Bolsey

[Guest]

Does somebody knows what exactly is this Varigrafting technique that bosley talks about?

Do other doctors use it?

[Guest]

Does somebody knows what exactly is this Varigrafting technique that bosley talks about?

Do other doctors use it?

[Guest]

Don't walk, don't run. Sprint the hell outta there!!! Take it from someone who has wasted money, time and donor hair at Bosley!

[Guest]

werewolfhead:

 

In Bosley's website they claim to do Follicular Unit transplants. Which I have been told that is the best you can get.

 

Here is some info from their website:

"Modern research in hair growth has discovered that natural scalp hairs actually grow in small groupings (called follicular units) of 1, 2, 3 or occasionally 4 hairs per unit. So, it is our strong emphasis at Bosley Medical not just to imitate nature, but to try to duplicate nature. We employ micro-technologies that use closely placed and randomly dispersed 1, 2, 3, and 4 hair units."

 

If I am not wrong, I think that Shapiro, Nhi etc.. are transplanting grafs of 1,2,3 and occasionally 4 hairs... If this is true.. I think that we are talking about the same thing.

[HotCreek]

WW: I'm a new registrant to this site but I've been researching hair transplant technology for some time now. Although I've seen a couple guys who had fairly good work done at Bosley anybody who lets Bosley perform an HT is taking a very, very big risk in my opinion. I've read about many guys who went to Bosley and later regretted it.

 

Whatever you do, don't make a decision to allow anybody to perform HT surgery on you without doing exhaustive research. Although the number of surgeons doing top quality work is small, there are enough that nobody really has to take the huge--and quite costly--risk of going to a surgeon without a proven record of performance.

 

Remember the old slogan "caveat emptor." Some people will tell you anything to get your money. It's your job to make sure you're getting something of commensurate value in return.

[NW]

WW,

 

I am not surprised that people are confused, because I agree. I saw a

 

"MHR INFOMMERCIAL" - Specifically stating - "We use all follicular units"

 

I think anyone should beware of this confussion and ask to see the microscopes they will be using...either these large mega-marketing companies are finally updating...or they are using old deceptive style tricks for confusing people.

 

The infommercial confused me, and I know every

aspect of a HT...Is there new marketing trickery or has MHR really updated ?

 

Any MHR people care to comment ???

 

NW

[HarryLemon]

Wow...well said, Werewolfhead!

WW, I am now 1 week and 1 day post op for my first ever Hair Tranplant (I like to think of it as "Startegic Follicular Redistribution"!), which was done by Dr Shapiro at his office in Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN.

I too was first attracted, in a similar fashion, to the idea of my hair loss being something I could reverse for life, and I have to hand it to MHR and Bosley as the ones who actually sold me on the solution. I never would've been so cranked up to get results like what they 'advertised', if it weren't for the quality of those fateful, middle-of-the-night-when-you-know-you-should-be-sleeping-but-get-sucked-into-this-amazing-looking-infommercial, decision inspiring moments.

I almost blew it and went under the knife with MHR, and thank GOD ALMIGHTY I chickened-out!

I kid you not when I say that I would have regretted that decision for the rest of my life, and while I'm sure not all doctors at MHR and Bosley are like that: YOU SHOULD DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Get your hands on the proven results FIRST - FROM THE DR WHO'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CUTTING INTO YOUR HEAD AND CHANGING IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!

It would make you sick to know just how happy it makes me to look in the mirror and see, yet again, just how frickin' awesome of a job Dr Shapiro and his team did on my head! The Dr's mentioned before here are all MAGNITUDES better than the rest.

Choose wisely! :-)

(but, fortheloveagod, DON'T go to Bosley or MHR!)

[Guest]

Thanks for all replies,

Jotronic: Correct me if I am wrong. But I think that what you got transplanted on your hairline were not grafs of 1-3 hairs but grafs larger than 4 hairs. Thats why you endeed up with the pluggy look. If the grafs that were transplanted to you were cut by a miscroscope, you will still end up with the pluggy look. So what I am trying to say is that the BIG difference in the way the transplant looks is done by the size of the grafs not the way is cutted. (microscope or loops)

[Jotronic]

Maybe my grafts were not the best example. To help you with the difference between a true FU graft and a mini/micro graft go to this link...

 

http://www.hairtransplantnetwork.com/Best_hair_transplant_procedure/index.asp

 

Perhaps I should have used the other consequence of mini/micro grafts to slam home my point. Take a look at this link from my website...

 

http://www.jotowen.com/HTPageEighteen.html .

 

Take a look at the first picture. See those pits in my head? That is from mini/micro grafts. Mini/micros leave behind generous scarring known as "cobblestoning". When you have scarring like this then overhead lighting, especially flourescent lights, become your worst enemy. EVERYONE can see the scars. Did you even look at the link to the medical violations by Bosley I linked to?

 

Peace,

Jotronic

[Guest]

Jotronic:

Maybe we need to separate the term mini/micro.

The cobblestoning that you are showing me in your pics comes from the mini. I am talking about a transplant just using micro. If you show me a pic with cobblestoning with the use of ONLY micro grafs then you are correct.

[NW]

ww,

 

Are you sure you understand

 

FU's

 

vs

 

micro/minis ????

 

all 1-4 hair grafts are not created equal, Microscopic FU's are cut in "natural" hair groupings..as God made them. Micro or Mini grafting may be 1-4 hair groupings but they are sliced with no regard to how they actually grow on your scalp. The slicing technique for the mini/micro method is possible for any 10 year

old to achieve....dont be fooled by Bosley or MHR.

 

Maybe this message is unnecessary ?, but I am not certain based on your post's. Jototronic had some previously performed Mini/micro's..hence that is why he is excited about FU's instead of his older style work, in the old days that was about all they had (micro's and mini's). BTW "Varigrafting" is the Old way of cutting grafts...or..the Micro/mini technology of the 80's and 90's....trust me, I have had both.

 

 

If You dont see the microscope..you are getting the old style transplants

 

Tryin to help...

NW

 

[This message was edited by NW on November 17, 2002 at 06:55 PM.]

[vocor1]

No one here would recommend Bosley or MHR over the doctors presented on this forum.

When I first wanted to do an HT, I thought about MHR or Bosley because they are all I saw (on TV). But even then, their ads were too "salesy". So I thought to myself god I hope their is another way.

So now this site has helped me out. Maybe it can help you too. If you want to go to Bosley, it is your money and your head -- vari, mini, and mircograft away. Good luck.

[Guest]

NW:

 

There are two popular dissecting techniques: Dissecting Microscope and Magnifying Loupes with Transillumination.

 

You can check ot this study:

 

http://www.newhair.com/medical_publications/MicroscopeVLoopStudy.asp

 

The results where in favor of the microscope but only because of the greater yield and not because of best aesthetic results.

 

RESULTS: Microscopic dissection produced a 17 % greater yield of hair as compared to magnifying loops with transillumination.

[NW]

OK,

 

So, if you get 17% better yield with FU's, why chose a loupe cutting method ?? FU's allow for tighter packing as well.BUT.. Every guy makes his own choice..I would not select micros, minis, or varigrafts...but whatever you feel you are wanting..Good Luck !!

[Jotronic]

WW,

Before I continue with this post I need to ask a couple of simple questions. First, you have not answered me as to whether or not you've read the links I pasted about the definitions of the different grafts and most importantly the link to Bosley Medical Violoations. Have you read them? Second, how long have you been researching this? How many clinics have you been to? How many docs have your spoken to? Have you met with any previous clients? Ask Bosley if you can meet or call any former clients. I bet they will tell you it would be against patient confidentiality ethics. Please answer these questions first if you plan on responding.

Apparently you have convinced yourself that Bosley is the way to go. If not, then why are you challenging every effort we put forth to educate you? There is nothing in it for us except to save another person from making the same mistake that so many others have made. There are only a select few doctors that can give you the best chance of having the greatest results possible and this site is the place to find them. You asked the questions and we have answered them. It appears that you simply don't like the answers. If you came here hoping that we would support your interest in Bosley then I believe you will be disappointed

I found at least seven other statements in your link that support the use of microscopic dissection along with the preservation of the follicular unit as it is found in nature and this is after I quickly skimmed the content. Did you read the link that you provided or did you simply paraphrase from the summary at the top of the page?

 

WW, I am sure that I speak for everyone else on this forum when I say that I truly wish you well but your Bosley ambitions is something that is not recommended by any of the experienced regulars to this site and I'm sure any other. If you don't believe me then take a walk over to this site and ask the same questions. They will be even less supportive than we... http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/

 

 

You can lead a horse to water but...

 

Peace,

Jotronic

 

[This message was edited by Jotronic on November 17, 2002 at 10:57 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by Jotronic on November 17, 2002 at 10:58 PM.]

[Guest]

Jotronic

 

I am not in favor of Bosley. I am not going to get a procedure there.

I have two things that I would like to discuss:

 

1)I am not convinced that the use of microscope is that really important. In the article I read from the new hair institute it says that many skilled doctors can cut excelent grafs without it.

 

 

2) From what I know Dr. Walter Unger is among the best doctors in the field. I heard that he has done many celebrities. I found in the Walter Unger's web site that all FU is not the way to go. And he refers to FU and micrografs as the same. www.walterunger.com

[Guest]

Jotronic:

To answer your simple questions:

1) Yes, I saw the the Bosley Medical Violations long time ago.

2) I have been researching about this for a long while.

3) I have been to several clinics (around 8) in several countries.

4) I have spoken to several doctors

5) I am sure Bosley will show you some result.

[Guest]

Jotronic

From Walter Ungers Website:

 

"Extensive advertising in the media and on WEBSITES suggests that exclusive Follicular Unit Transplanting (FUT) is the best and only modern option for all attempts at surgical hair restoration in all patients. Dr. Unger and others do make extensive use of FUT. However, if high density combined with high hair survival rates is the objective, Dr. Unger often uses FUT in combination with other types of grafts. Exclusive FUT is not the only modern or best technique for all patients or all objectives.

[Jotronic]

WW,

Okay, we got that part out of the way. I'm glad to hear you won't be going to B.

To address your two points...

 

1)I am not convinced that the use of microscope is that really important. In the article I read from the new hair institute it says that many skilled doctors can cut excelent grafs without it.

 

Actually it quoted Dr. Richard Shiell as "suggesting" that experienced technicians can cut excellent grafts without the need of microscopes. I did not see where it said that many doctors can.

 

You need to understand the conclusion of that study. It supports the use of microscopic dissection wholeheartedly. Also, consider that this paper is several years old and the use of microscopic dissection has more than proven it's worth since it's publication.

WARNING, LONG QUOTE AHEAD...

 

"Conclusion

The growing popularity of the stereo-microscope can be justified by the increased yield that it achieves, especially in the patient who will fully exploit his, or her, donor supply. Greater absolute numbers of follicular units and increased hair counts in the individual grafts, have been observed and documented with microscopic dissection when compared to loop magnification with back-lighting. Although microscopic dissection represents a significant departure from the "old school" of graft dissection, the new requirements of follicular unit transplantation, and other transplant procedures which require the increasing use of very small grafts, mandate more sophisticated dissecting techniques.

 

Some of the barriers to microscopic dissection can be lessened by having a transitional period in which a limited number of staff members use the microscope for only a part of the dissection, while the team gradually builds up confidence, technical competence, and speed. The technique of subdividing the donor strip into smaller pieces may also aid in this transitional process. Even for a "team in transition" the use of the microscope offers many tangible benefits over other methods of graft dissection. These advantages will be even greater when complete stereo-microscopic dissection is used.

 

The limiting factor in all hair restoration procedures is the patient's finite donor supply. Meticulous stereo-microscopic dissection can help us preserve this supply, and ultimately provide the patient with more transplantable hair. As surgeons, we should make every effort to avail our patients of any technology that will improve the procedures that we perform."

 

 

 

Also, Dr. Shiell went on to say that the 20% increase in yield from using microscopes was not enough to warrant the use of microscopes. THIS IS INSANITY! The authors further state that it is there belief that the presevation of the donor area is critcal and can be maintained by the use of advanced dissecting techniques,i.e. microscopes.

 

Your second point...

2) From what I know Dr. Walter Unger is among the best doctors in the field. I heard that he has done many celebrities. I found in the Walter Unger's web site that all FU is not the way to go. And he refers to FU and micrografs as the same.

 

From whom did you hear that he's done many celebrities? Just curious. On this page from Dr. Unger's site...

 

http://www.walterunger.com/grafts.html

 

He says in the beginning that the term Follicular Unit and Micrograft are used "interchangeably". This is a gross mistake. Dr. Unger says this... "Donor tissue may also be sliced into sections containing 2 or 3 follicular units and approximately 2-4 or 5-8 hairs." Remember how I first told you to beware of places that used the terms interchangeably? This is a perfect example. In this quote he is using the term follicular unit appropriately however he is decribing how more than one FU is in a larger graft which is a MICRO graft. To further expose this technique I direct you to the same page and look at figure 14a. This man has potholes bored into his head and is completely absurd. This man is talking about using 2mm "round holes" as being completely acceptable.

 

WW, I am understanding now that you are trying to be as objective as possible and I can appreciate it and I am actually now encouraging it but I also recommend that if you don't listen to me then at least listen to the others on this forum. We are hear to help each other and you if you will allow us.

 

Peace,

Jotronic

[Jotronic]

WW,

In your last post you quote Dr. Unger...

 

"However, if high density combined with high hair survival rates is the objective, Dr. Unger often uses FUT in combination with other types of grafts."

 

In your previous post you provided a link to the study by NHI which contradicts Dr. Unger DIRECTLY by saying that mini/micro grafts is not the preferred method to insure high hair survival rates. This should just go to show you that you will get a lot of different information from a lot of different web sites. If you can't trust the people that have been through this then who can you trust?

 

Peace,

Jotronic

[Guest]

Jotronic:

Warning extremely large quote:

From Walter Unger's Web Site

 

The public is often confused by conflicting claims and counterclaims about exclusive "follicular unit" transplanting in advertisements that can cost their patrons millions of dollars annually. What follows is Dr. Unger's view of what the scientific evidence to date reveals.

 

If you feel you would be satisfied with light or moderate hair density, you may want to consider using only FU for your transplanting. There are 4 advantages to such an approach:

Micrografts cause the least damage to any existing hair in the recipient area.

Micrografts produce the least amount of post-operative crusting.

Micrografts generally grow somewhat faster than other types of minigrafts.

Micrografts??“even in a totally bald area??“produce absolutely no clumping or plugginess.

In fairness, it should be pointed out here that if slightly larger 2-4 hair slit grafts are used instead of micrografts, damage to existing hair can also be avoided. With most hair types, unless you part the hair and look very closely, you won't notice any clumping either. (See clinical photos throughout this site.)

 

Transplanting an entire bald head in 1 "megasession" of even 3000 or more "dense packed" micrografts will not result in what most people would call cosmetically acceptable hair density. The only exceptions are when the area to be treated is relatively small, for example the front 1/3 of a typically-sized area of MPB, and/or the FU are so densley packed that hair survival may be reduced by as much as 35%. Advertisements that imply otherwise are misleading.

 

Only a small minority of hair transplant surgeons carry out "megasessions". Why? There is very little difference in work or staff requirements between doing an 800 to 1000 graft session for each of 3 patients in a day or doing a 2400 to 3000 graft session on a single patient. If anything, there is slightly more work and staff requirements if 3 patients are treated instead of 1. It is also more convenient for patients to have a single session than several sessions to the same area, and it is, therefore, certainly more "saleable" to more patients. The answer to the question of why so few surgeons employ "megasessions" lies with differing opinions about patient safety and hair survival when such large sessions are utilized.

 

Megasessions typically involve 8 to 12+ hours of surgery. They are, therefore, more physically and emotionally stressful than more standard sized sessions. The increased risk associated with such long sessions can be minimized by careful monitoring of blood oxygen levels, blood pressure, pulse rates as well as continuous intravenous fluids and drugs. Most physicians, nevertheless, feel that the increased risks outweigh the benefits for what is, after all, a cosmetic procedure. The choice between patient convenience and safety seems to them to be properly weighed towards the latter. Furthermore, as noted earlier, there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that megasessions of dense packed micrografts results in reduced hair survival.

 

The smaller the graft, the more easily it can be injured by technicians (as each hair is closer to the edge of the graft). Thousands of incisions in the scalp obviously will cut more blood vessels than hundreds of incisions. While most megasessions produce what appears to be adequate yields, a minority produce very little hair. It is likely that there are many patients between those two extremes who will grow hair, but less than they would have if a more conventional approach had been used. In the May-June 1997 issue of Hair Transplant Forum International (the official publication of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery), a foreign physician working in a California clinic that specializes in megasessions and dense packing reported that, in his experience, only 75% of the grafts transplanted in 1500 graft sessions have good growth, and that in sessions of 2000 or more grafts that number dropped to 50%! He did not give his name as he feared he would be fired for reporting this.

 

In the same issue of that journal, an American hair transplant surgeon reported on a case of infection subsequent to a megasession that he felt was caused by the size of the session and dense packing. "About 30% to 50% of the grafts appeared to be lost". (1) At the 1999 meeting of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, other investigators reported hair growth rates of only 65% to 77% of transplanted follicular units 6 months or longer after the procedure.(2),(3)

 

The published figures of proponents of exclusive FU transplanting inadvertently lend credibility to these low growth figures:

 

Only 15-20% of FU contain a single hair(4). All other FU have 2 or more hairs and dividing them into single hairs is strictly avoided by "exclusive FU" practitioners because they believe this would result in some of those hairs dying(4). Moreover division of the multi-haired FU into single hairs is not necessary because, as noted earlier, single-haired FU are useful in the frontal 1 to 3 rows or 2-3 mm of the hairline. Behind this narrow frontal zone everyone, including this writer, use multi-haired FU.

 

 

The average FU contains approximately 2.3 hairs(4),(5). That figure in fact includes the 1-haired FU, so if one excludes the 1-haired FU the average FU should contain more than 2.3 hairs.

 

 

Prominent proponents of exclusive FU transplanting who claim that many of their patients are satisfied with 1 or 2 sessions??“because of "megasessions" and "dense-packing"??“have published articles in which they state that they accomplish high density with a single session by transplanting FU with a density of up to 40 or 45 FU/cm2 per session (6).

 

 

If one were achieving 100% hair survival??“as some proponents of exclusive FU transplanting claim is possible if FU are prepared and used in the way they recommend??“ then even 40 FU/cm2 should yield 40x2.3=92 hairs/cm2 after a single session.

 

 

In 1999, in an article that was strongly supportive of exclusive FU transplanting, an independent evaluator, who examined the hair density just behind the most frontal fringe hairs in 16 patients at the offices of one of FUHT's most experienced and respected practitioners, reported a density of only 76 hairs/cm2 after 2 sessions(7). (Hair densities of up to 126 hairs/cm2 after 4 sessions were also reported).

 

The independent evaluator was very impressed with the results because they looked so natural and such hair densities look excellent in most patients. But his figures inadvertently revealed that only 76 hairs were growing after 2 sessions when the respected physician, whose patients were examined, had previously published that he used 20-45 FU/cm2. Even if he used only 35 FU/cm2 in the patients who were examined, 35x2.3 or over 80 hairs should have grown after a single session, rather than the 76 hairs after 2 sessions that were found.

 

I have examined 2 patients treated with exclusive FU transplants at another FUHT proponent's office. After 1 session, one had 97 and the other had 106 hairs/cm2 in the densest areas of the transplant. However, 50 FU/cm2 had been used and 50x2.3=115 hairs. Moreover, in previous articles, this same physician had said he used 3-haired FUs in such areas, and 50x3=150 hairs. Thus, as many as 150 hairs should have grown where only 97 to 106 had actualy been found.

 

How then does one explain claims by proponents of exclusive FU transplanting of 100% survival and photos of excellent looking results after only 1 or 2 sessions?

 

 

The claims of 100% or more survival are based on studies in which, in one case, 90, and in another study, 163 hairs were inserted as FU into holes made in small areas that were surrounded by otherwise intact, untreated skin (8),(9). This is not at all comparable to what actually happens during a typical transplant session in which thousands of additional incisions or holes are made, each one of which severs some blood vessels and thus reduces the blood supply to the recipient area, which in turn could reduce hair survival rates.

 

 

Apparent hair density is not dependent only on the number of hairs/cm2. The less contrast between the hair and skin colour, the more curl or wave, the more "frizziness" to the hair, and the higher the hair caliber the thicker the hair will appear to be. An increase in hair shaft diameter of only 0.01 mm for example will increase hair volume by 36%(10). Thus the beautiful results seen and shown in photos of selected patients by proponents of exclusive FU transplanting are both possible and real. Nothing that has been said here should in any way be construed to mean that I believe intentional deception is being used by anyone. Even if 35% or more of the hair transplanted by a few proponents is dying, if enough hairs are transplanted densely enough the results may, in fact look excellent after 2 sessions or, less commonly, after 1 session if the patient's hair characteristics are particularly advantageous.

 

Exclusive micrograft sessions are obviously very dependent on perfect technique. While better hair survival should be possible if technique and quality control of technicians are excellent, and while hair count studies are notoriously difficult to do, with results that may or may not be scientifically valid, it would appear to be wise to use micrografts/FU without "dense packing" whose intention is a completed result after a single session, and to use them in limited areas until such a time as good hair survival rates are documented by independent evaluators. I have made preliminary plans to do that with an experienced practitioner of exclusive FU transplanting. For the time being, however, because of the above noted concerns about patient and hair follicle safety, I prefer to usually limit exclusive FU transplanting to the relatively small hairline zone where maximum noticeability makes maximum naturalness the most important consideration. As implied, even in this zone I never use "dense-packing" in an attempt to complete it in 1 or 2 sessions though, in fact, it may be cosmetically satisfactory for some patients after 1 or 2 sessions (figure 2-4).

 

 

 

Fig. 2a. Before 1st hair transplant. Fig. 2b. One year after 1st hair transplant consisting of a mixture of FU and slit grafts.

 

Fig. 2c. The same patient before 1st hair transplant. Fig. 2d. One year after 1st hair transplant.

 

 

Fig. 3a. Before 1st hair transplant. Black line denotes location of new hairline. Fig. 3b. Nine months after 1st hair transplant consisting of a mixture of FU and slit grafts.

 

 

Fig. 4a. Intra-operative photo of 1st session consisting of FU, various types of slit grafts and plumper "slot" grafts. The grafts have not yet been inserted into the recipient sites to make the sites more easily seen in this photo.

 

 

Fig. 4b. Frontal view 6 months after the 2nd of 2 sessions. Fig. 4c. Side view 6 months after the 2nd of 2 sessions.

 

In summary, patients are often anxious to have as much done as quickly as possible and are, therefore, anxious to believe that there is no intrinsic problem with megasessions and/or dense packing for quick results. However, increased risk and the possibility of lesser hair yield permanently should be weighed against the temporary convenience of a faster result.

 

A less serious disadvantage of 'all micrograft' hair transplants is that it takes twice as long to prepare and insert 1500, 1-2 hair micrografts as to prepare and insert 600-750, 2-4 hair slit grafts that would contain approximately the same number of hairs. As a result of the extra time required, the 'all micrograft' approach is more costly and is, therefore, not generally used unless the patient will either be satisfied with a lower hair density than most patients or is less concerned about cost than he is about even slight tuftiness that might occur with 2-4 hair grafts.

[Guest]

I read in a website(dont remember which one) that Walter Unger is the best in the field. That has done many celebrities including Nicolas Cage.

[NW]

Walter Unger ??

 

WW,

 

Please this is not personal...K..?

 

But,

 

Would you pay $80,000 for a used VW Bug, when you know it buys a new Porsche ??

 

I do wish you luck my friend, cause I am sure you are truley nice guy.

 

NW

[Guest]

NW- well put. The three most important aspects of buying a house are: Location, Location, Location.

The three most important aspects of getting a HT are: RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH.

 

Do your homework. If I would have done mine I could have saved myself $7,000.

[werewolfhead]

Who knows but this thread is long and getting longer by the follicular unit. We are into a full blown megasesssion on this one and may even set a record. So do you like the work done on Nick Cage's dome? He still looks like a balding rodent in heat if you ask me. The work done is all ass backwards. He should begin with a face transplant and then proceed to a talent transplant before getting any dome work done but that is only my opinion. You know you could fool everybody WW and do an end run around the entire thread by getting FUEs. If you do that then the discussion of microscopic dissection is moot since it is unnecessary in that procedure as I understand it. But this depends on how much time and money you have and also if you turn that leaf over you can expect a dozen new posts from Jotronic asking you why? This thread is becoming infinitely amusing. But it will cease to be so if you should slip back into the darkness and slide down into the Bos. chair. I hope that fantasy has been laid to rest, Jotronic really did you a major service in time and information by alerting you to that operation. Then again if you really want instant thickness you could always buy a tightly woven rug out of Kabul, cut it to size, dye it to match skin tones and then get a union grade garment worker to sew it own for scale. This route offers a wide selection of geometric designs,colors and weaves and you could probably go 2 for the price of one if you found the right bazaar on Ramadan, their discount pricing should begin when monthly fasting initiates on Dec 1st.