After my first consultation

[Guest]

Hello everybody. First I want to say you guys here are awesome and I am really happy I found this website.

I just got back from consultation with Dr. Williams at Las Vegas. (I went to him becouse he is the only one recommended Dr at rhis area). He is relly nice guy, not pushy at all and I like the hairline he draw. He also uses a very thin blades, lot smoller then the regular ones. He says he creates them himself from regular blades. He told me I need 3000 grafts, wchich is about what I was thinking I will need. The only thing I don't like about him is the price. 3000 grafts costs 14500$. I think this is little to much plus what B SPOT wrote me about him beein removed from Coalition I don't think I will choose him to do my HT. With Dr. Feller I can get 3000 grafts for 9750$, and Dr. Feller is much more recommended Doc then dr Williams. Now I have a few questions:

1. Does Dr. Feller creates straight hairline or it is irregular line to make it look more natural?

2. I also like doctor Epsteins job as fare as I can see at the pictures. Does anybody know his prices?

3. Are these two doctors cut the FU on 1,2,3 and 4 hairs per graft or just 1 or 2?

My last qestion is camming from what dr Williams told me that most of the docs cut grafts only with one or two hairs. Is that true?

Please guys give me as much ansewers as you can. Thank you.

[Guest]

Hello everybody. First I want to say you guys here are awesome and I am really happy I found this website.

I just got back from consultation with Dr. Williams at Las Vegas. (I went to him becouse he is the only one recommended Dr at rhis area). He is relly nice guy, not pushy at all and I like the hairline he draw. He also uses a very thin blades, lot smoller then the regular ones. He says he creates them himself from regular blades. He told me I need 3000 grafts, wchich is about what I was thinking I will need. The only thing I don't like about him is the price. 3000 grafts costs 14500$. I think this is little to much plus what B SPOT wrote me about him beein removed from Coalition I don't think I will choose him to do my HT. With Dr. Feller I can get 3000 grafts for 9750$, and Dr. Feller is much more recommended Doc then dr Williams. Now I have a few questions:

1. Does Dr. Feller creates straight hairline or it is irregular line to make it look more natural?

2. I also like doctor Epsteins job as fare as I can see at the pictures. Does anybody know his prices?

3. Are these two doctors cut the FU on 1,2,3 and 4 hairs per graft or just 1 or 2?

My last qestion is camming from what dr Williams told me that most of the docs cut grafts only with one or two hairs. Is that true?

Please guys give me as much ansewers as you can. Thank you.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Hello Peter!

 

I don't know that much about Dr. Williams (but I'm sure B Spot does), however, as B Spot said, he was removed as a coalition member...I just can't remember why. Personally, if I were in your shoes, I'd choose a coalition doctor...and as you said, Feller and Epstein are two excellent choices, plus they are cheaper.

 

Your questions my answers:

 

1. Hairline design is between you and the doctor. From the hairlines I've seen from Dr. Feller, they've been more irregular and very natural looking. You, however, should have a say as to whether or not you are satisfied with the drawn hairline.

2. I do not know Dr. Epstein's prices...sorry, but Dr. Feller is probably one of the cheaper prices that you'll run into, plus his work is high quality.

3. Both Dr. Feller and Dr. Epstein uses Follicular Unit grafts which are 1, 2, 3, and 4 hair grafts. They do not use sub-follicular units.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Bill

[the B spot]

Hi Peter, thanks for sharing your experience with Dr. Williams.

He is a very nice, caring man and a pretty solid Dr, growth issues notwithstanding.

 

You are correct in your assessment that his prices are somewhat inflated, when you consider that Dr's---Shapiro, Hasson and Wong can be had for 11-12000 for the same amount of grafts. You already stated that Dr. Feller is very reasonably priced as well. I think Dr. Epstein is in line with other Coalition Docs as far as pricing goes.

 

I commend you for your fair representation of Dr. Williams and your visit.

 

However, I think at this time, your focus should be on your consults with Dr's Feller and Epstein. I would compare and contrast your information before you proceed.

 

I would also do a virtual consult with H&W and SMG--- just to make sure you get a very well rounded opinion on your situation.

Virtual consults are free and can provide some valuable information.

 

Bill's answers to your questions are completely correct and should give you an indication of what to look for as you proceed.

 

Take Care,

J

[Guest]

Hi B Spot. Follow your recommendations from few days ago I already have an appointnent with Hasson and Wong for saturday. They do have an office here at Las Vegas. I don't think I will be talking to the Dr. but with his consultant. I'll still try to get as much informations as I can from him.

[Gorpy]

Some of the docs in the coalition do cut grafts into 1's and 2's. I'm not saying which ones, but some do. Most don't. I'm also not saying that is good or bad, just different.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Gorpy,

 

Whereas I can't speak for all coalition docs, I know that it's been speculated (by some) that Hasson and Wong do that. Though I see no indication of this being true and it's been disputed by the clinic itself. Please note: I'm not stating that you are saying that they are one of the clinics, however, I know it's been discussed by some that this clinic may indeed do this. I was looking for an email sent to me by JoTronic on this matter, but I'm failing to find it at the moment...perhaps he can chime in on this on behalf of Hasson and Wong. The only thing I wish they would do that they don't do now is separate the 3s and 4s from the 2s when giving the final hair count.

 

Bill

[Gorpy]

Yes there was that speculation about H&W. I think that was clarified in our discussion with Dr. Hasson a couple of months back when he said he uses the same size incision for all grafts. The fact is, you cannot fit 3 and 4 hair grafts into a .7mm slit.

 

Keep in mind that I am not saying that this technique is in any way bad. I think it is an interesting philosophy allowing for a neat, clean dense packed coverage of a large area.

 

When Joe stated earlier that they did not split FU's, I think he honestly didn't know or that they use a different definition of what a naturally occuring FU is.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Gorpy,

 

I personally would find it hard to believe that Joe would have a different understanding of what a naturally occuring FU is...especially since an FU can only occur naturally in one way...naturally. If a FU grafts is occuring in a 3 or 4, how could one classify only using 1s and 2s and not splitting? So one of two things is true: Hasson and Wong use true FU grafts and are able to fit 3s and 4 hair grafts into .7mm slit (assuming they only use one blade size...I don't have confirmation on this) OR Hasson and Wong split the 3 and 4 hair FUs and Joe lied. Since I believe Joe to be truthful, honest, and a true mentor, I believe the former is true.

 

I've notified Jotronic of this post so he can shed light on this subject regarding Hasson and Wong's techniques and strategies. It's only fair.

 

Bill

[Gorpy]

I want to emphasise that I don't think Joe lied and never did. As was stated easlier, there was some discussion as to what a naturally occuring FU is. So there is some "wiggle" room there in that definition.

 

For reference here is a link to the original discussion about this. At the time there was a simple request for hair counts and graft specifics and we have yet to see that. Until we do, there will be speculation, right or wrong.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Gorpy,

 

I know you and don't believe you think Joe is lying...I was only trying to make a point. I can't actually remember all that was said about what a naturally occuring FU is. Perhaps you can direct me to that thread? IMO, I can't see how there would be any wiggle room. Something naturally occurs as it naturally occurs. The only wiggle room I can see that is mentioned on a regular basis is that naturally occuring FUS typically occur in 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s. Admittedly some have more 3s and 4s than others...however, it's admitted that 3s and 4s DO occur...so if any clinic never produced any 3s and 4s, one could not call that natural. Something is happening to the naturally occuring FUs...they are either being split (sub-follicular units) or combined (double follicular units or even potentially mini-micro grafts). Though one can debate the positive use of a DFU, for instance, one could never say that it naturally grows that way...since 2 naturally occuring FUs have been combined. Same thing with coupling (which is sort of like a DFU). Dr. Hasson took some of my left over singles and combined them to make doubles to minimize trauma to the scalp. But one could still not call coupling a naturally occuring FU, because 2 FUs were combined, EVEN THOUGH 2 single FUS are the same number of hairs as a 2 hair FU. But putting together 2 single FUS does not make it a naturally occuring FU because those particular hairs did not natually occur that way.

 

Shew! Anyway...I'll be looking forward to Joe's response on this.

 

No worries my friend...I know you don't mean any harm with your statements....it's just that this discussion about Hasson and Wong and sub-FUS have gone on for awhile, and I don't want anyone to have any misconceptions.

 

Bill

[Gorpy]

I agree Bill, it has gone on for a while, and it could be cleared up immediately by supplying the specifics for each patient.

 

I added a link to the original discussion above. Notice Pat's comment on the variance in FU's to such a degree that they cannot reliably be used as a measurment.

 

As far as Splitting FU's, I did not specifically bring up H&W. Pat, brought up the fact that he was surprised that DeYarman was splitting FU's.

 

Ok, here's Dr. Hasson's quote:

"In the past our FU grafts were categorized according to the number of hairs per graft. The necessity for classifying the multi-hair FU grafts was no longer important once we started placing all multi-hair grafts in the same size recipient site (in an individual patient). At the time I felt that multi-hair FU grafts of varying sizes should be mixed randomly in the area behind the hairline. My further experience has confirmed this and I will continue this practice."

 

So, my .7mm was just an example. I realize that graft sizes vary from patient to patient. But, this statement indicates that 2 hair grafts and 3 and 4 hair grafts would be placed in the same size recipient site.

[Bill - Seemiller]

As far as Splitting FU's, I did not specifically bring up H&W...

 

 

No worries brother...I brought them up specifically because I know there have been assumptions made that needed some clearing up.

 

I'm not saying that you think this, but Dr. Hasson's quote does not state that his definition of a FU is differerent than what I've defined above. He's talking about categorizing FUs into groups. Typically, they are categorized and therefore separated out into groups depending on the size incision a doctor needs to make. Dr. Hasson no longer separates them categorically (is that a word?) because he makes the same size incision for all multi-hair grafts. One could ASSUME (very dangerous) that because he no longer categorizes and separates the 2, 3, and 4 unit grafts that he must split the FU since he only categorizes single and multi-hair grafts, hence 2 categories - people think that he no longer works with 3 and 4 hair FUS. From what I'm reading and have read anywhere, i don't see evidence of this...but I can see perhaps how people might begin to make assumptions...they just are incorrect.

 

Just as a note: I don't think it's so bizarre or impossible to think that a 4 hair FU graft could fit into the same size incision as a 2 hair FU graft. With the ultra thin trimming techniques today it definately seems feasible.

 

Bill

 

P.S. I was also unaware that Dr. Deyarman was splitting FUs. Since I'm not as familiar with that clinic, I can't comment.

[Gorpy]

Thanks Bill,

So how many 3's and 4's did you get? The whole post previously was all about getting specific hair and graft counts. Dr. Hasson said he would supply that info in the future, but we haven't seen it yet.

 

I don't think Dr. Hasson specifically got into the variance in graft definitions in that post, but others did.

 

I'd like to see the specific counts. After all, it is all about patient knowledge and empowerment.

 

I'd like to hear some Dr. input on the subject of placing 2's and 4's into the same size slit. Obviously if you place 2's in a bigger slit, then 4's might fit also, but to fit 2's into the smallest slit possible, I'd think that 4's would have a hard time fitting???

 

Didn't Janna once specify that they typically use 1mm or larger for 3's and 4's? I doubt if H&W are using 1mm slits for 2's. See my point?

[Bill - Seemiller]

Gorpy,

 

As i said...I would also like to see further categorization of the multi-hair grafts not because it's necessary for the clinic, but because it's helpful for the patient to know how many hairs they received. I have the count written down at home (at work right now) of how many singles and multi's I received...but i don't know how many of them were 3s and 4s.

 

I'd like to hear some Dr. input on the subject of placing 2's and 4's into the same size slit. Obviously if you place 2's in a bigger slit, then 4's might fit also, but to fit 2's into the smallest slit possible, I'd think that 4's would have a hard time fitting???

 

Didn't Janna once specify that they typically use 1mm or larger for 3's and 4's? I doubt if H&W are using 1mm slits for 2's. See my point?

 

 

I do understand your questions...I'll let Joe comment on that specifically regarding Hasson and Wong since only they can really attest to what they do.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Bill

[the B spot]

Interesting discussion and one that should have been resolved some months ago, and for some reason has not.

 

Anyway, I think the average shaft thickness of an individual hair follicle is about .3mm

 

Add or subtract a tenth for variations in thickness and add a tenth for the surrounding tissue and the math becomes fairly easy to compute.

 

I think the smallest incisions are .5mm for ultra-fine one hair grafts, .6-.7 for 1-2 hair grafts,

.8-1.2 for 3/4 hair grafts.

 

I think some of the variances in incision sizes (I am talking about .8mm as opposed to .7mm) is due to the fact that in Follicular Units whose roots are closely intertwined, the technicians can only trim them down so far, thus some slight variances in incision sizes.

 

By the same token, a 4 hair graft will most likely not fit into the same size incision as a 2 hair graft.

 

If the incision is too small, the graft will most likely pop out (it could pop out slightly and then die) and conversely, if the incisions are too large, the fu itself can change growth direction and result in pitting or a "cobblestoning" effect.

 

Thus it becomes very important for angulation that each incision be the proper size.

 

Sub follicular division is fine, as long as the process is disclosed to the patient, beforehand. I know many docs will subdivide several larger grafts in order to create refined 1 and 2 hair grafts when doing delicate temple/hairline work.

 

However, if a clinic is using all 1's and 2's and charging for each sub-divided follicular unit as an individual "graft" then this needs to be disclosed as well.

 

Just as an example:

I think my second session would have been 4632 grafts if all 1's and 2's were used.

 

This is an interesting topic and one that I hope receives some attention.

 

Thanks Guys,

J

[Gorpy]

I love getting down to this level of detail guys. Thanks for your input. For those of us who have been around a long time it is fascinating. To some of the newbies, it could be a little too much.

[Guest]

I am reading what you guys write here with attention and I am glad I can learn so much about HT before I will get it done. B Spot I am becoming to be your fan.

Tomorrow at my consultation with H%W I'll have few questions more than I've had in my head.

All that thanks to you fellows.

[Bill - Seemiller]

B-spot...nice post and thanks for contributing. I look forward to hearing Joe's response related directly to Hasson and Wong and their techniques/strategy.

 

Bill

[NervousNelly]

However, if a clinic is using all 1's and 2's and charging for each sub-divided follicular unit as an individual "graft" then this needs to be disclosed as well.--Originally posted by B-Spot.

 

 

 

This is really the question isn't it?? As long as the talent and skills are there who cares what they are doing with the follicular units. It is just a good topic for discussion because it gives individuals again some empowerment knowing what is in the numbers.

 

I personally believe that certain clinics are splitting the FU's. I believe it is partly a marketing ploy and it allows for further coverage and refinement. The higher numbers certainly attract a lot of attention. Yes, I know that it is possible but why is it certain clinics are getting 7000+ FU?? Not taking anything away from their abilities and awesome results, but you do have to wonder. Why is it that some other clinics seem to achieve the same density with less FU numbers?

 

Again, what are they charging for?

 

Even our fearless leader states "Count hairs not grafts". I'm sure there is more to that statement. Want to elaborate on this discussion Pat?

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nervous,

 

I agree with you that knowledge is empowerment...the problem here is that I fear we are making assumptions that some clinics are and aren't. I know Hasson and Wong have been targeted (in other posts) as POTENTIALLY sub dividiing follicular units, and even your message implies it (since Hasson and Wong are the only ones to date - I believe - that have done 7000+ sessions).

 

Generally speaking...B Spot is correct...I believe that if a clinic subdivides FUs, than it should be disclosed to the patient. This is along the same lines, IMO, of doctors who charge a lot of money per graft should disclose that they are much more expensive than their competition.

 

BUT...who is sub dividing and who isn't? That is the question isn't it? I want JoTronic to speak for Hasson and Wong since I brought up their name and I know the assumptions have been made many other places.

 

As long as the talent and skills are there who cares what they are doing with the follicular units.

 

 

Though the proof is in the pudding, I still disagree. Now I am speaking generally here to make a point...NOT about any specific clinic. I think it's still important to know that if I am getting 4000 grafts at one clinic, it's not the same as 3000 at another...ESPECIALLY since the price will be significantly higher at the clinic doing 4000 grafts...you know what I mean? So I'm taking a different spin on what you said...I agree with Pat...that the number of hairs is important...so that being said, I think it's MORE important to know if a clinic is sub-dividing FUS, then it is to know the exact number of hairs...though I still believe the latter is helpful. If one knows the former, than one can be comfortable counting grafts since the average is approximately 2.2 hairs per FU if there is no subdivision. BUT, if there is subdivision, then the average goes down. So for me...even though I would LIKE to know the exact number of hairs, I would be more comfortable knowing a clinic does not subdivide...that way I can comfortable say if I got 4000 grafts at clinic X who doesn't subdivide, I'd be getting more grafts than 3000 grafts at clinic Y who also doesn't subdivide. BUT, if one doesn't know if a clinic sub divides, one could speculate that 3000 grafts at clinic Y could be close to the same as 4000 grafts at clinic X...and that makes me uncomfortable.

 

But that's just IMO.

 

Bill

[NervousNelly]

Bill,

 

Maybe I was missing something when reading your post, but it appeared as though we were saying essentially the same thing. I realize that you were putting more emphasis on IF or WHO may be subdividing and NOT wanting to convict clinics before proven guilty and I can understand that fully. But I still think that we are saying the same thing. Well if not then I will make it clear that I agree with what you just posted.

 

This post and discussion seriously needs to be addressed by Jotronic since H&W has come up (from others) as a possibility. I guess I indirectly pointed at H&W, but wasn't aware that they were the only ones doing 7000+. I had thought Rassman, Rahal, Feller were also capable???

 

When quickly typing something, sometimes things are put down prior to being fully thought thru. What was meant by stating "As long as the talent and skills are there I don't care what they do with the FU" is that they have there reasons for doing so and it may also be for cosmetic benefit. However, in stating this, I still stand firm that it should be disclosed to patient prior to surgery as to what is taking place and what they are paying for.

 

A big question though is that do we really think a clinic is going to publicly state that they split FU and have been charging patients per post-split FU?? That would be a lot of unhappy people wanting some cash returned. I guess they could justify the extra work involved in splitting and incisions, but it would still not sit well with many.

 

Possibly fees should be based on incisions? This is an interesting topic of discussion.

[Jotronic]

Sorry I haven't responded earlier. Work was very busy yesterday and life has been as well into this weekend.

 

Some interesting assumptions have been tossed about so it's time to make a clear statement.

 

We do not subdivide naturally occuring follicular units any more than other clinics. I say it like this because ALL good clinics will subdivide SOME grafts on SOME patients. This is not a standard practice and it in no way is a means to pump up the graft counts. Usually, if and when this is done, it is to make singles for a hairline if the patient has an abnormally low amount of naturally occuring singles and we need more. I repeat, all clinics do this from time to time and if they say otherwise then you need to question that clinic.

 

Gorpy,

 

You said...

 

"But, this statement indicates that 2 hair grafts and 3 and 4 hair grafts would be placed in the same size recipient site."

 

No, it does not indicate as you seem to think. You have to know how we classify our grafts to understand what Dr. Hasson was saying. When we list out our graft counts we itemize singles, doubles and "bigs" or "multi-grafts". These are three and four hair grafts, not twos, thus we are not placing four hair grafts into the same sized incision as that of a two hair graft.

 

"When Joe stated earlier that they did not split FU's, I think he honestly didn't know or that they use a different definition of what a naturally occuring FU is."

 

I have a pretty good idea of what a follicular unit is. I have roughly 8000 of them on my head, have read about and studied them for five years and have spent countless hours discussing them with the two best docs on the planet not to mention the tens (hundreds?) of thousands I've seen on others. A follicular unit is a naturally occuring bundle of hairs as they grow in the donor scalp. Sometimes they grow out of the same exit point, sometimes they are growing out of their own exit points close together. There is no "wiggle room" in this regard.

 

Discussion is a good thing and I wholeheartedly support it but insinuation is another thing altogether. Over the years we've been targeted for a number of reasons. When I first came aboard this forum five years ago (as a repair patient) 3000 grafts was pretty rare and we seemed to be doing them often compared to other clinics. The points of discussion focused on survivability percentages and wide donor scars. I remember one specific clinic saying something akin to "If you throw enough mud on the wall some is bound to stick". The analogy meaning that if you have a large session of say 4000 grafts and only 75% grow you still have 3000 grafts that to the uneducated cannot be discerned from the original 4000. Fast forward to the present day and 3000 grafts is a common occurrence and of course those now doing these sized sessions have no problem saying that all the grafts grow fine. Now, we have some clinics hitting the 4000 and 5000 mark every once in a while on "special" patients. We do this a few times a week and eventually other clinics will do this more often too, if they continue to invest in staff and techniques. Same goes for dense packing and other issues we've been hit with. If what we were doing a few years ago is now being done by others or if what we are doing now may eventually be done by others in the future you have to ask yourself this one question...what has changed? Nothing save for someone finally "getting it" and making a change to bust out of their comfort zone. I call it the "me too" factor. Other clinics have upped their abilities for one reason or another so now they can say that they too can sport these kinds of surgeries.

 

In short, we're critized or at the very least questioned when we go above and beyond what is considered to be the norm until those that criticize learn to do the same then it's all rose petals and church bells, no problem. Some choose to move slowly like we did and refine their processes while others decide to meet patient demand and take shortcuts by doing a two day strip session (HUH?!?) to get to 5000 grafts. Where is the value in this route?

 

At Hasson & Wong we have a few philosophies that we religiously adhere to. Among them are...

 

1.) Give the patient the most value for their money. Let's face it, HT surgery is not cheap. That is why we have a tiered pricing structure. 4.50 per graft up to the first 2000 grafts then 2.50 for each graft over 2000 grafts. When you average it out the cost per graft for a 4000 graft session is only 3.50. That is an incredible bargain but the price has to be reset for any subsequent procedures so it makes sense to get more hair in one than to divide the process into two or three.

 

2.) Give the patient the best result possible. The number one complaint in this industry (as a whole) is that the patient did not get enough density. What does it take to get density? Numbers, which is why we've pushed what we call the "one pass result". While not perfect every time it is an attempt to address one area of the scalp only once. If done right and the patient is realistic then they should be satisfied when it is all said and done.

 

3.) Make the patient happy by giving them the results they want (within reality) with the least amount of inconvenience and without spending more time and money than is necessary. This is a summation of the previous points. Instead of needing two or three procedures (virgin scalp) lets try to do it in one, two at max on some occassions. This means that the density has to be acceptable as well as the coverage. Most patients have what they want in eight to ten months as opposed to two or three years and they've saved several thousand dollars in the process.

 

4.) We want to do our best to present our work in the most honest fashion possible. First, we must reference those patients of ours that have voluntarily presented not only their before/after photos online but have also presented their post-op and developmental photos throughout their recovery period up to and beyond their final results. We have more patients doing this than anyone and their stories unfold almost in real time so there is nothing to hide. Secondly, we must present a gallery that does not purposely try to deceive the viewer with artificially dense hairlines or unrealistic coverage. We do this by taking all of our after photos under overhead flourescent lighting like that found in any office building. Anyone here can attest to how bad this lighting can be for revealing undesirable truths about hair.

 

So, as I said, we do not make it a practice to sub-divide groupings. Custome blades are cut dozens of times "on the fly" for our grafts and they fit perfectly for precise depth, angle and direction control. It is something that we pioneered. The occassional sub-division is necessary for all clinics but there is no rip-off when this is done. To sub-divide the occassional FU requires exacting detail and attention and can be quite difficult if you don't have the right experience and/or equipement so you are indeed getting what you pay for.

 

I invite any of the members to our clinic to view one of our surgeries in action (with patient approval of course). You'll see how we do things then you'll understand what I'm saying. We want the best result for our patients at a fair price with as little time as possible to the final result. This is what we have been working toward for many years and one would think that with 100 plus patients documenting online ( far more than other clinics I might add) that someone would be screaming for our heads by now if our approach was less than effective and ethical.

 

What I'm rather confused about is how so many clinics show results online with artificially enhanced photos (with flash photograph) that make hairlines look softer and more dense or coverage to be more than it is and no one here says a thing. The way some of you fellas dig into the details I'd think that you'd be calling people out on this. Read up (if you have not already) on what I've written on this subject then look around. You'll discover a few surprises. Here is the link to one of my articles on the subject...

 

Hair Transplant Deception

 

Here is some more that I wrote a few years ago on my personal site on how to take photos and what to do and what not to do when taking your own photos. You'll see my own photos on the bottom set showing my results with 2400 grafts without flash then ten seconds later with flash.

 

Taking Hair Transplant Photos

[Gorpy]

That's fine Joe. I appreciate your response. As you know we went through this a few months back. Here's what transpired and helps explain why there is still confusion:

 

1: Pat visits your clinic to view a transplant. He sees no 3's or 4's being prepared. When he asks about it, one of your highly trained techs blurts out that we don't do 3's.

 

2) Patients of H&W never get detailed hair counts. They only get singes, and multi haired graft counts.

 

3) Dr. Hasson, knowing the confusion that exists over this, states that all multi haired grafts are inserted in the same incision size.

 

4) Dr. Hasson reluctantly states that he will provide the requested information in the future, but still doesn't.

 

How am I supposed to interpret that, I ask?

 

JUST GIVE DETAILED HAIR COUNTS. That's all I ask. It's a simple request and all the speculation will be cleared up. Once again, if you custom cut blades for 3's and 4's then it is not a difficult task to count them. One of your highly trained techs could do it.

 

You must consider one thing - this forum is used by many clinics including yours as a marketing tool. But you can't have it just one way. If you use it to your advantage, you must be ready to respond to the curious minds that exist on this forum. So don't take offense at our curiosity. It is not an attack against your clinic. It is a desire for details which have not been provided.

[Gorpy]

One more thing:

 

If you are going to be on the top (king of the hill), which I have stated many times that you are, you are going to be the focus of the critical eye. That just goes with the territory. So, don't get all defensive when the questions start pouring in.

 

Gorp