lot of people seem to be reading into my comments incorrectly.

All I am saying, and it's a fact, is that just because one doctor gets very poor yields and inconsistent results, doesn't mean that ever other doctor necessarily gets results at the same level. I also want any FUE surgeon of mine to have confidence in my surgery.

As for 'The matter is once you go FUT, you can go FUE in the future. But once you go FUE then forget about FUT.' I don't believe this is true at all. Many doctors I consulted with suggested I could have an FUE then an FUT or the other way around. Some even suggested that having a strip can pull the skin making FUE more difficult in the future as it changes the angle of the hairs.

Excellent result, congrats. Great documentation too.

I didn’t and would never wish poor growth on anyone.

 

I have had had two poor surgeries myself, so I know how it feels.

 

He twisted that as he does with most things.

 

I hope if he gets a mega FUE session which previous posts imply, then I hope whatever the outcome, he keeps us all updated.

 

If he honestly thinks that all doctors work is documented including the FUE failures, he is very naive.

 

If he personally believes he has a broader knowledge then Jotronic and Spex combined, then maybe the forum members and both of them should start listening to England from now on, as he appears to be the new expert in hair restoration.

I've not twisted anything - I've had a consistent message throughout this thread, both to you and Spex. Your comment speaks for itself (which is why it was directly quoted) it doesn't need twisting. You showed a complete lack of class right there, which says a lot.

Did I say 'all doctors work is documented including the FUE' failures, as you imply? Not at all. So who's twisting what, exactly? I explicitly said, actually, that both strip and FUE probably have failures. Like I told you last time, you should actually take the time to read what I'm saying then you might start to follow.

You say I claim to have more knowledge than Jotronic and Spex combined, which is clearly rubbish, but are either of them more credible than the whole host of respected surgeons who have been operating for decades who don't put FUE down as much as them? Clearly not. It's not about me claiming any kind of expertise, it's about me having a more balanced view of the differences between FUE and Strip, and not letting myself be brainwashed by posters on here who, lets be honest, both work for clinics. I could make the same argument against you, do you think you know better than the hundreds of doctors who perform FUE every day? Should we all listen to 'Chris'?

I'm still waiting for the evidence of all these 'failed FUE's from top doctors too.

The bottom line, as I keep having to explain to you, is that nearly all surgeons say that FUE can yield lower than strip. That is a point we're all in agreement on. The difference is, some manage to get closer to FUT levels than others. If a doctor gets unpredictable results and inconsistent yields with FUE, and tells me that when I consult with him, I'm not going to have much confidence in that doctor whether it's true or not. In fact, especially not if it's true. Contrast to a doctor who may achieve better yields, still below the level of strip, but good enough that it makes FUE worth considering. I'd feel much happier going with that doctor.

This is not a debate about FUE vs Strip - the original poster wants to know good FUE doctors, so I wont go into the specifics of yield. I could just as easily point to the thousands of bad strip surgeries, or how the vast majority of repair cases are from failed strip surgeries - many of which didn't get anywhere near 90% yield or have disastrous scars. It doesn't make strip bad, nor do some bad FUE results make FUE bad.

I'm not insinuating anything about any specific doctors and their results. I'm simply stating the fact that in exercising my personal choice, I would not go for FUE surgery with any doctor who I believed did not believe in FUE being at least nearly as good as strip. I would want confidence going into the procedure and I would not have that if I didn't perceive that my doctor did. That is simply a fact, it's my personal stance, and no amount of your words will change that. And I would suggest the same approach to the OP.

You say that FUE advocates are catering 'to what patients want rather than need and take their money all day long for mega session FUE'? Wow. Firstly, FUE takes longer so doesn't make more profit at all, and secondly - implying that any surgeon who doesn't push their patients away from FUE is doing it against the best wishes of the patient? Massively misguided. Thirdly, no-one mentioned mega-session either.

It's quite possible that different doctors achieve different yields, and perhaps honest for one is different to honest for another. This is the very point of forums like this - to judge the results and work out which doctor we believe in the work of. To think that FUE results are the same for all doctors would render this site pointless.

These results look great, and it's still early days @ just 6 months:

Copying a post from Bill :-)

3 months - 10%

4 months - 25%

5 months - 40%

6 months - 60%

7 months - 70%

8 months - 75%

9 months - 80%

10 months - 90%

11 months - 95%

12 months - 98%

18 months - 100%

Loving the videos, Sean - yours is probably one of the most thorough documentations I've seen.

I agree with Dutch and RCWest. The plugs don't look too bad at all - the only issue with them is that they seem to have been planted in a straight line, which will easily be camouflaged by a further procedure (your new surgeon will design a zig-zag hairline for a natural look). I wouldn't say you need to have any of them removed. The end result after having 1500-2000 will be a more natural look and much better density.

In terms of the grafts themselves, every well regarded doctor I know places grafts with single hairs (1's) in the hairline, or the 'feather zone' as it's called, to achieve a natural and non-pluggy look.

Then, they use grafts with multiple hairs (2's, 3's, and 4's) further back, to achieve the density. So, for example, the first cm or so of your hairline, going back, may have 30 grafts per square centimetre, but all single hair grafts (1's), to give you 30 hairs per sq cm. Then, behind that (the next 2cm or so), they may place 20 grafts per square centimetre, but using 2's, giving you 40 hairs per sq cm. Further back they will utilise any 3's or 4's you have. This is the accepted approach of all the top surgeons, and I assume that the first two surgeons you mention will definitely do it this way.

In terms of the money, I honestly think you know already from your own experiences that if you save money on anything in life, a hair transplant isn't the place to do it. I would go with one of the approved doctors who you have consulted with who has lots of case studies on here.

All honest fue surgeons will tell you fue produces lower yield. This is a fact,whether you want to accept it or not England. You keep telling yourself what you want to hear and when your fue is a failure,be sure to update and not slope off.

1 - Did you even read my comment? I said, and I quote:

'nearly the level of strip'

There are several world class surgeons who can achieve FUE levels close to that of strip. They all are well respected, perfectly honest, and they all admit that FUE can yield slightly lower.

2 - If you read carefully you would have realised that the argument is about how much lower the yield is with FUE when compared to strip ... not about whether it can be lower or not. Some surgeons strongly push people away from FUE and talk about unpredictable and significantly lower yields. Other surgeons are obviously more talented with a portfolio of patients where even if the yield with FUE is slightly lower, it's undetectable.

3 - You say I'm telling myself what I 'want to hear' - well I've already had a strip once, so I clearly am open to both. I have a choice right now of strip or FUE, money is no issue for me, I can have any type of operation with any surgeon - I selected FUE. You seem to think I selected FUE first, and then tried to justify it. The reality is that I looked at the yield some of the worlds best surgeons can get with FUE and decided that the unnoticeable reduction in yield doesn't justify having a big smiley face on the back of my head. The only person who is trying to justify their decision here is you, keep telling yourself that FUE isn't anywhere near as good and your delusion that 'everyone agrees this'.

4 - Wishing my FUE is a failure? Classy Chris.

If the facts the doctor tells you are that they aren't able to perform FUE consistently, I would stay away. If they don't even have confidence in their own ability to perform the surgery, why should you have confidence?

Instead, get doctors who are not telling you what you want to hear to get you in the chair, but have the skill required to be able to perform FUE to nearly the level of strip, as evidenced by a solid reputation and countless case studies.

Chris - didn't you have a strip surgery?

For me, I prefer Dr Feriduni's work to Dr Bisanga's.

Rahal is also very good from what I've seen. It would be between those two.

Some doctors often state that FUE yields are low and recommend their patients get strip, so I personally wouldn't get FUE with them.

Honestly, I think that in 15 years time there will have been significant advances in hair cloning and that will become the de-facto standard. I do think that you're asking sensible questions in the mean time, especially considering unforeseen circumstances. If you really want to get a procedure which can stand the test of very short hair then FUE is your only option. Strip only works when you have the necessary hair to cover it up at the back, which isn't the case when your hair is very short. Most people may plan on keeping their hair long forever but there are numerous cases when this doesn't work, such as some diseases. All of that being said, if you're fortunate enough to never meet such unfortunate circumstances, strip can yield excellent results which can really transform peoples lives.

The best option for you really depends on your level of hair loss, hair characteristics and donor area information, some pictures would help.

Shit the bed!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Something doesn't feel right about stvobadia posting a barely critical comment in response to the OP, all the while clarifying that the procedure was excellent and H&W have been excellent with him, simply voicing some mild concerns and mainly opening up a discussion about yield times, to then have his posts forwarded to the doctors who take care of him as if they are being portrayed in such a negative way that necessitates a response. He already made it clear that he's voiced his concerns with them and he would definitely recommend them.

I'm all for doctors being given the opportunity to respond but there's a big difference between that and seeking them out when any little comment is made, particularly when it villainizes the patient in question and may cause bad feelings between them. You may say it's his own fault for posting a slightly negative comment but seriously, do we want patients to hide their feelings through fear of jeopardising their doctor/patient relationship? In this case, his not particularly insulting or negative comments will be seen in a much harsher light due to the fact the clinic has been contacted, all blown completely out of proportion, and that is most definitely not his fault.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes the protectionism on this forum extends a little bit too much towards the doctors.

Latest pictures look awesome, particularly for just 4 months.

Very happy for you!

Yep - he's definitely not one of the top surgeons in the FUE field, that much is obvious.

Thanks for that. To be absolutely honest I had reached that decision myself after an expensive (250) consultation with Maurice Green of Blackrock in his rented Harley St. room. Similar alarm bells (or sirens I should say) were going off in my head to those I heard when originally looking into the worrying and frankly (in my experience) dangerous world of HT some 20 odd years ago. When statements such as "I thought you were 63 not 43" (despite for the first time since 21, actually looking my age) and "have you ever noticed that when the odd American Baseball player removes his hat, you just can not take your eye off his bald head" and "you are a very bald man". Of course, whilst laughing under my breath at the comments, I was dissapointed that clearly the HT world is as treacherous as ever - as obviously the comments were designed to prey on any cognitive or esteem vulnerability I may have and therefore hopefully accept a E25,000 HT surgery. For any of those out there that have actually had successful HT treatments and dealt with genuinely good people who are not simply seeking a fortune, I would hugely appreciate absolutely honest comment on where to explore (internationally) and if there really and genuinely is a successful and "natural" result to be attained and for a patient probably at the level of 6.

Wow, that really is shocking. Just out of interest, by 'Harley Street' do you mean London, and if so, where are you based?

Here is the result of my years of research:

1 - If you are very bald, the only surgery who achieve consistently great megasession results (that I have seen) is Hasson & Wong. By megasession I mean 6,000+. I would say Hasson & Wong, then Shapiro Medical Group, then Dr Rahal for strip. Those are the only three I would go with.

2 - If you prefer FUE I would be very cautious indeed. Only some doctors are able to consistently achieve similar yields with FUE and strip. Some openly admit they can't - and I would definitely avoid those. For FUE, I would recommend Dr Rahal and Dr Feriduni very strongly (although the latter is based in Belgium).

In both of the lists above, every single doctor there is well regarded, well respected, and well known to be ethical and honest at all times. All have turned candidates away when they are not suitable, and all offer excellent post-op care. Indeed, some 'popular' doctors on here are missing off my list by virtue of their poor post-op care. If I was you I would consult with the 4 I named who really are the cream of the crop in the HT world. You simply cannot go wrong with any of them.

HookHairs - the work looks very precise and clean, very typical of Rahal - I'm very impressed with what I've seen of his work.

Whereas some doctors don't seem to be able to achieve the same yields with FUE and strip, Dr Rahal seems to be able to achieve excellent consistent yields with either - I guess it depends on the individual skill of the surgeon. I've noticed that the surgeons who are less successful with FUE try to make out like all FUE yield less, but clearly the top surgeons can achieve excellent results and I think you made a great choice with this surgery.

I'm happy for you that you were able to get your poor previous surgeries repaired, happy growing and keep us updated!

Awesome result

England, There is a certain clinic that goes by the name of a famous designer fashion brand.

 

There are more than enough horror stories linked to him regarding large fue sessions that have failed miserably and there are plenty of patients to confirm this.

 

He did have some good results, but the consistency was terrible.

 

Some of the allegations towards that company are extremely sinister.

 

The other doctor you are referring to, trained the two doctors you have stated, so of course they will be bias towards his views.

 

I find it hard to believe that you are questioning someone, who is extremely knowledgeable and has worked for arguably the best hair transplant clinic in the world for several years.

 

You have basically one doctors view, who trained two others who obviously agree, against an overwhelming majority.

Chris, with all due respect, we're having a reasonable discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of FUE. I believe that the people I am talking with aren't offended - it's a natural discussion to have. It turns out that for the most part we agree anyway. Part of the reason they are here is to have discussions like this. I don't know how you describe what I'm saying as 'against an overwhelming majority' - I've quite clearly said on a number of occasions now that I am not claiming FUE is better than FUT.

The fashion designer doctor is not what I would describe as a 'top doctor' - for precisely the reasons you describe, if anything he has a bad reputation, so he doesn't count.

The doctor I can't mention did train Bisanga, but not Feriduni. Just because he trained him doesn't mean they necessarily share his opinion. I don't think I've seen any bad FUE results from any of those 3, either.

There aren't many megasession FUE results available, mainly due to cost and time reasons, in my opinion, but when done by the top docs they can achieve fantastic results.

Hi Jotronic - I'll try to keep this one short(er)

I said take the top 5 strip clinics and the top 5 FUE clinics. I did not say take the top five FUE clinics that perform strip as well.

Problem is, the best FUE clinics do perform FUT as well. And vice versa (mostly)

To narrow this further, just take the last 100 surgeries, strip and FUE, and compare them. I believe you will find further fault even with this comparison but regardless I'm sure it won't be done.

Actually, this comparison would be perfect, assuming you only looked at both from the top doctors. I do agree that FUE is more specialised so needs talent. If you looked at the last 100 surgeries from top doctors, my personal opinion would be that there isn't much between them.

I did not say the majority, I said many men. There is a big difference and please do not say that I am unsympathetic to the situation that many patients are in. I was one of them. I know what I'm talking about. ....I've spoken to men that have mortgaged their homes, TWICE, to get enough money for their hair. The stories go on.

For what I was saying to be true, all I need is for a significant proportion of men to be turned off FUE by the cost (or time), thereby reducing the number of FUE surgeries, and therefore lessening the 'best' ones (just statistically). The fact that some men have had to mortgage their homes to afford strip is perfect evidence of this. Ask them could they have afforded 3x the amount?

Actually you did say that. You said... "I have consulted with numerous top surgeons, many of whom have confirmed to me that given any one patient - it is possible to extract a higher number of grafts via FUE (without cosmetic problems). This is because FUE can be taken from 'safe zones' which ordinary strip cannot reach (such as further wide).

OK, some of the confusion may be that I said 'given any one patient' - poorly worded but I didn't mean 'everyone' by this. I meant in the specific circumstances of some patients, I have clarified this quite a few times in subsequent posts that it's 'some' patients from which more FUE grafts can be extracted. As you said, I definitely did not claim any numbers of grafts are 'routinely available'.

FUE only? Five days a week?

 

As I said, the top FUE surgeons happen to do FUT too. Most of the top FUT surgeons do FUE too as well. The top top ones who do both seem to have different claims on which one is more effective and how much more - I guess it depends on their talent / technique

Where did I say it was "so much worse"? You made some claims, I called you out on it. FUE is fine for some cases but it does not offer the same yield as strip every time and it certainly does not offer more grafts (assuming equal skill by the docs).

I was making a very modest claim that in some cases, more grafts can be extracted with FUE than strip, and that the yield of FUE can be nearly as good. I stand by this, due to the widened safe zone and evidence of FUE cases that I've seen. It's often assumed by people that you can get more with strip, and that the results are better - so I was challenging that assumption. You are making the claim, for example, that your surgery could never have been done with FUE - but how do you know? Did you try? For you to be so sure, FUE would have to be 'so much worse'. Where are all these failed FUE's from the top doctors? And I really do mean top doctors because I agree with you if you go below this level.

If all else were equal across the board (total numbers, yield, price) everyone would be doing FUE and no one would be doing strip.

I agree, this is kind of my point, so long as we add 'time' into it. Unfortunately, FUE is more expensive, and does take longer, so most people particularly those who need megasessions prefer strip. I argue time and money are huge factors in this, and that FUE can (in the right hands) produce as good results (imperceptible difference to strip).

Let me explain it a different way. If you look at how hair grows in the donor zone you will see that the direction of the hair allows for a shingling effect. If you remove a few thousand grafts via FUE you lose some of this shingling effect because each graft removed is now an empty space, ergo, less hair to shingle on top of other hair.

 

I agree with this, and I think the top FUE surgeons do exactly this with how they select their grafts. It's why their FUE is so much better than lesser doctors (who end up with the Moth effect - I guess the equivalent of the gaping strip scars from poor FUT doctors) - they select grafts in a sporadic pattern which can be covered utilising the shingling effect. In strip, the same size gap which is created by removing hairs (it's exactly the same sized area of skin which no longer has hair) is automatically spread evenly over the back of the head, by stretching the skin. In FUE, this relies on the doctors ability to spread the grafts out over the area in a balanced an even way. In this respect, the strip is like a perfectly distributed FUE, and of course no FUE doctor can ever be perfect. But some get close, in my opinion.

If strip and FUE were to reduce the density in the same way then a NW 6.5 like myself would easily be able to have 10,000 grafts via FUE. My hair characteristics are medium to slightly fine, straight and of average density....

 

Could this be done if I had undergone FUE? Not. A. Chance.

Honestly, I think maybe? I have a density of 80, have fine hair, and have already had a strip of 1,500-2,000 taken out.. and I've been told very conservatively that I have 6-8,000 grafts left for FUE - probably more. I've seen other estimates of even higher numbers (up to 12,000) on other patients. I haven't seen many results of said 'megasession' FUE's - but by the same token I haven't seen any failed ones (from top doctors).

Have you spoken to Dr. Feller? He's been doing FUE longer than almost anyone and does a damn fine strip surgery as well. I doubt there is anyone that knows more, shares more and is more honest about FUE than Dr. Feller.

I know Dr Feller does not believe FUE achieves as good a yield as FUT. I do think this varies by doctor though, I don't think any one doctor can make a general rule that applies to all. The doctor who I can't mention is at the other extreme of that and claims FUE is better. Feriduni and Bisanga both state FUE yield is slightly lower on average - but I think they are extremely talented and are able to get nearly as good as strip yields with FUE.

I guess I misunderstood the whole point of what you were saying. I was under the impression that you WERE saying that FUE is always better due to your claim that FUE can get more grafts than strip and that the yield is the same. You did say that you were told this by reputable doctors but now you are saying you have not reached any conclusions. Ok. I accept that.

I never said the yield is the same, or that the doctors claimed that (I admitted that most top doctors say the yield can be slightly lower) - I said 'nearly' or 'as good to the naked eye'. I was just questioning the assumption that an FUE megasession would look so bad. Until I see one performed by a top doctor, I don't like to claim that it's not possible. I'm asking all of these questions because I want to get a feel for just how much lower the yield is for FUE, and to make sure I've worked out all the advantages and disadvantages. I personally only need a 2,400 FUE but I want to make sure I'm not making a mistake - so I am challenging assumptions, including my own - to get to a comfort level. For me personally, I have all but decided on FUE. I wouldn't say that I am 'biased' towards FUE, I would say that I chose FUE after researching it and concluding that a possibly not perceptible reduction in yield is a small price to pay for being able to cut my hair short in the future if hair loss ever becomes too much for hair transplants.

I hope you can understand my points, England. FUE is fine for those that want it but they need to understand the differences and the inherent limitations. Publicly, doctors will not say, patient for patient, that FUE will have the same yield and offer more grafts compared to strip. They will say "some" patients can have these benefits or they will skirt around the issue somehow. If all the benefits of FUE that you mentioned were actually true then why would those doctors not eliminate strip altogether, charge less money for FUE, and let the increase in business offset the slightly lower fees being charged? As Spex says, and I agree with this for the most part, patients want FUE, but not all patients can have FUE and cost is not one of the reasons why.

 

I'm tired and have work to do. I wish you well.

I think your points are fair - although I do think we need more evidence of megasession FUE's not being possible before we can jump to that conclusion. I agree that no reputable doctor yet claims that FUE will offer the same yield, both Feriduni and Bisanga were very clear that FUE yield can be slightly lower - I think the key question is how much lower. I think this varies depending on the doctor, and in the right hands FUE is a more attractive option.

I don't think they could eliminate strip if FUE is as good - because it will always take more time and so they will always be able to do less of them and so will always need to charge more. This might push them out of the market for many guys and so wouldn't be in the interests of their bottom line. I do, however, think that FUE will increase as more and more doctors gain the expertise required to achieve similar results to strip with it.

Do you have any pictures or links to failed FUE megasessions, from top doctors?

Cheers

Well that’s pretty hypothetical at the moment but taking that into account I don’t doubt you are correct; at the same price more mega sessions would have happened and you would have seen more examples of good ones. Both because more of them were performed but also because there would have been more experience in performing them.

You would see more good results but it would take years of development before you saw 11.5 good mega FUEs for every 88.5 good large FUT you see.

I think we agree on this

Sorry I find it difficult to follow you logic so can't respond to all of it, but to follow your suggestion to cut the odds down to one doctor:

That doctor needs to fill 150spots (my guess)

By your numbers there are performed 32200 FUEs

There is no douct that these 32200 people could afford an FUE as they had one performed.

So if they can afford an FUE.

247,381 could afford an FUT. They had one.

 

How you get from there, to conclude that there isn't enough people in the world that can afford and want an FUE I don't get. Guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I'm far from rich but there were all kinds of other reasons that I deceded for FUT over FUE. Not to sound overly arrogant, but 30-40grand isn't that much money for many mature men.

Hey Baldy,

Rather than me writing another rant, I'm just gonna take a step back, and remind myself what we are actually discussing! :confused:

I am claiming that if FUE wasn't more expensive than FUT - more FUE megasessions would happen, and so the 'best' FUE megasession examples would become better (just because there were more of them).

Do you disagree with this?

Just to be sure: do you believe that there are lots of FUE megasessions happening with the top doctors, or not?

Cheers