charlieb

Hi all, it's been 8 years since I had the transplant. For the last few years I've seen to have found a good balance in my hair. Although not entire full it is enough to stop me obsessing over it. No longer do I check out the bald spot I the mirror on a daily basis. My routine is using minoxidil once a day in the morning, it's actually one thing I need and I use it like a gel. I've updated a photo.

updated 6mths after my additional 663 grafts...i actually dont look as bald now...i can actually let my hair grow without shaving it...it still is a little thin but im happy about the results..what do you guys think of the final results ? i guess at 6 mths since the 2nd op and 14 mths since the first op this is pretty much the density i will get...

just updated 4.5mth photos

Doc, This article actually blows the theory that light has to be coherent to be off benefit to humans. As you can see its actually ironic that you said we are not plants...because it is because we are so similar to plants we benefit from laser treatment..this is just my assumption and intuitive logical thinking..You see the laser beam provides a source off light which is direct coherent or incoherent it doesnt matter, the source provides energy or whatever which allows our body to respond to stimulus...your whole theory is that the light has to be coherent to work but this article theorises it doesnt have to be. I cant believe you are still arguing a single point of the laser not being able to penetrate the skin for it not to work, what im saying is light provides stimulus, so as soon as it hits our scalp , coherent or non coherent it does not matter - something happens, for example say you take some water and pour it on a metal foil, depending on the conditions you might see vapour develop on the other side of the foil, because the water has made contact with the foil although it is not exactly penetrating the foil , laws off nature has cause condensation to develop. im just saying these occurences happen everywhere in nature. You also pointed out if i took a torch and shine it on a watch would it do anything, well obvious it wouldnt because a watch doesnt breathe and live...but interesting you should point this fact out because if you read below you will notice the difference between living and non living organisms and how they deal with Entropy, i thought the read was quite interesting. You also said that in 15 years you have never heard of anyone benefiting from laser therapy yet there are some people here which have told you straight - yes it has worked for us..you just refuse to believe it. I agree with you on one point that i find it strange there are not many before and after photos , i actually say one back in the pages with the laser helmet, but you dismissed him as a schill...maybe he was , maybe he wasnt...but that was one hell off an impressive helmet...i would love to try it !! anyway doc lets agree to disagree..you need photographic prove to believe, i believe on faith and intuitive believe and the fact i feel good and my hair feels good when i use it... bottom line is we are a living organism which respond to stimulus.. the article below will be interesting to shed on why are we so like plants ! There is quite a bit of controversy among light therapy proponents about the therapeutic value of lasers, which produce coherent light, versus LED and incandescent sources, which produce incoherent light. Laser enthusiasts, backed by a large body of research, claim that only the intense, highly coherent beam of a laser can penetrate deeply into the body's tissues and meridian system for significant results. Yet some of the most respected names in light therapy research have used gentler, much more diffuse light sources for effective treatment of a staggering range of health disorders. Who is right? The purpose of this article is to explore this question by offering some fascinating contemporary research about coherence and noncoherence of light, and their effects on the human body. There has been an explosive growth of interest in the uses of light for healing and cosmetic treatments in recent years. Light pens are used for non-needle acupuncture treatments, lasers are used for many common surgical procedures, and some ophthalmologists prescribe color light therapy through the eyes for a wide range of health disorders. "Photo-facials" are also becoming common in beauty salons. Even the U.S. Army and NASA have gotten into the act, developing LED light therapies for accelerating wound healing, photodynamic cancer treatment and much more. According to Dr. Harry Whelan, a professor of pediatric neurology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who utilizes the NASA LED technology, "So far, what we've seen in patients and what we've seen in laboratory cell cultures all point to one conclusion - the near-infrared light emitted by these LEDs seems to be perfect for increasing energy inside cells. This means whether you're on Earth in a hospital, working in a submarine under the sea, or on your way to Mars inside a spaceship, the LEDs boost energy to the cells and accelerate healing."1 One of the first proponents of color therapy in the U.S. was Dinshah Ghadiali. In the early 1900s, he developed the practice of "tonating," which is bathing the entire body, or body segments, in therapeutic colors of light.2 While this remains a highly beneficial practice for a wide range of health disorders, a more modern trend is colorpuncture, developed by Peter Mandel of Germany. Colorpuncture is a specific form of therapy, in which a series of colored light beams are applied to patterns of acupuncture points. The greater sophistication of the colorpuncture system allows targeted beneficial effects on the endocrine, lymphatic, organ, psycho-emotional and central nervous systems.3 Colorpuncture is so effective because acupuncture points are energetic communication gateways, and highly responsive to light. According to acupuncture researcher Ion Dumitrescu of Romania: "The electrodermal points are electrical pores - concerning two-way energy exchange between the body and the environment."4 The work of German scientist Fritz Popp proved the existence of natural light communication between all living plants, animals and people. He called this phenomenon "biophoton" luminescence.5 Biophotons are carriers of "information," without which our bodies are lifeless collections of molecules. According to Popp, the coherent biophoton fields within the body mainly originate in our DNA.6 Coherent and Incoherent Light There are two forms of light used in therapy - coherent and incoherent. Most visible light on Earth and in the universe is incoherent. This means that photons (light particles) randomly spread out as soon as they are emitted from a light source. Incoherent sources include the sun and light from incandescent fluorescent, and LED sources. LED stands for light emitting diode. An LED is a silicon microchip with various added substances, each of which releases a different wavelength (color) of light when electrically stimulated. LEDs used to be used mainly as low-power indicator lights for electronic devices. Now manufacturers are racing to release LEDs with higher intensities and a greater range of available colors and designs. LED light has been used for acupoint stimulation and wound healing since the 1980s. Lasers are the only manufactured form of light therapy that does not spread out, but stays tightly collimated (coherent). The difference between coherent and noncoherent light is easy to see. If a bright flashlight with an incandescent or LED bulb is directed toward a distant wall in a dark room, the beam projected upon the wall will be diffuse and widely spread out. Yet if a laser pointer or therapy tool is directed in this way, you will only see a tiny spot on the wall. That is because the beam remains coherent over long distances. Coherence and Entropy There is an inverse relationship between coherence and entropy. Entropy is the tendency for any organized system to become chaotic; that is, to break down over time. Examples of entropy are aging and death, stars burning down, and social breakdown in overcrowded cities. According to the pioneering research of Nobel prize-winning physicist Ilya Prigogine, living and evolving systems resist entropy (negentropy) because they are able to take in new, outside energy and dissipate entropic tendencies away from themselves.7 This ability to reverse entropy, in fact, may be considered a prime quality of life and consciousness. There are two kinds of energy systems in regard to entropy: closed and open systems. Closed systems operate in isolation - they do not interact with a greater environment. Open systems are ecological; that is, they are in a continual state of communication and energy exchange with their environment. Only an open system can dissipate entropy as described above, and maintain or increase its coherence. Human beings, and all living things on Earth, are open systems. Therefore, our bodies can take in energy from our environment and maintain coherence. This supports homeostasis and health. It also allows us to evolve into increasing levels of order and expanded consciousness. According to the research of Popp, consciousness is based on this ability to maintain coherence.8 A timely application of this principle is the field of so-called "anti-aging" medicine, which is greatly in demand by our huge baby boomer population. Any therapies or supplements that genuinely slow the aging process must do so by increasing the body's ability to dissipate entropy and maintain energetic coherence. Laser and LED Stimulation Let's return to the question of the differing values of coherent light (laser) vs. incoherent light in therapy. In support of laser proponents, it can seem intuitive that a highly focused and coherent beam of light would penetrate more deeply into the body than scattered, incoherent photons, and hence have more profound clinical effects. Yet some of the most fascinating contemporary research shows that this may not necessarily be the case! Under many conditions now recognized by modern physics, incoherent light can transform into coherent light. A simple example of this principle is in the workings of a telescope. Light emanating from a distant star is incoherent, yet once captured in the collector lens system of the telescope, it becomes coherent.9 Our bodies evolved for millions of years in a field of incoherent light (the Sun), as did all of our food sources. Yet the DNA in our bodies produces coherent biophoton emissions.10 Apparently, our bodies are negentropic (entropy reducing) organisms, and can transform incoherent light into coherent light, as needed. According to Mandel, it is energetic interference fields in the body that do this.11 They act as "filters" to produce this transformation. According to Mandel, the denser and more complex the interference fields, the greater the capacity to transform incoherent light into coherent light. Acupuncture points are interferences in which two or more energy pathways intersect, and hence have this filtering effect. Mandel also states that repeated use of intense laser light on acupuncture points can eventually weaken or "blow out" the subtle circuitry they regulate. So, are lasers or incoherent LED light sources superior for therapy purposes? It is clear that laser light more closely resembles the coherent light our DNA produces to transmit and receive the information of life. Yet our bodies have evolved negentropic systems to utilize incoherent sunlight as energy "fuel," and transform it into coherent biophotons, as needed. It is well-established that both forms of light therapy have demonstrated value. In the opinion of the author, because laser therapies are so much more focused and intense, they are a more invasive form of therapy than incoherent light from LEDs. This is evidenced by the wide use of lasers for hair removal and many forms of surgery. Yet this is not necessarily a negative indictment of laser acupuncture. More invasive therapies are often useful for treatment of acute or recalcitrant conditions, and certainly have their place in the physician's armamentarium. Lasers also enjoy a very positive reputation for treatment of some skin diseases.12 It is clear, however, that our bodies have developed sophisticated mechanisms with which to thrive on direct incoherent light from the sun, and secondarily from the light held within the biochemical bonds in food sources. The DNA in our cells possesses the alchemical ability to produce coherent light, carrying the precise information required for growth, functioning and healing of our magnificent bodies. According to Prigogine's pioneering research, open systems such as our bodies are able to take in energy from the environment and make it coherent, thus reversing entropy. Surely, such remarkable life systems respond superbly to the incoherent light they are programmed to process References Quoted from Science Daily Web site: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001219195848.htm. Dinshah D. Let There Be Light. Dinshah Health Society, 2001. Mandel P. Practical Compendium of Colorpuncture. Edition Energetik 1986. Dumitrescu I. Contribution to the electro-physiology of the active points. International Acupuncture Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 1977, as quoted in American Journal of Acupuncture, 1981;9(3). Popp FA, Becker B. Electromagnetic Bioinformation, ed. 2, Urban and Schwartzengerg, Germany, 1988. Popp FA, Chang JJ, Herzog A, Yan Z, Yan Y. Evidence of non-classical light in biological systems. Published by the International Institute of Biophysics: www.lifescientists.de/publication/pub2001-08.htm. As quoted on numerous Web sites about Prigogine, such as: www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/entropy.html. Popp FA. Consciousness as evolutionary process based on coherent states. Published by the International Institute of Biophysics: www.lifescientists.de/publication/pub2003-04-11.htm. Leonard Mandel and Emil Wolf. Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, 1995, section 4.2. This phenomenon is noted in the absence of atmospheric tremors, i.e., on a good observing night. As quoted in note 3, above. Interference fields are intersections of two or more interacting frequencies. Interference fields are a major aspect of brain, nervous system and acupuncture point function, and such fields store memory. Quoted from: course notes, Esogetic Colorpuncture Basic Training by Peter Mandel, ND, 2003. As quoted in Harvard University Gazette, June 2000: www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/06.01/psoriasis.html

Doc Im not attacking you more than you have attacked everyone elses credibility..i wouldnt call you ignorant if you didnt use sweeping statements like quakery etc...and claim to know it all when it comes to laser therapy...if you dont know it all how can you call it qakery? cant you just say there may be a possibility a probability? if you dont acknowlegde that stimulus to your scalp using laser light, given statements say 50/50 is negative and positive from pass users is there a probability that it might have merit? Fact #1: You are an LLLT advocate who BELIEVES your lasercomb works. Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. I've asked you to do so in the simplest way by showing photographs. You either can't or you refuse. Either way, I don't see any photos from you. Wrong , I dont have to prove it you have to disprove it..from what i seen off your video it does nothing of the sort. in fact it doesnt matter to me in the slightest because i have my laser comb and will keep using it because I think it gives me more bounce in my hair, it is frizzy before i use it afterwards it is course and just feel better, it even shines, im not a hair expert but i know when my hair is in a good state or not, why do you want to dismiss these first hand patient experiences, you just need to read the post above from behappy..another person you believes to experience the same...maybe if i said i have a stomach ache you want evidence of this as well..well guess what i cant provide that either except by telling you, its my body and i know it best. Fact #2: I am a physician specializing in surgical hair restoration who sees hairloss sufferers EVERY day and has done so for the past 15 years. MANY have claimed to have used LLLT and NONE of them thought it was effective. They ALL regretted "wasting" their money without exception. They also felt taken advantage of, which is something that really bothers me because I believe they were. You don't meet people like this every day, I do. True you meet alot off people that lose their hair, I cannot comment for their experiences, I can only draw from mine and mine says laser comb has a place in allowing for healthy hair growth, to tell you the truth i am a very happy user of the laser brush thats why i firmly believe in the merits. Fact #4: The skin contains and OPTICAL BARRIOR that will not permit light to reach the follicles in laser (coherent) form. That is an undeniable and non-debatable fact of human physiology. You still havent told me, what makes you sure that the laser has to hit the follicle, isnt it possible that stimulus to the scalp is enough ? is this possible? if not what makes you so sure ? Fact #5: There are no convincing, verifiable, first hand, LLLT only photos presented on this forum. There are, however, MANY deceptive photos of LLLT results online. True I have no photos , my mission is not to prove it works..it never has been my mission to do that..all i can say is i have used it and believe it has benefits. My goal is I can say to discredit post like yours which discredit laser therapy, if your post had credibity and debated in a mature manner i wouldnt be posting in this manner, i guess im just following the tone you are setting. ..its the believe in your video that it actually proves something and it is the answer to this whole debate...seriously your video doesnt prove anything except the light cant pass through your finger. I really cant understand why you think it proves something...thats why i think you are a bit ignorant, its not an insult more an observation..same with the ego because you hold such a hardline stance on this issue with little proof yourself. You actually lost all credibilty when you said we need to be plant to benefit from biostimulation, do plants listen to music ? can they hear ? now thats another debate ...is it possible is it probable ? if there is a stimulus if you are a living thing is it fair to hypothesis you will be effected in some way? LLLT industry representatives and researches have claimed ten ways to sunday that it is the laser nature of light that is imparting the magical benefit. These same LLLT industry experts have gone out of their way to claim that standard red monochromatic light is NOT effective. This is why they sell "laser" products instead of red "Light Emitting Diode (LED)" products. David Michaels himself claimed to have used a "sham" device containing red LEDs in his so-called "study" that did NOT impart any benefit. He has REFUSED to release this "study" to the public by the way. Where does it say that a laser is not a laser when you interrupt the beam? im not a phyicist but it is obvious that the laser beam doesnt turn into light but merely becomes a shorter beam off light on the surface off your scalp , correct or not? so the question isnt the fact is this beam of light a laser beam (because it still is , just compressed , it isnt a LED) the debate is does the beam need to penetrate to the follicle to be off benefits, you cant prove it does, in fact all you can prove is a lot of technical jargon and fluff, smoke screen with cries of wanting photos or what not. just maybe sit back and think dismiss the science, if there are happy people out there using it like me and behappy, just two in this forum but many more im sure there are many out there , maybe it doesnt need to penetrate the follicle , maybe scalp stimulus is enough...and what evidence have you got that says it doesnt penetrate the follicle anyway.. i dont mean to be nasty or maybe i do but these posts are way out off line when you try to ram your opinion down someones throat, accusing people of being someone else..out to make money, in it because they are in the hairmax business...many they are just openminded people that truly believe in the laser..wouldnt you agree? i make up my own mind and i honestly think your video does nothing to prove your point - sorry !

Doc Feller, I wasnt being nasty or falsely accusing you of anything. If you actually read my post again it actually would be a normal response to an utter load off nonsense off a video you put up..in doing so it just proves to me that you have this massive ego which wants to be right and has to have his opinion validated and thats it...a person which would want a debate usually keeps his mind open to certain possibilities that laser light does have a benefit to human tissue and scalp tissue...and yes i am not a plant...are you saying as a human i do not respond to light ??? weird i thought without light i would probaby die off vitamin D defiency, light is actually one of the few needs that as humans we need, so that actually blows that theory of having to be a plant to benefit..doesnt it ? the problem with this thread which i might appear to be nasty and a bit condesending is because you refuse to listen to people that actually have used the laser light and believe to have benefited...thats what is so wrong. It like saying to people that go to church every sunday , stop going its a bunch off quackery because there is no scentific photos to prove that god exist, but what are you going to say to the person that experiences god everyday , the one thats been there , he doesnt care for scentific proof..there is something as intuition and if im using something on my body which seems to benefit me...wouldnt you at least stop to think maybe a thousand people cant all be fakes...maybe it does work for a small percentage of people...like i said and others have said, laser is not the answer for growing hair but i think it is a great use for maintaining healthy manageable hair....so stop with your 'its quackery' nonsense...you havent proved it doesnt work and i havent proved it works, so each to his own opinion. also to answer your question ''Did you know that David Michaels wrote on the hairmax website that: OFTEN the benefits of his product are NOT "DEMONSTRATBLE" (sic) in photographs? Did you know that before you bought yours?'' The answer is no i didnt no, because i didnt buy one off him and would never buy one for that ridiculous amount off money....maybe this is the whole issue off hairmax combs costing a fortune, cos the more something costs the more we get desperate to get our moneys worth and the higher our expectations. for those that bought one of the hairmax or lexingtons or whatever..i hope it works for you but you can get one just as good for 99$..and maybe if the investment was so inconsequantial there wouldnt be this huge debate over the laser comb. So maybe the debate shouldnt be does laser combs work but why the hell do lasermax etc rip people off by pricing so high ?

This video doesnt prove anything, first of all it is made by someone which is clearly bias and without an objective viewpoint. you say when your finger is put on the laser it no longer becomes a laser it becomes a light duhh what ever it is a light a laser beam...it still doesnt prove the light works or not. actually from such posting Dr Feller you come across as being quite ignorant be dismissing laser therapy as quackery altogther...I am sure there are many satisified people out there that use laser therapy in conjunction with their other treatment.. which manual did you read which says the laser light has to hit the follicle for it to work ? the way i see it everything in our bodies is connected, and i do believe that laser therapy promotes a healthier scalp..i would guess it provides stimulation, gets rid of excess oil as well as other beneficial...i agree with the doctors on one thing...laser combs which costs thousands are ridiculous...you can get one for 100$ which works great, and for that amount of money it is worth looking into i use a laser comb few times a week and i notice my hair is much healthier when i am using then when i am not, coincedences maybe? or is there someone to laser therapy? all i know is i support laser if you like to have healthy non limp hair..i believe its worked for me to some degree.

Hairthere, There was alot that added to my decision to come back for a second procedure 1. I believe that Dr Jen does possess the skill level to place FUT graphs to create an illusion off density 2. The number off graphs when broken down to the most basic off units which is a follicle, when taken this into a/c I would recieve a total off 3000 follicles which is quite an ok density for me. 3. I dont believe that I lack donor area as I think I have very good donor hair, I also think any donor hair that is taken hasnt actually being wasted but placed on my crown.. 4. I cannot invest any more time and money in getting a HT in the USA or Canada..with all due respect I have alot to do in my life than plan my next holiday getting another HT and spending all my savings on another HT , so yes I took the easy way out... 5. I am actually very happy that I went in for the 2nd procedure as I know I have at least another 2000 grafts without trying in donor hair left...Im also starting to see good results from my 1st HT and the second one should only get better. Ive posted some pictures up

To keep the pricing in perspective, Dr Jen charges 10k for 1000 grafts which she puts in about 1100 grafts , she doubles up every graft, making it a total off 2000 follicles she places. So for 2000 follicles (which the doctors in the US counts 1 follicle unit as 1 graft) the cost is actually @5.20 a follicle unit. For mine procedure I had a second procedure off 663 grafts for free, 8 mths after the first procedure which was determined by her to be 'underestimated'...this 2nd procedure was 1000 follicles. So I recieved about 3000 follicles for 10385$ which works out to be 3.5$ a follicle unit. I am still waiting for the results from this 2nd procedure and am now 1 month post op from my 2nd procedure and @8.5mths from my first...Its been a rollercoaster ride, and at times Ive wished I had been smart enough to go to Canada to begin with (which if you can is a very very good option) but now Im feeling everything will work out ok...I am seeing results and Im actually growing my hair long without a bald spot standing out like a sore thumb...something i havent done in 5 years!!! I do feel that there is only more growth to come...im silently waiting for some good results so I can post the pictures for you guys to see. I do feel that Dr Jen has the necessary skills to be a top notch surgeon and can deliver you the results you want, but on the other hand I do also advocate if you can go for a mega session with one of the Doctors like HnW or Dr Feller, from what I can see they do very good work...this is in hindsight...if i can do it again I proby would off taken that trip to USA, free holiday and guaranteed results...but after 2 procedures off which the second one was quite painless...im happy to say im recovering well. Overall Im still waiting for my final results to really say if I will or would not recommend Dr Jen over the doctors in the USA, her passion, patient care etc is exceptional I found...but in this business its about results...to her credit she has done her best to give me the results i want and only time will tell now. if you want to ask more or need someone to help make your decision Ill be glad to help offer you advise being in Australia and having already experienced this.

I thought long about what you guys said about going to the USA for my next procedure and frankly I would love too but decided to get the 600 free grafts, please take a look at the results. I ended up with 663 grafts that day which is 1000 follicles, so all in all I have recieved 2000 follicles on the first op and now the additional 1000 follicles. I am quietly confident that i will get a good result when all heals, I am at the 8 mth for my first op in 6 days so hopefully the first one hasnt completely spouted yet and with these additionals it might be enough. The scar the doctor made is very clean and i think i have enough donor hair if my hairline ever need works.

Guys, Ive read alot off the posts here and seen the amount off grafts you guys have recieved and it seems that the way USA doctors count one graft is by counting one follicle , be it 1 , 2 or 3 hairs. I recieved 2000 follicles which were made into 1126 grafts through the use of doubling up , so would it be the same as saying I recieved 2000 grafts if I was counting it the way you guys do?

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments and i do understand why you are saying some off these things now. the results you are getting with surgeons in the US are just amazing, its what i would describe as a full head off hair. my problem is time and money, which i have very little off now since ive done my last procedure and took 10 days off work, but the idea is appealing more and more to take another 10 days and come to New York for that transplant you cant get here. My question is a few and if someone can help answer them before my free procedure on wednesday i can decide if i will go ahead with the free one. 1. what type off results will i expect to get if i go say 3500-3700 grafts with Dr Feller...as you can see it says there 13000$, can i expect a full head off hair, with no patchy spots etc ? 2. what will happen to the existing hair at my 1/3 front crown region where i have alot off existing hair (im not going bald here) will it blend in nicely? 3. With 3500 grafts bear in mind Ive had now 2 procedures done will I be able to shave my hair down to number 3 (18mm) as this is my prefered haircut. 4. What is the healing time before i can go to work and the scabs and scars cant be seen (i can proby get 10 days off around xmas time) does this seem like an adequate timeframe 4. Hi Doc Feller this question is for you...what is your schedule like ? and if i can discuss prices with you personally via email or something. 5. and finally what is accomdation in newyork like for a cheap but private room, never been to the states before. thanks guys , im really comtemplating this as your work/pictures speaks for itself

Hi Dr Feller, looking forward to seeing your patient photos... just wondering how much a procedure off about 2000-3000 grafts would cost?..you can send me a personal message if you dont like to discuss on the internet.

Doc Feller and others How many more grafts do you think I would need to have good density ? and how much hair count do you think that is so we are talking in the correct numbers.?

Thanks for your comment Hairthere, Ive added some better pictures off 8 mths ...the angle of the camera really matters when taking pictures...as you can see when the camera is directly next near the forehead i have a very unflattering bald spot....this is the area the doctor said she would fill in with the 600 grafts ...as i tilt back abit to reveal the widows peak area the view looks better. If you look at the before and after pics you will notice only one before pic was taken without a flash. Anyway looking forward to having more hair soon !