Dr. Alan Feller

John, Anyone who asks a question in the way Nick did can only expect a biased answer, no matter who it comes from. Are there really any truly "objective" people on the internet to whom we can all honestly defer? Really, who can honestly say one hairline is better than another? The question is way too subjective. In the end the ONLY truly unbiased person who can answer Nicks question is Nick himself. In order for him to answer that question he needs information. This site excels in giving the very information he sought. To me it is clear that he was asking to see the hairline results from the doctors he listed in the question, that included me. In offering that information Spex posted a few of my hairlines making sure that there was a wide variation from patient to patient. This has been the traditional response to such questions over the years and does not represent any departure from the norm as far as I can tell. Had Spex actually claimed that my hairlines in particular were "the best", then I would have had him delete the post myself. But he didn't. He merely posted a few of my hairlines fully expecting the other mentioned doctors to do so as well. Had they, then it would have been easier for Nick to form his OWN opinion. Remember, just because Spex posted photos of my patient's results doesn't necessarily mean Nick liked them. Posting photos can be a double edged sword, but consistent and frequent posting shows the patient community that a particular doctor's work is regularly top-notch and consistent. Personally, I don't think it matters whether Nick goes to me, or Epstein, or Cooley, or Alexander, or whomever. His hairline is going to be fine no matter who he picks in the group. Did you all see Steve Gable's latest posting? His patient has one of the best results I've seen posted all week. Hairline included. We are not competing against each other on this site. Instead we are competing together against the large chains and all the inexperienced doctors who regularly perform sub-par work- but get away with it because the public just doesn't know better. The more we ALL post our work on sites like HTN, the better we all make out-the patients most of all.

Bill, I also agree that doctors and reps should stay off "which doctor..." threads. If specific information is asked for that's one thing; if general information is asked for, that's also one thing; but if a COMPARISON question is asked then the parties (and their agents) being compared should remain silent. Clearly there is bias, and while it may be useful, it just get's in the way of truly unbiased material. Dr. Feller P.S. Dr. Epstein, I sent a private email to the address on your website. I don't know how to initiate a private email on this site.

Wanthairs, You are making a joke, but unfortunately several of the laser doctors out there are treating their patients with a mixture of propecia, minoxidil, hair transplants, and laser therapy. They call this "combination therapy". And while I do believe combining propecia and even minoxidil with HT IS a good idea, including supposed "laser treatments" at THOUSANDS of dollars out of the patient's pocket is opportunisitic in my opinion.

Don't fall into the trap of comparing laser comb to FDA APPROVED products like Propecia. It is way OVER generous to compare the two and only gives undeserved credibility to laser combs by ASSOCIATION. Laser combs should be able to stand on their own without refrence to completely different hair regrowth methods. Besides, do two wrongs make a right? Dr. Feller "DON'T LASER ME,BRO"

Bill, When you listen to the show you will have a much better idea as to what laser combs are all about. Unfortunately you can not call laser combs a scam because, for better or worse, they were FDA cleared and they did provide some cursory evidence of efficacy. I for one don't believe the studies one bit, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. I do, however, believe that these devices will not give the customer a cosmetically significant improvement in their hair and I believe Mr Michaels knows this. This is why his website photos appear to be deceptive and why he never performed a market study to learn what the public REALLY thinks of the efficacy of his product. In fact, such a study is the very LAST thing he wants. He can only rely on anecdotal evidence because when the public truly expresses it's opinion he gets creamed, which is what happened on the show last night. Mr Michaels is not a scammer, but he is slimey, disingenuous, and real smooth. I also believe he takes advantage of the public by throwing everything in the face of desperate people except what they REALLY need to see, which is cosmetically signficiant RESULTS. Speaking of RESULTS, don't think for one second that the laser industry hasn't had time to rack up results. Even Mr. Michaels said lasers have been used for hair loss since the 1980s and that 10,000 people were treated in Australia with a 93% satisfaction rate. With SO many people "treated" where the heck are the results? Mr. Michaels didn't have an answer for that question and the way he avoided answering it will make any rational person feel they've been insulted by his evasivness. Dr. Feller "DON'T LASER ME,BRO"

blowdry, You're right, that's where I got it from. Thomas, Not to get too off the subject but while Tazer boy was an idiot, he did not deserve to be Tazered. If we tazered every idiot who resisted arrest then we might as well build tazer's right into the hand cuffs. They already had him restrained and all they had to do was carry him out. That would have been the end of it. Instead the cops were putting on a show for the cameras to show how it was THEY who were in charge not the kid with the big mouth. The cops were wrong and over did it. The tazer was not designed as a convenience button for the cops in this particular instance and any decent human being whose been shocked with electricity would have to agree. If he were stoned or drunk then MAYBE the tazer would have been called for, but not in this instance.

"DON'T LASER ME, BRO" That's going to be my new catch pharse at the end of every post I make about low light laser therapy.

Notgoing: Unfortunately I cannot answer that question in detail as it may be misinterpreted and might cause friciton between the two organizations themselves. What I can say is that I am proud to be a member of both groups and know that other doctors in one or both groups are equally proud and well served. I look at these two organizations not just as groups that recommend doctors who TRULY practice excellence in HT, but also as an effective counterbalance against the larger chains whose deep pockets would squelch small independent HT doctors who have contributed so much to the advancement of the field. Blowdry, Remember, the laser combs are LOW Level, so the police won't get much power out of them. However, maybe they can shine the laser in the criminal's eyes and annoy him a bit until they get the cuff on him. Maybe we'll soon hear: "Don't laser me, Bro" Mrjb, Thank you. I just can't stand these types of arrogant guys who try to make the public beleive that just because they have FDA clearance they can be disingenuous about the actual level of results their customers can realistically expect. Do you think anybody would buy such garbage if they REALLY knew what to expect from laser combs? When I asked Mr. Michaels what his qualifications were to hold himself out as an expert in hairloss and cell regeneration his unhesitating answer was "I was a patient in Australia". That was it! Sure, that qualifies him as a scientist. Slimey guy.

On the night of October 7, 2007 Spencer Kobren hosted 2 very special guests on his radio program The Bald Truth. They were none other than the owner and the Chief Operating Officer of Lexington Industries Mr. David Michaels and Mr. Randy V. (I don't remember his last name). A link of this show will be posted, but for now I believe one particular caller, whom I will paraphrase here from what Mr. Kobren told me, said it all: "Mr. Michaels, I just want to say that the laser comb worked very well for me and that I am satisfied." When asked how it worked for him the caller replied..."it worked very well as a DOOR STOP!" Clearly that was a crank caller, but I happen to agree with his observations. My line of questioning was simple: where are the results? Where are the photos? With thousands of "satisfied customers" I would have expected hundreds of credbible before/after photos. Instead, all we get are weak and deceptive looking photos on the hairmax website. I believe a crack in the keystone of their operation appeared this night, and I'm quite sure they regretted ever going on the show. Perhaps they will regret it even more when the show is played to the very reporters who brought their product to the public's attention in the first place. Until tonight Mr. Michaels was only used to softball questions being lobbed by uninformed reporters. It became quickly obvious that neither lexington Ind. executives could field hard ball questions when they came from Kobren, myself, or even the lay callers. Pretty damning for a company making the claims they do. My favorite line of the evening, and there were so many good ones, was when Mr. Michaels said "...who's to say what's cosmetically signficant?" Remember, this is coming from a man raking in millions of dollars selling a device that's supposed to grow a cosmetically signficiant amount of hair. The viewers of this site should go to the hairmax site and view their pitiful before/after photos and email them what YOU as INFORMED hairloss sufferers think is "cosmetically significant". You would think with all their suppossed data gathering they would have asked the market what THEY thought was "cosmetically significant". I can certainly tell Mr. Michaels what is NOT cosmetically signficiant by simply referencing him to his own website. This whole laser hair growth industry is truly pitiful and the stench of it should be coming to the public's attention soon. Enough said for now. I certainly look forward to their reply on this forum. I will email a link of this thread to them, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a response any more than I did for sunnetix medical adviser Dr. Bauman. Dr. Feller

On the night of October 7, 2007 Spencer Kobren hosted 2 very special guests on his radio program The Bald Truth. They were none other than the owner and the Chief Operating Officer of Lexington Industries Mr. David Michaels and Mr. Randy V. (I don't remember his last name). A link of this show will be posted, but for now I believe one particular caller, whom I will paraphrase here from what Mr. Kobren told me, said it all: "Mr. Michaels, I just want to say that the laser comb worked very well for me and that I am satisfied." When asked how it worked for him the caller replied..."it worked very well as a DOOR STOP!" Clearly that was a crank caller, but I happen to agree with his observations. My line of questioning was simple: where are the results? Where are the photos? With thousands of "satisfied customers" I would have expected hundreds of credbible before/after photos. Instead, all we get are weak and deceptive looking photos on the hairmax website. I believe a crack in the keystone of their operation appeared this night, and I'm quite sure they regretted ever going on the show. Perhaps they will regret it even more when the show is played to the very reporters who brought their product to the public's attention in the first place. Until tonight Mr. Michaels was only used to softball questions being lobbed by uninformed reporters. It became quickly obvious that neither lexington Ind. executives could field hard ball questions when they came from Kobren, myself, or even the lay callers. Pretty damning for a company making the claims they do. My favorite line of the evening, and there were so many good ones, was when Mr. Michaels said "...who's to say what's cosmetically signficant?" Remember, this is coming from a man raking in millions of dollars selling a device that's supposed to grow a cosmetically signficiant amount of hair. The viewers of this site should go to the hairmax site and view their pitiful before/after photos and email them what YOU as INFORMED hairloss sufferers think is "cosmetically significant". You would think with all their suppossed data gathering they would have asked the market what THEY thought was "cosmetically significant". I can certainly tell Mr. Michaels what is NOT cosmetically signficiant by simply referencing him to his own website. This whole laser hair growth industry is truly pitiful and the stench of it should be coming to the public's attention soon. Enough said for now. I certainly look forward to their reply on this forum. I will email a link of this thread to them, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a response any more than I did for sunnetix medical adviser Dr. Bauman. Dr. Feller

John, That's my old website from 9 years ago. I only use if for data storage and web posting and NOT as the official feller medical website anymore. now it's just fellermedical.com. Grow well. Dr F

There seems to be a problem with the site

Before

John, Here are a couple of pre-op photos and immediate post op photos. Before Before Immediately After Immediately after Immediately after Immediately after

Youngsuccess, You articulated my position on the use of the grocery clerk analogy perfectly. Thank you. I did make that remark as an extreme but humerous analogy to make my point as you noted. However, there are in fact plenty of hair follicles on the back of the hands and on the wrist and forearms. Dr. Bauman has had his laser "hair dryer" machine for eight years and still has no useful before/after photos to show for it. That is the real slam against laser hair therapy. One of the laser advocates above mentioned that I was picking on Dr. Bauman. This was not my intention at all. I wanted to critique the product, and as the industry spokesman he may be getting caught in the cross fire. I don't know about him but I could have a heated debate about anything and then go out and have a beer with him, so it's not personal. Because it may seem to be heading that way, I think this thread has run it's course and I will now sign off.

"Jacob", Why such hostility? Attacking me is not going to lend any support or credibility to laser therapy. Your wording in your posts makes you seem like a "middle of road" guy on the subject, but your attacks and aggressive style as a supposed "newbie" makes me think you have a whole other agenda and history. Busted!

I have been calling doctors out on this for years. To date, no one has shown consistently good results with FUE megasessions. This doesn't mean it can't be done. If small sessions can work, then larger ones should too. The probelm, as I see it, is that most doctors doing the FUE megasessions utlize the "brute-force" method. This means they have a gang of techs (or even docs) crowd around a head to remove as many grafts as possible at the same time. The problem is that FUE is VERY VERY angle sensitive and I have found that I simply can't get the best angle unless I'm working alone on the head. The chance for needle sticks among staff is also much greater which is enough to nix the practice alone in my book. Of course I've done FUE megasessions that have worked wonderfully, but it has not proven to be consistent. I have recently designed some new tools for the FUE field that may actually allow for fast and safe extractions. It is radically different than any other FUE tool I know of to date but stands on a sound hypothetical footing. I am trying to have it made by the same company that makes my patented punches, but there are problems that need to be overcome. We should be able to do it so it will be interesting to see if it works.

Jacob, You obviously haven't read the thread nor listened to the radio broadcast. My argument against laser products went far beyond the fact that I could sell it but don't. In fact, I never made that argument in the first place during the debate. Maybe I should have. You have cited "scientific studies" in the same way that laser advocates do, yet even YOU haven't bothered to buy the thing. Sure, those papers MAY demonstrate SOME interesting mechanisms, but they are a FAR cry from being relevent to the discussion. You must FIRST establish the existence of the phenomenon THEN you can use science to explain it- not the other way around. Laser adovates have not yet proved the existence of the phenomeon of cosmetically signficant hair growth secondary to laser exposure. It is also the laser advocates goal to make a false equivalence between other FDA APPROVED medications and their FDA CLEARED device. Unlike laser combs, there is a demonstrable and legitimate phenomenon occuring when either of the medications are taken. No scientific explanations needed. In the case of minoxidil this phenomenon is not only experienced by those who benefit from it, but those who don't-namely women who experienced hair growth on their chest. There is no better confirmation of the actual existence of a cosmtically signficant hair growth phenomenon than that. LLLT has no such confirmation. All it has are references to microscopic results and obscure un-realated scientific studies. If you want to easily judge when it's time to by a laser product for hair regrowth, just go to any website of the company that sells them and look for consistent and unquestionable before/after photos. When YOU see significant results that don't include deceptive photography, then it's time to buy. Believe me, you have a very long wait ahead of you.

Dr. Beehner, I also respect your opinion and comments very much and I hope all is well upstate. I imagine it won't be too long before the leaves begin to turn in your neck of the woods. I do have a few questions I hope you can address, but first I want to make it clear that I had several conversations with a few original ABHRS members who made it clear to me directly that they wanted to prohibit doctors from using internet chat sites like this one. If you wish to you may call me anytime and I will tell you who said it, where it was said, and when it was said. I do not think you will be surprised. I agree that the ABHRS serves an excellent and noble purpose for the reasons you plainly state in your email, but why must the word "board" be used? The ABHRS can offer all the education, testing, and certification it desires without using the word "board" can it not? With respect, I believe the real reason your organization insists on using a word you know disturbs many doctors (and state government officials) is the fact that the ABHRS is seeking ABMS recognition. This concerns me and other doctors deeply. Why would the ABHRS bother to do this? What point does it serve? All the purported benefits that you mentioned in your email can still be offered WITHOUT attaining true board status, so why bother? I believe it's power for power's sake. Here's the problem I see with the ABHRS becoming a TRUE board: The minute the ABMS recognizes the ABHRS many of its members will instantly claim "elite" status and use the now valid credential to "prove" it in MARKETING material. This is exactly what I predicted would happen when the ABHRS was first formed and it WILL happen again, but this time it will actually carry weight. A two tier system of doctors will instantly be created. The "elite" board certified doctors and then the second class non-boarded doctors. This, of course, would exist without regard to actual ability and merit. The next thing to go will be the freedom of established HT doctors to act independently because the board will create a recognized "standards and practices" that will have to then be recognized by the courts. This, in effect, would represent a coup in the field of hair transplantation whereby just a few men would control just how HT should be practiced "properly". By what standard would these men make their decisions? I don't agree with having my practice dictated to me by any collective of supposed "do-gooders" no matter what their initial intentions were, and neither should you. I say megasessions, dense packing, and FUE would be locked out because many of the founding members were vocally against such procedures (again, call me if you want to know who they were). If they had the power to establish "standards and practices" they may have claimed such practices to be experimental, sub-standard, or even medical malpractice. Respectfully, I remember when even you, Dr. Beehner, were not such a proponent of dense follicular unit grafting as late as 2003 when I watched you perform a hybrid surgery of follicular units, minigrafts, and plugs. The method you chose to perform that surgery signified your overall philosophy at the time. When I showed you a photo of a patient I had dense packed you told me it looked impressive but that it wouldn't be thick because of the lack of larger grafts. I argued that because there were even more hairs in total over the bald area that not only would it be as thick, but that the skin would be less scared. You had your position, and I had mine. If you had been a recognized "board certified" hair transplant doctor and we opposed each other in a court room as experts for a lawsuit against a doctor who dense packed a dissatisfied patient, then you're view would have been recognized as dogma and my side would have lost the case. With that precedent set in the books- that would have spelled the end for dense packing. Who would ever perform it if a court case established it as sub-standard or worse? Get my point? The very fact that I as an independent and established HT doctor would even have to concern myself with what some small officially sanctioned "elite" body of doctors thinks of how I run my private practice is anathema to me-and it's un-American. How could I have invented protocols, techniques and instrumentation for the FUE field if I had to waste time obtaining what would amount to "de facto" permission from "the board"? Don't you see how the recognition of such a board could and will stifle innovation? I understand that the ABHRS was founded in good faith by SOME founders, you among them. For others however, I believe it was just a marketing opportunity or some mixture of the two. Had these "others" been truly concerned with setting basic standards for our field they themselves would not have been guilty of producing some of the most hideous results known to the field. I have to disagree that the ABHRS serves a purpose as a measuring stick of physician competence. While this may have become the public perception it just isn't valid. Ours is primarily a "hands on" field, so academic paper and oral tests every ten years are just not going to qualify, much less quantify, a doctor's surgical ability. But the public will THINK that it does and there's the rub. Conversely, an extremely capable and experienced doctor who isn't part of ABHRS might be perceived as less competent compared to a competitor because they are not ABHRS members. It inverts reality and confuses the public. I think it's unfortunate that other countries actually recognize the ABHRS as some sort of qualifying body. In the absence of hands on surgical evaluation I believe these country's medical authorities are being somewhat mislead. They may not understand (or care) that the ABHRS is really just a club. I wonder if they are even aware that there is no actual surgical evaluation for "diplomates". I have no doubt that the ABHRS is a fine organization for education and fellowship, I've written so before, but I think it has overstepped it's boundaries in claiming that it qualifies it's doctors. A written test simply doesn't cut it. I don't want to bother joining the organization to change it from the inside because I don't agree with other aspects of it, but I would suggest that they send a knowledgeable representative to each member's office to watch them perform surgery at least once per year. That doctor AND his staff would be critiqued according to a list of established parameters and be either passed or failed by the end of the day. This, more than anything, would increase the credibility of the organization and put it on par with the Coalition of Surgeons which is already filling this role. Unfortunately I know many current ABHRS members would resist this measure tooth and nail- and that should be very telling to the public. You Dr. Beehner and Dr. Nusbaum didn't convince me that you were excellent doctors because you have ABHRS at the end of your credential list, or even because you both had/have the title of "president" of the club. I became convinced because of the multiple positive and impressive photos and comments that your own patients have posted on this very website for years. To me, that carries far more weight than the ABHRS ever could in it's present state.

RP, There is no point in establishing a residency in hair transplantation because the field as a whole is not as complex as, say, general surgery or radiology. Any doctor CAN do it IF they are detail oriented, disiplined, and a self starter. This is the general profile of all successful HT doctors. No residence or board exam required. HT doctors whose work is posted on the internet are "tested" and graded everyday so there is no need for a powerless board to give a test every 10 years is there? I agree with erldette. In so far as HT is concerned, as long as the doctor is licensed and produces good work it doesn't matter what letters he has at the end of his name. Such is not necessarily the case for other specialties, but for HT I believe it is. I await a response from Dr. Nusbaum concerning this thread and the continued use of the word "Board" in his organization.

Bill, I couldn't have said it better myself. Ryan, I agree with you completely. What you have to understand is that even IF there were "scientific reports" available to back up the claims it does NOT mean that they are valid or relevant. In truth, laser therapy advocates cite "scientific reports" all the time, because that's all they CAN report. Rather than show obvious proof via photos, Dr. Bauman dove right into several scientific reports that could not be validated or even shown to be relevent. His was a wasted exercise becasue without evidence of the existence of the phenomenon in the first place, there was absolutely no point in citing "scientific" reports.

I spoke with Dr. Bernstein last week and he told me that he does not find laser therapy to be useful for men and so does not offer it to male patients under any circumstances. For now he believes that there may be some efficacy for women so he is going to try that for the next year and see how it turns out.

erldette, YES, there is a need for other medical specialty boards because unlike the case for cosmetic surgery, the public can't see or evaluate individual patient results for themselves. You may have to be a doctor who is specially trained in a field like general surgery or radiology to accurately critque a physician's ability because it takes specialized knowledge to know what to look for. However, in cosmetic surgery physician ability should be self evident. Either the patient looks good or he doesn't. Nothing else really counts as long as the good health of the patient is maintained.

I see this thread has lost traction. Dr. Bauman?

Something: You are correct, it is very hypocritical, but this action took some of the wind out of the sails of the ABHRS by showing the public that ANYONE can form a supposed "qualifying body" and simply call themselves a "board". My activities also alerted the states to the deceptive advertising practices used by ABHRS members. The only way to fight fire, I found, was to use fire. Since the members of my board were qualified based on demonstrated surgical skill I felt my organization had a significant advantage if we were ever to be compared by an official body. In time, however, such official comparisons were not to be made and a new and powerful force came into it's own to eclipse us both: the internet. In fact, the internet made the ABHRS obsolete as a marketing gimmick and thus also obviated the purpose of my ABHTS. The internet gives the public the power to truly and substantively judge each doctor for themselves, and believe me, there are many doctors who run from the light of the internet-ABHRS members included. Nothing, and I mean nothing, has cleaned up the HT field more than the internet. Proof of this position is provided by the very members of the ABHRS themselves who've sought to join the ranks of the Coalition of Surgeons and the IAHRS in droves. These doctors have realized that a designation of "board certified" after their name is simply not as credible as having the backing of one of these internet consumer organizations-at least not anymore. I want to make it clear that I am NOT anti-ABHRS. I am just against the use of the word "board" in their name. As I've written elsewhere, any organization that allows for fellowship and exchange of ideas is inherently good and one I would normally want to be a part of. I think most of the ABHRS members are motivated doctors who truly want to be great at what they do. When I was asked by a high profile ABHRS member to open my office to a visiting "fellow" so that he may learn FUE as well as my strip method, I threw the door open wide and invited him in. The experience was an enjoyable one for both of us and I look forward to offering what I can to other members in the future. The bottom line is that the public must understand that letters at the end of a doctor's name does not necessarily mean they are competent. Dr. Nusbaum noted that in his post. Rather, each doctor should be judged on his RESULTS as demonstrated by regular photos and patient commentary on sites such as HTN. The public can rest assured that all doctors practicing medicine have proved both academic and surgical competency and that the power of the state will continue to watch and regulate doctors throughout their careers. There is no need for the formation of a body like the ABHRS whose goal is simply to attain such power just to do the same thing. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, all you have to do is look to the ABHRS. They purport to be working to better the field of hair transplantation, but their main goal is to obtain recognition from the ABMS in an effort to grab power. THEY want to become the main authority in the field and dictate the way THEY think hair transplantation should be performed. Such power placed into the hands of those who seek it will only strangle the field and mire it down. If you are not sure of this, go and look at some of the hideous work that was being produced by some of the founding members of this group and realize that they would make THAT the forced standard in the industry. With such men in power there would be no dense packing, no megasessions, no FUE and no participation on the internet. You read that last line right, internet participation on the part of it's members would be forbidden. Several of the founding members were quite vocal about prohibiting not just their own members, but ISHRS members as well from using the internet chat forums. See what happens when a small group even thinks it will get power...free speech is throttled. I'm sure Pat remembers this time very well. If the ABHRS does not prove competency, has no method to prove competency, and does not even have a plan to demonstrate a physicians ability any better than the internet does right now, then what is the point of this organization. Furthermore, why are they still looking to grab power? There is no need for a "board" of hair transplant surgery and it should be thrown off before it gets a chance to take root. Any group that seeks to reduce the freedoms of practicing physicians and thereby cause stagnation in the hair transplant field should and must be opposed. Thankfully, the ABMS has rejected the ABHRS and hopefully they will continue to do so.