Dr. Alan Feller

David, First of all there is absolutely no question as to what I did or didn't write so please don't make it out to seem subjective. I did not write what California nor Dr. Bhatti claimed I did which set them off. They made a mistake and chose to double down and attack me rather than saying whoops and apologizing. "Lastly, though you don't mention Dr. Bhatti's name specifically, everyone knows who his doctor is and that he is an outspoken (perhaps overzealous) supporter. Thus, I don't know what other FUE surgeon he might be repping." While you may be acutely aware that Seth is a patient of Dr. Bhatti, I was not. I don’t read and frequent this site as you do. I had no idea who Dr. Bhatti was until he and California attacked me out of the blue, much less what Sethicles specific past included. I had no idea who California was either Yes, I can now read that Dr. Bhatti is in Seth's signature line, but I had no idea of this at the time. You made a wrong assumption, and so did they. When I brought up that Seth was a rep for an FUE doctor it was in the context of responding to a scathing and inappropriate post by HTsoon. It had nothing to do with Dr. Bhatti nor anyone else. This is plain to anybody who takes the time to read it, which nobody has. That question I asked to HTsooner that you quoted here had nothing to do with Dr. Bhatti or any other doctor in existence. To me Seth has come across as a rep for an FUE doctor or the FUE industry in general since the very second post of this thread. And clearly many others thought this too long before I ever did to the point that Bill told me he had even investigated Seth for it in the past. So my belief that he was a rep for an FUE doctor is valid, but I never said who he was a rep for because I didn’t know, didn’t care, and it was not important to the point I was making to HTsooner. “I present this not to challenge you on it but I don't see any other interpretation and I'd like to know if you can see how I and others may have drawn this conclusion.” If I had written that Seth was a rep for Dr. Bhatti I might see how you could draw your conclusion. But since I never did, then NO, I can’t see how you and others may have drawn this wrong conclusion. I also don't see how false assumptions made by anybody should become my burden to disprove. The reality of this false charge against me should be confirmed by a moderator, and I would suggest a post be inserted after California and Dr. Bhatti's original posts that states that their charge against me was unverifiable and fallacious. They clearly won't do the honorable thing and remove the false statements themselves. Would you make that post, David?

So you believe that damage during dissection of FUT grafts is the same as that for FUE grafts in terms of severity and number of grafts affected?

Dr. Vories, Since an implanter pen can be used for either procedure in exactly the same way it cannot stand as an advantage for FUE. If, however, it did impart some sort of greater protection for the implantation of injured skeletonized FUE grafts, then this heretofore unknown benefit would apply to an even greater extent to an uninjured FUT graft, thus giving the advantage once again to FUT. I understand that your point in using the pen is that it somehow will compensate for the injured FUE graft. But my point is: isn’t it better to not have the injured graft in the first place? The graft is injured due to varying levels of particular and predictable damage inflicted exclusively during the FUE procedure, namely Torsion, Traction, and Compression. Wouldn’t it be better to just avoid these destructive forces altogether? I look forward to your considered reply and thank you for joining in the discussion. Dr. Feller

Mav is correct, this is not a Dr. Bhatti vs. Dr. Feller thread. This is an FUT vs. FUE thread- independent of individual practitioners or personalities. I do not even believe that Dr. Bhatti ever intended to participate either as a practitioner nor as a representative of the “FUE side”. Rather it was his own rep who fired him up by telling him mistakenly that I had written something on this thread that I had not. Dr. Bhatti came online and vented his anger in a few posts before he realized I was innocent of the charge made against me. Although I feel his apology could have been more direct, I nevertheless accepted it and let the matter drop so that we could engage in the more important discussion/debate that clearly thousands of people are interested in. To date this thread has over 21,000 views. The topic is obviously a hot one and from the many emails I’ve received it is being viewed and followed literally around the world on a regular basis. When I discuss the limitations of FUE I avoid all reference to individual practitioners, personalities, or even philosophies by boiling down the argument to three basic detrimental forces inherent to the FUE procedure. Either they are there, or they are not. I have made the case that they are there and that they inflict themselves on each and every graft that is removed via FUE. And as such FUE is at a major disadvantage compared to FUT right from the start. It is now up to a practicing FUE advocate to dispute the claim and support it; or, acquiesce and start making some changes. It is unfortunate Dr. Bhatti has withdrawn from the discussion. It is his right and I bare him no ill will for doing it. He is an individual and this is not a court room. However, he is also a self described advocate and defender of FUE and as such his withdrawal from the debate reduces the credibility of the FUE side. But it is not fair to focus on him. The burden does not fall solely on his shoulders. It also falls on the shoulders of each and every practicing FUE practitioner. And to date none of them have showed up. Neither to refute the claims I’ve made, nor to back up their fellow FUE practitioner. And as such, again, this reduces the credibility of their side and bolsters the FUT side. This should be a very important factor to consider for patients who are on the fence of choosing FUE or FUT or nothing. I will create a video that goes through Dr. Bhatti’s comments line by line so that the viewers may quickly and easily hear and understand my response. As an advocate for my side it is my responsibility to demonstrate the failure of the other side to make their point if I can and to support it. As I do this, however, it should be clear that I am not criticizing the man nor the practitioner, but rather the information itself that was presented as the substance and support of the FUE side by it's only representative who showed up. You viewers will be the judge. Dr. Alan Feller Feller Medical, Pc

Dr. Bhatti, First I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. You are the very first and only to do so to date. So your participation is noted and appreciated. I want to get into the points you made in your previous posts. But I want to proceed step by step so that these posts don't become ridiculously long and filled with multiple topics. I want to focus our discussion if that is ok with you. I read your comments and would like to ask you simply: Are you agreeing that the three detrimental forces of FUE (Torsion, Traction, Compression) exist in your opinion and are present during each of your FUE procedures? Thank you. Dr. Feller

What comments are you referring to? Which page?

California, So you were "mainly referring to me", eh ? So where is the post where I made the claim? Couldn't find it could you? Talk about playing games. Facts indeed are facts. You claimed I wrote something, I challenged you to present it, you haven't. Because I never wrote it. Dr. Bhatti and Bill confused my post with someone else's statement. I already have a call into Bill.

California, You should encourage Dr. Bhatti to respond to the substance of what I wrote. He made some very serious claims which I took the time to read and question. I should think he would elaborate himself.

There you go California, in your very own words above. You "confirmed" that the content of Seths' post reveal that he may not just be speaking for himself when he posts because others had noticed his rep like pattern of postings long before I did. I did't say you confirmed Seth to be a rep. I said you confirmed that others believe him to be a rep. You need to pay closer attention to what you read. I am not the first to believe from Sethicles postings that he was a rep for an FUE doctor. You have had to deny this charge from several people in the past according to your quote. Correct? And that was the point of me bringing your quote up. The difference is that while those people you referred to in the past accused Sethicles of representing Dr. Bhatti, I never did. It was Dr. Bhatti himself who falsely ascribed that charge to me in his post. Go back and read carefully what I wrote to HTsoon. You will see that I never said that your doctor was the one he was representing. I had never even written his name up until today. Check it out and get back to us. You and your doctor made the same type of error. You and he have now both ascribed to me claims that I never made.

Dear Dr Feller, You do not wish to apologise- well I cannot force you to. Dr. Bahtti, for what offense do you wish me to apologize for? Did you read my response to your last post? I did not claim Sethicles was a paid representative for you. Read what I wrote carefully in the posts where I bring him up, you are confusing my post with someone else who did. I didn’t even make the connection that Seticles could be your representative until both you yourself, and your representative “California”, did. Read my previous posts, any of them, not one word about you. Your name never came up. You are an honorable Coalition member of this respected forum and seem to have greater rights to space on the forum by wanting me to apologise for being on your thread - I will! I have greater rights to space on the forum? I’m sorry, but I don’t know what this means. Are you implying that you cannot post on here as much as I or any other Coalition member? That’s simply not true. I’m sure Bill will be happy to confirm this. I did not ask you to apologize for being on my thread, I asked you to apologize for the personal attack you made on me by stating that my posts were “rants”- a pejorative term designed to insult the content of my posts and me personally. I would rather have had you address the issues I brought up 38 pages ago. I am not responsible for the views of a patient of mine (Sethticles) who wishes to speak for himself. Please respect the wishes of an individual. You reside in a free country and so does he. The very fact that he carries my reference on his signature does not qualify him to be termed a “shill". I couldn’t agree with you more, sir. But the content of his posts reveals he may not be speaking just for himself as confirmed by your representative “California” who said he has been associated with being a de facto rep for you in the past by others long before today. Regardless, I never wrote he was YOUR representative. I also never wrote he was a “shill”. You wrote that yourself and falsely ascribed it to me. Please go back and read my actual posts. You are in error sir. As far as reading this thread is concerned, I was pointed out about your comments by some well wishers and therefore I am here. Did I write ill of you in particular, Dr. Bhatti? Had I even written your name before today? No, I have not. Please cut and paste my “comments” about you please. Believe me, I would not have otherwise I seldom have time to go through my own e-mails let alone stalk forum threads. Believe me, sir, I know what you mean. I also seldom have time to go through e mails. But I post online to help educate and inform patients and potential patients. I see this as a responsibility inherent to supporting this community. I do not consider it to be “stalking”. Now that I am here I have read the threads, I find many remarks by you to be disgustingly disrespectful to the collective conscience of this respected forum- the world's #1. I don’t know what a “ collective conscience” is, nor how you were able to tap into it so I will leave it at that. But I will ask you to cut and paste the “many remarks” by me that were disgustingly disrespectful to anyone. I honestly don’t believe I’ve done this to you or even to the “collective conscience”. Meet me on a fair thread and I shall surely put some of your misconceptions about the effectivity of FUE to rest. I Is this not a “fair thread”? How isn’t it so? I have offered no misconceptions about the effectivity of FUE. I have offered nothing about the effectivity of FUE at all. I HAVE asked how FUE megasession advocates reconcile the claim that FUE is just as reliable and successful as FUT when all known FUE methods inflict three detrimental forces on each and every graft that FUT methods do not. I HAVE also asked how FUE has significantly changed over the past 14 years to eliminate or relieve these detrimental forces. To date no FUE advocate has answered. t does have shortcomings, but so has FUT! I couldn’t agree more. Every surgery has their shortcomings. No argument here. But FUE has far more compared to FUT, a fact that I believe has been ignored, suppressed, and even outright lied about in the past by doctors and non doctor advocates alike. I believe the failure to provide legal informed consent to patients is an issue that needs discussion. Dr Feller, If FUT were so popular, you would be devoting more time to your practice. Or did you mean it was more popular in your practice!! That was just an unnecessary personal swipe at me, sir. I would request Bill and Pat to close this thread and start a new one on the same topic under their entire supervision where we are not waylaid. Why would you want this thread closed? There have been no personal attacks against you. Those have been pretty much directed toward me and I haven’t asked for the thread to be closed. For what reason in particular would you want a thread NOT started or sustained by you to the tune of over 16,000 views closed? And where have you been waylaid? And by whom? By all means please begin another thread so we can discuss and debate the finer points of FUE. To me the field boils down to overcoming the three detrimental forces of Torsion damage, Traction damage, and Compression damage. Let’s discuss these, shall we? I look forward to the initiation of your thread. Or, if you’re too busy, I’d be happy to start the new one. Which would you prefer sir? Dr. Alan Feller

Dr Bhatti, I think you owe me an apology for coming on to a public website and claiming that the topic I started in good faith, and one you chose not to participate in , is a "baseless rant". I will clarify the very minor point of your erroneous "representative issue" in a moment. But this is your very first post on this thread and you choose to attack me and my posts personally rather than to address the salient information. First, I have no idea who Darlinglock's is. Never wrote he was a rep for you. Second, I never said Sethicles was a paid representative. Read what I had written again. But he does claim to represent you by invoking your name and commenting that he is your patient to support his vehement and often incorrect views of physiology and the FUE procedure. You have not bothered to counter or correct any of what he has written, though I see now you have been reading this topic. You say Sethicles is not an official representative of you or your office. Good, thank you for coming on here to clear that up. But you may want to tell him that as his activity, to my mind, certainly says otherwise. He's acting as a representative for you whether you want him to or not. I can certainly see why you wouldn't want him to however. Now that you are here, how about pointing out exactly where what I've been "ranting" about has been incorrect or false. This is a great opportunity for you to "set the record straight".

He is a representative for a a physician practicing FUE. Do you think he has monetary incentives?

I have a question for you HTsoon. Do you think Sethicles has monetary incentives?

HTsoon, This is not the first time of heard protests like this. What you wrote would be valid if you were shopping for clothes, but not for a surgical procedure. You are not a "customer", you are a patient. So many posters on here lose sight of that fact. You can doctor shop and get what you want. Go ahead. Why should you care what I think? Thanks for the practice and business tips.

These topics seem to always devolve away from the point. The topic heading is that FUT is more popular than FUE. This is now established and the falsehood of the reverse has been put to bed. These topics also become falsely re framed into an FUE works or doesn't work scenario. FUE works. That is why I perform it. But it doesn't work as well as FUT does. It also leaves more damage in the donor area. The larger the case, the more brute force is used to make it work. There has been no revolution in FUE since its inception. These are immutable facts. Yes, there are beautiful FUE results online. I have contributed to this myself and was among the first to do so. But for each and every FUE result you see, good or bad, the same result would have been better had FUT been performed instead. Absolutely no exceptions. That is also an immutable fact. FUT is more popular because it works better for the most people. If you want FUE because you desire a particular hair style then do so. But do so with the knowledge that you are using a procedure that does not work as well and produces far more scaring than FUT. Furthermore acknowledge that you will have fewer donor grafts in the future as a direct result of the FUE. Acknowledge all this and go and have your FUE. It's your head, not mine. For my part. I'm in the business and know all the ins and outs. I wouldn't have FUE performed on me for free UNLESS I was stripped out and needed/wanted more hair. To my mind that is the best way to approach hair loss. Strip out, and then go for FUE. This is common sense.

Thank you for the kind words Spitfire. Grow well!!!

This snippet in particular has come true and stands out:

Perhaps the best way to begin is by presenting an article written by another FUT/FUE doctor that was published in our industry journal "The Hair Transplant Forum International" July/August 2014 written by Dr. Michael Beehner-who is also an HTN Coalition Member as well. Dr. Beehner noticed the same issues with FUE independent of me and felt compelled to write the following last year. I have not read of a single doctor who disagreed with a single word he wrote, in fact just the opposite: I took photos of the article. See below:

In my experience covering the linear scar, even a stretched one, is no problem.

I'm sorry but FUT is more popular for one singular reason: It works better than FUE. It would be nice if there were a scar free and consequence free surgery out there that would allow people to have their cake and eat it too, but unfortunately that doesn't exist. And FUE, such as it is, does not fill the bill. FUE has it's place, but not in large sessions and certainly not in young men who most likely will need every graft they can get in the future.

Well done Newbie. You've made some very important observations that should be addressed. I have to admit that I was shocked by what I read. Absolutely shocked. The answer to your question is you can get more grafts with strip in most people and then follow up with FUE. That's why I never understood the allure of FUE for mega sessions. You can get the grafts out quicker and safer with FUT and simply cover the scar with your hair instantly. But as I've said, I believe the primary reason patient want FUE is because they are afraid to have the FUT procedure. Best way around that problem is find a doctor you are comfortable with and put yourself in his hands. That's how all surgery is performed and should be performed. It's literally nothing for us, but we understand many of the public are frightened. But we know how to help get patients through the anxiety. We do it every day.

Newbie33, Well done. "I think we'd nearly all agree Lorenzo is in the top tier of FUE surgeons. Yet his website directly contradicts a fair bit of what Dr Feller says. I think it isn't entirely consistent with what he'd tell me himself if I asked him." And what would you ask him? What strikes you as questionable?

Well done, Yaz. Perhaps you'll share the details of your research and at what point you converted. I personally look forward to that and it will be very educational to the thousands of people reading this topic. Dr. Feller

They have not asked me to withhold any information nor their names.

An excellent question. One that I can't answer for others. Ask them yourself. Call an FUE clinic. I encourage it. And then post their answers on this topic. If you tell them you are going to publicize their answer, wanna bet it will virtually match everything I've been writing, or be clutched in such language as to blur the lines as much as possible? I've seen it all. The only reason FUE clinics have written on their websites at all that FUE has lower yields is because of topics I created and defended years ago. Here we go again. At least we got them to go that far in giving the public the truth. But don't just brush past it. Ask WHY they get lower yields with FUE so consistently that they felt they had to publish it on their websites. What is actually happening? And don't accept minimization qualifiers like " a bit lower yield". The qualifier "a bit" may make you feel better, but in a court of law it means nothing. The doctor "informed" you of lower yields on his website so case closed. And disclosing lower yields does not inform you of donor damage. In this case it's don't ask, don't tell. A legal no no that is engaged in all the time. But you can bet there are FUE doctors right now re-writing their informed consent documents. And now patients have a way to test if their doctors are being up front with them. If a doctor denies what I've been posting, then simply get it in writing with the doctor's signature. Wanna bet it will NEVER happen?! It never has.