Jump to content

Dr. Alan Feller

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,386 Excellent

About Dr. Alan Feller

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Basic Information

  • Gender

Hair Transplant Clinic Information

  • Hair Transplant Surgeon
    Dr. Alan Feller
  • Hair Transplant Network Recommendation Profile
  • Hair Transplant Clinic Name
    Feller Medical, PC
  • Primary Clinic Address
    287 Northern Blvd.
  • Country
    United States
  • State
  • City
    Great Neck
  • Zip Code
  • Phone Number
  • Website
  • Email Address
  • Provides
    Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation (FUT)
    Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE)
    Free In-depth Consults

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, you didn't simply change your mind. You agreed to not post on MY threads but "reserved" the right to comment as you wished on other threads not started by me. This thread was started by me. And why do you follow me around online anyway ? I don't know you. We've never met nor have we ever spoken. But when you constantly harass me online and even tell viewers of this site to actively not consider me for surgery I don't think it's "telling you what to do" by demanding that you stop. I think any doctor targeted by you as I have been would demand the same thing and be justified in doing so. Your focus on me is simply creepy and I have asked the moderators to step in.
  2. Impressive effort on your reply. But nope. None of the things you listed are advancements in FUE. Not a single graft coming out of the scalp via FUE today is affected any less by the three detrimental forces than they were 17 years ago. It is this reality that cuts through all the noise and the hype. The fact remains that each and every clinic you discuss in your post shows more FUT results than FUE results by a huge margin. And I ask again, if they believe FUE was the equivalent of FUT why would they keep performing FUT ? Why would there be any FUT presentations by them at all? I can't speak to why any particular clinic would choose to jeopardize their good reputation by performing FUE but I can make an educated guess. Wishful thinking, internet hype, and shameless/illegal marketing schemes have misled potential patients into believing FUE is the equivalent of strip. I can see how this happened on this very website by the incredible rejection of reality by so many posters. FUE has become a religion on this and other websites. So to keep the doors open these doctors believe they had better offer FUE or perhaps go out of business. They are just giving the public what they think it wants. The problem is that it is wrong and unethical and can't be justified when the realities of the procedure are compared to that of FUT. That's why, at least in the United States, informed consent is where the BS stops. Failing to inform a patient of the differences between the two procedures and the specific disadvantages of FUE in particular is a violation of most if not all State Medical Board regulations. This can lead to medical license suspension or revocation. It can also lead to civil action. The medical boards of other countries, especially the third world ones, don't seem to give a damn. Physician accountability is non-existent especially when the procedure is elective. You focus on all the "successes" posted online by FUE doctors in general. That's very nice, but how many failures and unhappy patients do you see on these doctors websites ? None, of course. No sane doctor would do that. But there are plenty of unhappy FUE patients on this very website that you completely ignored in your post. How many unhappy patients were given money back by their doctors in exchange for keeping their mouths and keyboards quiet? I can guarantee you they exist because such patients have come to my office and told me their silence was paid for by their doctor. You didn't mention them because you have no idea they exist. But they most certainly do. Most or all of your entire field of view concerning FUE and hair transplants in general is from online reading. That is simply too narrow of a view for you to be truly informed. All I can say is trust me when I say there is much more to the picture than you can possibly be aware of.
  3. These doctors have shown up. That's true. And I thanked and gave credit to each one in writing for doing so when their FUE colleagues would not. However, not a single one of those doctors discussed nor demonstrated that they have addressed the three detrimental forces that afflict the FUE procedure-much less reduced or eliminated them. Until they do no claims of advancement in the FUE procedure can validly be made. And no claim of parity with FUT can reasonably be made either. FUT/FUE surgeons do not need to come on here. They are not the ones making the FUE claims. But if you want to "hear" from the FUT/FUE surgical crowd they tell you every day where they stand on the FUE vs. FUT issue, all you need to do is know how to listen: Look at their websites- H@W, Rahal, Shapiro, T@D, Cooley, Alexander, Gabel, Konior All show mostly FUT procedure results and virtually no FUE results. Look at the cases they themselves choose to post on this site every month. You can be sure they pick the very best result they can find for the month because they know it will be scrutinized for years and become the basis upon which they are judged professionally-these results are almost always FUT results. Why do you think that is ?
  4. Lupanzula and Bhatti did not debate me, they made claims I proved were false using their own video presentations and they fled the discussion. But I know you know that. Sorry, no copyright violations under Fair Use, but I have no doubt you know that. You just love to spin things and harass me for some strange reason when you are not overtly cheerleading for your doctor and trying to send patients his way. Your agenda is obvious. I went through your recent posting history and you only come on to cheerlead your doctor or denigrate me. No other doctor, just me. I don't know what your problem is but i have never met you nor even spoken with you and your consistent pattern of stalking is getting out of hand. I will report this to the moderator. By the way, didn't you apologize and promise never to come onto one of my threads again when I proved you were very mistaken about another assumption you made about me and posted online ? You should demonstrate some honor and decency by holding up your end of the bargain by not posting in my threads again like you claimed you would.
  5. If the difference between FUE and FUT were so small then FUT would no longer be offered or performed. Doesn't that make sense ? Look at the videos of surgery posted by FUE doctors themselves on this site performing the FUE procedure.Anyone can plainly see that the grafts are being handled much more harshly and aggressively than in the FUT procedure. This isn't even debatable. So why would doctors knowingly perform a surgical procedure they know, or should know, causes more damage to both the grafts and the donor area ? What do you think ?
  6. The video can't be going a bit too far if it is telling the truth. The truth is simply the truth. Notice no FUE practitioners have come on to debate these statements ? They never do. There is a simple reason for it...they can't. FUE is the option if you can't do strip, but the overwhelming percentage of the population can do FUT. It is unethical to only offer FUE to a patient who is a candidate for FUT because these two procedures are NOT equivalents any more than ice cream and diet ice cream are equivalents. http://www.fellermedical.com
  7. Mikey, You definitely get the participation award. I think few watched the video as intently as you did, though they certainly should. Doctors, too. Just received a phone call from an HT doctor who viewed it said BRAVO to the video. Unfortunately your observations and analysis are not on point. Not because you are not intelligent or not dedicated to figuring things out, but because you don't live in the HT world as a profession- nor perform the procedures yourself. You only see it from the outside lay view which is a completely different view. The extent of your HT field of view is this forum. But imagine if you were a doctor who saw thousands of hair transplant patients every year. Don't you think your perspective might change just a little bit ? Apparently I can't convince you, and many others, about the truth of FUE. All I can do is convey the facts and hope they take root before too many more patients become FUE victims. We have been getting great feedback from patients who have read these posts and viewed our videos and were thankful to be given the realities of both procedures. In the end they almost always choose FUT. Please keep viewing our videos and commenting. Thanks !
  8. That quote from Cooley has nothing to do with "cherry picking" FUE grafts. It's just saying that he uses magnification to help him extract the grafts as they are, and then uses microscopes to determine how many follicles those extracted grafts actually have in them AFTER they have been removed and are on the dissecting table. The reason he is doing this is precisely because he can't cherry pick. You applied the word and the concept of cherry picking, Cooley (or whoever wrote that quote) did not. There is nothing about it in the quote. The reason he looks at the grafts after they have been removed is because he doesn't know how many follicles are actually in it. There may have been one hair coming out of the skin before the extraction and yet there might be one or two more follicles in the graft in different phases of growth where the hairs could not be seen. There is no way for him to know before he targets it. That's what makes FUE is a blind procedure. It is also why so many FUE hairlines have multiple hairs coming out of a graft instead of just being pure singles. Also, he may target a three hair graft, but one or two of the follicles and/or their bulbs may be torn off during the extraction process. The only way to know is to look under a microscope after the fact. We've been doing this since we started doing FUE 17 years ago. Problem is MOST FUE clinics do not inspect their grafts under a microscope- or at all. If the target graft had three hairs coming out of it yet two are torn away leaving just one possibly functioning follicle it is still counted as a three hair graft. If you want to know how they justify this, just ask me. There is no cherry picking in FUE. It is a totally blind procedure.
  9. Most FUE clinics claim that FUE is "the newest" and "latest" procedure. It isn't. The procedure was reintroduced to North America 17 years ago. One can hardly call that "new". Would you call a car that was 17 years old "new"? Yet on the majority of FUE clinic websites they taut that they use the most "modern" method available of hair transplant. They claim it's "new" and "superior". The false implication that it is better than the "less-modern" procedure of FUT. Which of course it isn't. Then there are the claims of "IMPROVED" FUE using robots, motorized punches and suction machines. Also untrue. In the end, these devices do not improve on simple manual FUE nor do they elevate the results of the FUE procedure to the level of FUT (the Gold Standard). Nothing has changed since Dr. Rob Jones and I developed and shared North America's first revealed FUE procedure. This means we didn't pretend it was a State Secret like the few other doctors experimenting with FUE and use it as a marketing tool. Everything we figured out and developed we shared openly with the world. In fact, I performed the first FUE procedure that was video recorded and placed online back in 2002. And Dr. Jones and I performed the first FUE in a live surgical workshop during an ISHRS meeting back in 2003. Nothing has substantially changed that since time regarding the mechanics of the procedure itself. It is still exactly the same: A punch is used to score around the graft, a forceps is used to grab the graft, and the graft is ripped from the skin. Every clinic does it this way with the possible exception of one awful tool that tries to use suction instead of a forceps which injures the graft even more. Here is the worlds first FUE procedure shown online in great detail and close up back in 2002. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN ! I called it a "perfect extraction" in the video because the graft LOOKED intact. But in reality it was significantly injured. There was just no way to see or measure the damage. But when you stop and look at what forces were inflicted on that graft compared to FUT it becomes clear to any rational physician that the FUE procedure is brutal by comparison. See how I had to grab that graft and hold pressure on the forceps as I pulled and pulled waiting for it to tear free ? THAT is what injures the FUE grafts and makes FUE outcomes very unreliable when compared to FUT. And of course the bigger the case the faster the doctor goes and the worse the compression and yanking forces become. There is no equivalent in the FUT procedure.
  10. And here are videos shot specifically to present what FUT scars really look like. Not the rare and shocking scars that FUE clinics mislead people into believing are common. The scar results we show are representative of the TRUE typical strip scar. All of the skin above and below the scar are completely untouched and undamaged. When FUE is performed, in contrast, the entire donor area is damaged well beyond necessity and limits the numbers of grafts available for future use. Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplant Great Neck, NY http://www.fellermedical.com
  11. After reading Bverotti's post Dr. Bloxham and I began a discussion between ourselves about how confused people are about the realities of FUE surgery. So we decided to film it and share it online. If any FUE doctor cares to chime in, please do. Dr. Alan Feller Feller and Bloxham Medical, PC Great Neck, NY NYC Hair Transplant | NY Hair Restoration | Feller & Bloxham Medical
  12. I'm sorry Bart, I can't agree to disagree. What I wrote was not opinion-but clinical fact based on 17 years experience in FUE and 23 years experience with FUT. What you wrote was simply not true or confusing at best. The word "transection" is used very loosely by the FUE community and it's time that it stopped. FUE clinics seem to want the public to believe that transection is the only injury visited upon a graft during FUE surgery. But this is not true. The damage from the twisting, compression, and yanking of partially freed FUE grafts inflicts damage in far greater numbers than transection does AND it is invisible to the eye. If it is your contention that all FUE grafts that appear intact (not transected) grow as well as FUT grafts then you are sadly mistaken. If you were a doctor and actually performed the FUE procedure you could appreciate the amount of force and trauma applied to the graft to get them out of MOST patients. When I say "most" I mean the vast majority of patients meaning 85%. Probably higher. If FUE clinics started to use the more accurate "Damaged Graft" percentage instead of the so-called "Transected Graft" percentage the public would understand the true and unpredictable nature of the FUE procedure and few would take the gamble to have it performed on them if the gold standard of FUT were available. In the United States patients must be given informed consent. Failure to disclose the" graft damage percentage" while offering only the "graft transection rate" would be failure to give informed consent and would seriously threaten that doctors license. It would also be grounds for civil action. This is why you don't see "hair mills" and "FUE mills" in the United States. In fact, you see almost no FUE- only clinics at all in the United States for this reason. As I recall, years ago you sent a few doctors to Dr. Jones to learn the FUE techniques Dr. Jones and I developed together. I'm in contact with Dr. Jones on a regular basis and nothing significant has changed in that time on his end. Nor mine. Nor anybody else's as far as I know. Are you claiming that your current staff of doctors are performing FUE significantly different from what Dr. Jones and I developed and passed onto your doctors ? If so, how does it significantly differ ?
  13. The statement is a non-starter. Sure, there can be donor thinning under the scar but it is usually just within the first weeks to months just after surgery and normally completely resolves on it's own. I may see this phenomenon once in every 30 surgeries and none have been permanent. It is the donor thinning from FUE that is aggressive, permanent, and often the subject of online posts from unhappy FUE patients.