Timetested

Arfy is correct! "It's a sorry state of affairs, when someone "claiming" to be a physician, isn't clear on the basic concepts involved, and suggests patients shouldn't get too involved in learning about their plastic surgery procedure that will have a huge impact on the rest of their lives. California Doc's comments: "California Doc: Arfy is a clown! Kiss my ass Arfy! I am a physician and I resent your attempts to nullify a patient's comments with your negative attitude and bullshit narratives. You're a clown and a fraud!" Is this guy really a physician? He recommends "Hair Transplant Center" and doesn't comment on the doctor that performed the surgery. I wouldn't let this guy cut my toe nails! Arfy knows what the true story is and how the hair transplant industry operates. " Timetested

Dr. Brandy is an obvious choice to get his 15 minutes of hair transplant atrocity fame. It's a start but what the HT industry needs is the same format only on a wide sweeping scale. I have no compassion for Dr. Brandy and his incompetent counterparts. I do have empathy and compassion for the lives he destroyed. Timetested

I believe the names are changed in the script for the on air commentary. However, wouldn't it be great if the case was aired on Court TV? Timetested

Here is a transcipt from a news commentary on WBZ radio in Boston by attorney Niel Cheyet concerning a case that was allowed to go forward concerning a botched hair transplant. BRAVO! Neil Chayet's LOOKING AT THE LAW HAIR TODAY, LAWSUIT TOMORROW THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„? Next time you have a bad hair day you might think of Mitchell, who had such a bad hair day he decided to get to the root of the matter. Mitchell sued his doctors to recover damages for, what the court called, "very bad hair transplants." He claimed he was lured to the doctor by info-mercials, adds, solicitations and brochures that led him to believe that after a single procedure he'd have a full head of natural-looking hair for the rest of his life. In his hirsute lawsuit he claims he was left with scarring in both the front and the back of his head and a "most unnatural pluggy, dollike head of hair." The defense argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would think that a transplant would stop one's hairline from receding. But the court sided with Mitchell, noting that one add read that up to 5,000 hairs can be transplanted in a single session, implying a full head of hair is easily within reach. So it's a hairy situation, but Mitchell's case is headed for a jury and a permanent solution. THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„? HELP RADIO NETWORK?„? Mitchell v. Handler, New York Supreme Court, Phalen, J., 7/10/01, _ N.Y. Misc. 2d _(2001). The Help Radio Network???’??? is responsible for the production of Looking at the Law???’???, a daily radio program hosted by Neil Chayet and nationally syndicated on CBS and CNN. Information on these broadcasts can be obtained by visiting lookingatthelaw@wbz.com. Timetested

Here is a transcipt from a news commentary on WBZ radio in Boston by attorney Niel Cheyet concerning a case that was allowed to go forward concerning a botched hair transplant. BRAVO! Neil Chayet's LOOKING AT THE LAW HAIR TODAY, LAWSUIT TOMORROW THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„? Next time you have a bad hair day you might think of Mitchell, who had such a bad hair day he decided to get to the root of the matter. Mitchell sued his doctors to recover damages for, what the court called, "very bad hair transplants." He claimed he was lured to the doctor by info-mercials, adds, solicitations and brochures that led him to believe that after a single procedure he'd have a full head of natural-looking hair for the rest of his life. In his hirsute lawsuit he claims he was left with scarring in both the front and the back of his head and a "most unnatural pluggy, dollike head of hair." The defense argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would think that a transplant would stop one's hairline from receding. But the court sided with Mitchell, noting that one add read that up to 5,000 hairs can be transplanted in a single session, implying a full head of hair is easily within reach. So it's a hairy situation, but Mitchell's case is headed for a jury and a permanent solution. THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„? HELP RADIO NETWORK?„? Mitchell v. Handler, New York Supreme Court, Phalen, J., 7/10/01, _ N.Y. Misc. 2d _(2001). The Help Radio Network???’??? is responsible for the production of Looking at the Law???’???, a daily radio program hosted by Neil Chayet and nationally syndicated on CBS and CNN. Information on these broadcasts can be obtained by visiting lookingatthelaw@wbz.com. Timetested

What you erxperienced is all too common and extremely difficult to approach as you suggested. Graft removal in an area that already has divots and pits may look worse unless you had skin grafting and that still may not have the desired result with no hair. In any case, you need the evaluation of a real doctor such as a plastic surgeon or dermatologist surgeon. Do not trust the standard ISHRS doctor as they have no interest in anything but your wallet. Timetested

Pat, you attended the recent ISHRS conferance. I understand that Dr. Shiells did a presentation on the NIDO process of artificial hair implantation. Could you comment on this procedure and could you have Dr. Knudsen comment on this process. Do you know if the NIDO artificial implant procedure is available in Australia? There is also an artificial implant process from Italy and you can view this procedure at www.biofibre.com Was the Biofibre procedure presented at the ISHRS conferance this year. Please advise, Timetested Timetested

You can't trust the overwhelming majority of hair transplant doctors to give you a resonable cosmetic result. That's why there are websites like this and "accepted lists" of certain doctors. The standard HT doc can is only concerned with counting dollars, not grafts. Timetested Timetested

Every hair transplant doctor advertises that they are members of the ISHRS and board certified. The physicians responsible for the most hidious hair transplant surgery are still members in good standing with all "hair organizations" I have a letter from the ISHRS regarding my complaints against the doctor(s) responsible for my situation. The ISHRS response is they are a teaching organization do not police their membership. Really? Maybe the ISHRS should "teach" their membership to be ethical & responsible. My question is, what good is the ISHRS or any hair organization and what exactly do they do other than be self serving? Timetested Timetested

The overwhelming majority of physicians performing hair transplant surgery belong to and are certified by the ISHRS. There are only a handful of physicians on an "accepted list" and they are also members of and certified by the ISHRS. Dr. Bernstein states that 50% of his surgery is corrective. All these doctors belong to the same organization where the majority of the membership is certified but "not acceptable" So what's wrong with this picture? imetested Timetested