Jump to content

Jonny

Regular Member
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Basic Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Jonny's Achievements

New Real Hair Club Member

New Real Hair Club Member (1/8)

65

Reputation

  1. Pat has been under flame for quite a while about this guy, and he was actually defending Brandy tooth and nail. Defending a guy like Brandy sets a tone on how he'll defend other docs that have no place on a recommended list. Agreed, Brandy should never have been put on this list in the first place if he was thoroughly checked out (which is what Pat claims he does with all surgeons on his list). Questioner, it's posts like yours and others that "put Pats heels to the fire" (as he says) to correct his mistakes, or correct his marketing however you want to interpret it. One last thing, we really don't know what happened between Brandy and Pat. Maybe Pat removed him from the list for quality and ethic concerns, or maybe Brandy decided not to advertise here anymore. We really don't know, but I'm glad to see he is gone.
  2. That's a very interesting perspective about the mini grafts. I disagree, but as long as you are happy, that's what counts. The top HT doctors including Pat's own Shapiro doesn't use mini grafts and feels he can achieve the density you mentioned. Dr. Bernstein also will not use mini grafts and his results are possibly the best in the industry. Mini grafts are old technology, and are in no way as natural in appearance. They have to be surrounded by the more natural FU grafts to cover them up. I'm with Arfy on this. Mini and Micro grafts are not a good idea for most people looking for a natural looking transplant. Pat even says it's for a cost savings, and doesn't enhance the transplant. It's been noted several times that it's "nearly" as good in the right surgeons hands. If "nearly" is good enough and the cost savings is important, then I'm sure you will be happy. Question though, I've heard you don't really save much money with the mini grafts. How much did you really save by going with this combo?
  3. This was a post by Dr. Limmer that was posted on the "Dr. Parsley, what was it like performing Hair Transplants in the 70's" thread. It was completely off topic, not sure why Woods even came up. So I thought I would take Pat's que and move it to it's own heading (no deletion is necessary!!). It was a long post, but the entire second half of the post was dedicated to his thoughts of the Woods technique. Seemed like it was getting lost in that thread, so here it is again (notice it says a "brief comment"): _________________________________________________ Finally, one brief comment regarding the work of Dr. Woods and Campbell in Australia. I have spoken with Dr. Woods on a number of occasions when he was first starting his "top up" procedure some years ago. I have reservations about it from a scientific standpoint, not the cosmetic standpoint. The technique is basically the punch hair transplant technique first introduced by Okuda in the late 1930's and resurrected by Norman Orentreich in 1958. The difference in Woods technique is that it utilizes a very small punch. The basic claims are 1) that it produces a natural result; 2) it leaves no donor scar. Certainly the first of these would be reasonably accurate since a 1 mm punch would encompass approximately a single follicular unit or a part of a single follicular unit, much of the time only a part of a unit since there is such a high percentage of follicular transection using such a small punch. The second claim that it leaves no donor scar is certainly not correct. Any surgery leaves a scar. What will come of multiple grafts harvested from the donor area with a 1 mm punch will be a very diffuse thinning of the donor area of multiple small, 1 mm or less hypopigmented scars. No surgery can be done without a scar. The universal concern with utilizing multiple small punch donors is that the donor area runs the risk of depletion with a less than optimal survival of grafts placed. What is needed and should certainly be the responsibility of any ethical physician or scientist is survival data on the number of hair removed and the survival of those hair transplanted. This data is available for all other methods in hair transplantation today and should be provided before any method is advertised as an acceptable option in the field. This data has not been available or forthcoming from Drs. Wood or Campbell. From the standpoint of experienced surgeons in the hair transplant field, the concensus is that small punches transect a very substantial percentage of the hair follicles removed by such method. Having done thousands of punch methods utilizing punches from 0.7 to 5 mm in diameter it has been my experience that the smaller the punch gets the higher the percentage of transection of the hair present. The scientific data available shows that transected follicles survive at a lower percentage and produce a smaller hair shaft if they do survive. Every ethical physician on the face of the earth including those in hair restoration surgery are interested in the well being of their patient. Until scientific data is available, none of us would place the well being of our patient at risk. While there is no ethics grading card for hair restoration surgeons, I can honestly say that I have met many highly ethical physicians within the field. This field has evolved from something that was always detectable to something that today is almost uniformly undetectable in the degree of its naturalness. The current ongoing bashing is simply not justified and unfortunately revolves more around the marketing than around the science and the art of the field today. The unfortunate aspect is that the patient is in the least educated and experienced position to pass judgement. My only recommendation would be to do your homework well and to speak with multiple patients who have previously utilized the physician you wish to consider.
  4. This was a post by Dr. Limmer that was posted on the "Dr. Parsley, what was it like performing Hair Transplants in the 70's" thread. It was completely off topic, not sure why Woods even came up. So I thought I would take Pat's que and move it to it's own heading (no deletion is necessary!!). It was a long post, but the entire second half of the post was dedicated to his thoughts of the Woods technique. Seemed like it was getting lost in that thread, so here it is again (notice it says a "brief comment"): _________________________________________________ Finally, one brief comment regarding the work of Dr. Woods and Campbell in Australia. I have spoken with Dr. Woods on a number of occasions when he was first starting his "top up" procedure some years ago. I have reservations about it from a scientific standpoint, not the cosmetic standpoint. The technique is basically the punch hair transplant technique first introduced by Okuda in the late 1930's and resurrected by Norman Orentreich in 1958. The difference in Woods technique is that it utilizes a very small punch. The basic claims are 1) that it produces a natural result; 2) it leaves no donor scar. Certainly the first of these would be reasonably accurate since a 1 mm punch would encompass approximately a single follicular unit or a part of a single follicular unit, much of the time only a part of a unit since there is such a high percentage of follicular transection using such a small punch. The second claim that it leaves no donor scar is certainly not correct. Any surgery leaves a scar. What will come of multiple grafts harvested from the donor area with a 1 mm punch will be a very diffuse thinning of the donor area of multiple small, 1 mm or less hypopigmented scars. No surgery can be done without a scar. The universal concern with utilizing multiple small punch donors is that the donor area runs the risk of depletion with a less than optimal survival of grafts placed. What is needed and should certainly be the responsibility of any ethical physician or scientist is survival data on the number of hair removed and the survival of those hair transplanted. This data is available for all other methods in hair transplantation today and should be provided before any method is advertised as an acceptable option in the field. This data has not been available or forthcoming from Drs. Wood or Campbell. From the standpoint of experienced surgeons in the hair transplant field, the concensus is that small punches transect a very substantial percentage of the hair follicles removed by such method. Having done thousands of punch methods utilizing punches from 0.7 to 5 mm in diameter it has been my experience that the smaller the punch gets the higher the percentage of transection of the hair present. The scientific data available shows that transected follicles survive at a lower percentage and produce a smaller hair shaft if they do survive. Every ethical physician on the face of the earth including those in hair restoration surgery are interested in the well being of their patient. Until scientific data is available, none of us would place the well being of our patient at risk. While there is no ethics grading card for hair restoration surgeons, I can honestly say that I have met many highly ethical physicians within the field. This field has evolved from something that was always detectable to something that today is almost uniformly undetectable in the degree of its naturalness. The current ongoing bashing is simply not justified and unfortunately revolves more around the marketing than around the science and the art of the field today. The unfortunate aspect is that the patient is in the least educated and experienced position to pass judgement. My only recommendation would be to do your homework well and to speak with multiple patients who have previously utilized the physician you wish to consider.
  5. Arfy, give it up. This guy won't get it. He is the same guy that wrote "Farrel is a Clown" thread. And he called a guy making a very difficult decision about which doctor to go to (Gabe) "a little school girl". He goes by Machine on Hairlosshelp. Read his posts and I think you'll find he isn't playing with a full deck, or he is just argumentitive. He's very rough and very difficult to understand as well. If he can't understand what "nearly" means by now, he'll never get it.
  6. I don't even need to say anymore. It appears doing your homework here on the net is much more vital and truthful than reading the doctors "credentials". You are right, these surgeons are the sleazyist in the industry, so making themselves look good with "credentials" is part of the fraud and game. Very few HT doctors are going to get away with their butchery as long as people come to the internet first, and ask a lot of questions. The inferior doctors with inferior methods can't hide from some of the old veterens posting on these forums.
  7. I was a little confused about this doctor Pat told you to go see. I've never heard of him before. I would hope Pat would check out ANY doctor before recommending to someone. Whether the doctor is a paying sponsor of this site or not. It's NOT a good idea to recommend a doctor who is not thoroughly checked out to anyone looking for good solid information - especially from someone like Pat. Just because the doctor isn't sponsoring this site, doesn't mean the approval process to recommend the doctor should be any different. If this doctor is still doing the old flaps and scalp reductions he should be off ALL lists.
  8. "I could personally care less about what Gabe does for his hair transplants.He acts like a little girl though when it comes to it.He writes on EVERY message board ..who's better shapiro or woods and why?? It's sort of like a second grade question.He must not be too smart if he asking people on the net5 how to spend his money.Hope is parents left him alot of money.Hey Gabe I own a fly fishing shop in Upstate NY ..why don't you buy it ??" Posted by Machine Pretty rough statement from you on Farrels site. Gabe is in the process of making a very difficult decision and you showed about as much compasion as a donkey doo doo. As far as your being banned? To my knowledge, Farrel has never banned anyone from his site, so if you were - you were probably the first. Personally I don't believe you were banned at all - Farrels forum is wide open for everyone and he never censors any posts. I'm sure if this is the type of post you were making - you weren't really contributing to the forum constructively anyway.
  9. Arfy, I think we agree completely on this. We still don't know when Mario had the surgery, and I believe it was very recent. I too agree that from what I've read (here and elsewhere) that Shapiro is probably one of the better Docs. Mario seems a little too excited at this point, but he probably will have good results based on Shapiros reputation. One more thing Arfy, I am starting to believe Mario did indeed have the surgery, but he should be more specific about the procedure or it just makes him look bad, as well as the doctor he is touting.
  10. Jason is talking about "SHAPIRO IS EXCELLENT - FLAT OUT!" post. This post has been cut and pasted more than a few times, in more than a few forums. The exact note word for word. If Mario had a good experience then by all means post it. But the note smells of spam... maybe it's not... but it looks like it. Glad you had a good experience with Shapiro, but I would like to see SPECIFICS rather than "TAKE MY ADVICE AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY AS HELL! " "TREMENDOUS EXPERIENCE" "OVERALL NICE GUY" "GREAT STAFF" and very little of the procedure, when it was done (you just said recently), pain, scar, growth, density.. etc. Mario's statements make me cringe a little,.. it just sounds too much like a comercial for a HT doctor.
×
×
  • Create New...