Laser Comb/Herbal DHT Blocker/Rogaine 5 months now

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

By the way thanatopsis_awry

 

My answer to woodo and goat sacrifice was a light hearted remark to Mr YoungGuy remark

 

 

To put it another way, say that I run a hair treatment clinic. I recommend that my patients sacrifice a chicken once a week on Fridays, and a white goat on major holidays to the Celestial Follicle. Alongside the sacrifices, I make sure the patients get on finasteride & minoxodil. After a year, the patients report positive results.

 

How is my claim that chicken/goat sacrifice regrows hair any less valid than Dr. Mohmand's claim that the laser comb regrows hair?

 

it is not what I belive in, I guess we need to see the context in the whole. Now did any one of you read the article of the two doctors that I have mentioned who have done a clinical study with positive result ?

 

If not then tell me why should I believe in one doctor (Dr Feller) and not believe in another doctor (Dr Levit, Dr Perez and Dr Maria from Brazil). Keeping in mind for me both groups are respectable.

One group have got a wonderful theory that LLLt does not work but no scientific evidence or clinical trial. On the other hand we have three groups with each study a blind study though short of gold standard study which is prospective randomised clinical control study. still it is a study and they hav proved with their result that it works.

 

You tell me whom should I believe.

Second point what is a LASER

well its an monocromatic, coherent light source like any other but amplified by stimulation. its not rays like X Rays or gamma. So ofcourseit wont cross the finger or paper.

 

What happens, this light source of certain wave length is actually absorbed by what we call is chromophore and the light is changed there into heat or some other form of energy.

 

It is this absorbed light that stimulates.

 

If you see the video of DR Feller, you would be able to see the light actuall illuminating th whole of his fingure nail....laser penitrate the skin but does not pass through.

 

This is the basis of laser hair reduction, and all othernon-abalative laser treatment for skin.

 

Does DR feller, my respectable colleague does not even believe in that?

 

If his theory is right then all the other theories will be wrong as well.

 

ANyway, I would urge Dr Feller to prove his point with a help of clinical study because other doctors have got that study under their belt.

 

Now I have been labelled as using gimmicks

 

I dont even use computer software to show the patient how they would look, just because I think its a selling gimmic.

 

Now If dr Levitt has a disclosure about a product thats not a poblem. There are members who have a disclosure about eithe your or some other doctors advocate, dont you think its also same.

 

anyway, if you do not believe in some thing that does not mean you should be so against it, atleast either prove us wrong with a good study or dont brush aside other studies by saying its not enough.

 

I dont believe in microscopes, I am willing to take them on and see if they work or not. In my personal openion its one way of charging more cause it will give me more number of grafts, and hence more money......the graft yield gets more but the hair yield stays the same....what does that mean? more grafts.

so we all have a point lets not criticise each other and find out if the thing really works or not.

 

The patient I will be asking to come in has a story....

just listen to her.....

she says without the laser comb she feels she is loosing the hair a lot which she was not while she was on LLLT for last two years.

 

That is keeping her from the second transplant, so in fact I am loosing bucks as oppose to making them with LLLT.

[Dr. William Lindsey]

Dr. Mohmand,

 

4 paragraphs/lines up from your conclusion you state that you don't believe in microscopes???

 

Can you clarify your thoughts on that sir?

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear Dr Feller

 

I respect your comments about the theory of LLLT.

What I do not respect is that you are passing the judgemental statements of another colleague saying he is unethical.

 

I have 4 operating rooms

I have 17 staff members Techs

I have two other junior doctors looking after the patient while I Jump from one patient to another doing my part of work, i:e planning, strip harvest and making sites. My average session is 2300 to 2700 Grafts.

 

I do on an average 3 surgeries each day

 

I have about 75 days off in a year. Give and take just do the maths and YES I meant 800 (eight hundred patients) If you want I can send you the detail data of all those patients with their tel number and address.

 

Ask Abby, he was in my clinic and I was doing three a day... he will testify for me.

Why do you pesume that other people lie......

 

anyway, Bill I really do not believe that some people in this forum are really willing to listen to other point of view......

If we do not agree we are bad guys if we agree we good guys.....

 

I feel sorry for this type of arrogance.

 

for last two days

 

I am doing two strip harvest with 2500 to 3000 grafts each session and then from 12 mid day till 5 pm I do FUE of 700 session each.

 

I charge only 0.7 US$ per graft (pak Rs 60) 3000 grafts will cost some one in my hands 2100 to 2500 US$ based on exchange rate.

 

FUE US$ 3 per FUE.

 

my 90% of clientel is from outside Pakistan.

 

They are all well read and most have been through some of you.

 

so making fool out of them is not possible.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dr Lindsay its a long story

 

to cut it short, I am in an openion that with my loop magnification and care of direction and 400 to 500 skillfully cut single hair extra refine follicles placed strategically on hair line and then judicious use of two's, three's in the depth will give you a wonderful natural looking hair transplant. This way you can get away with the microscope.

 

But the community earged me to try the microscope, so I bought them and these days I am doing a microscopic slivering and 30% of grafts as well. It has made the grafts all really fine, my blade has gone smaller but my number of grafts have gone more.

 

Tell me if I am wrong anywhere

 

My aim is natural looking undetectable hair transplant, if I can may be as an exception do it with our microscope what bad in it?

 

what is the objective?

 

a natural looking hair restoration right.....thats what I am doing anyway....

 

so am I doing any dis service to the patients buy giving them a result with 2500 grafts that some one will be able to do with 3000 to 3300 grafts....

 

This is my personal openion.

 

I am still learning, I only have 7 years of experience with only 2500 patients under my belt and of those 2500, 1500 have been added in last 26 months or so.

 

not a big number

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

sorry for spelling

 

DR Lidsey

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Mohmand, Now you know why my initial post to you on this thread was to welcome you into the Lion's Den.

 

Despite what most here are saying, I do not believe that doctors who offer laser therapy without overselling its benefits are unethical.

 

One statement above indicated that those who have a financial interest in lasers cannot possibly be believed. Yet, every surgeon recommended on this community has a financial interest in hair transplant surgery. But clearly, hair transplants are a viable solution for many.

 

But even hair transplant surgery has had its benefits oversold in the media and by a few clinics. Online hype about FUE megasessions is just one example.

 

The difference of course is that follicular unit hair transplantation as been proven to work (by those who do a meticulous job) and many patients (not just doctors financially interested in it) can attest to it. I am one of them.

 

Laser therapy is backed up by several studies cited by Dr. Mohmand, thus one can argue it has been proven to work (somewhat perhaps). The question remains - are these studies reliable? Does a financial interest in something guarantee corruption? I don't think so. Otherwise, every working man or woman (including the doctors, patients, and publishers of this community) must be unethical. But without visual proof, I fear that this community will have a hard time buying the science.

 

One of the problems may be that laser therapy doesn't make a significant cosmetic difference in most patients. I would think that thickening existing hair shaft diameter (increasing the number of terminal hairs) may not be enough for most who are seeking hair loss treatments.

 

In my opinon, this is a worthwhile debate. I personally commend Dr. Mohmand for being willing to throw himself to the wolves and explain his reasons for encouraging laser therapy for some of his patients.

 

I would also think that selling a laser comb when he has to buy them first, is of very little financial gain for him when he could just as well be doing more hair transplants and make a lot more money.

 

I hope this debate continues but that well respected physician colleagues can challenge each other intellectually rather than in an accusatory manor.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Mohmand,

 

Did you see my message above?

 

Please check and respond to your email about a completely separate topic.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

I personally commend Dr. Mohmand for being willing to throw himself to the wolves and explain his reasons for encouraging laser therapy for some of his patients

 

Commend what? He made no case except words . What were his reason for encouraging his patients that are so commenable

If anyone you should be commended its US for trying to get to the bottom of this once and for all

You should commend Dr Feller for take a chance of throwing himself into a den of severe attacks for no reason other then being a standup doc.

Not only wasnt a skud missle launched in this debate and others but neither was a bottle rocket.

I suppose you also commend Williams and Charles for taking the high[quiet] road

Come on Bill . Keep it real.

If its not unethical what is it? Using loupes should also be ok because there are studies showing the positive effects of them also.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Mohmand,

I do appreciate the civil tone of your response and would like to congratulate you on at least replying. In the past, most discourse like this has been heated and ended up in my opponent leaving the stage.

 

At least we can have a dialog here. I would like to address your points:

 

Your wrote:

------------------------

... tell me why should I believe in one doctor (Dr Feller) and not believe in another doctor (Dr Levit, Dr Perez and Dr Maria from Brazil).

------------------------

 

There are several reasons:

1. The results from the studies you cited are wide open to a powerful influence outside the realm of lasers, that being the normal but erratic cycling of hair growth phases that naturally occur within the scalp in the normal healthy patient. Everyone has experienced greater hair growth at one point in the year as compared to another. This is normal and has nothing to do with laser radiation.

 

2. A few studies are not enough to prove the bold and incredible claim that lasers can positively affect cellular function at the clinical level in the first place, much less the EFFICACY of LLLT on hair growth in particular. The only thing those studies have supported is the already established fact that erratic growth cycles occur periodically within the human scalp. Doesn't this seem more believable to you?

 

3. The researchers are biased because they have a financial stake in the industry. This is not to impugn their honor, but industry based research is always frowned upon for this very reason. It is usually self-serving. How do we know that "failed" studies have not been omitted? We can't.

 

4. The doctors involved in the multi center clinical studies are also financially involved in the laser industry. Thus biased.

 

5. Some of these doctors were advocating and selling laser therapy BEFORE studies were even performed. YOU may now take comfort that you are justified in selling LLLT because OTHER doctors have performed studies to your satisfaction (something I will. disabuse you of), but whom did THEY reference to justify the selling of laser therapy to their lay patients? No one. Because it didn't matter to them. Think about that.

 

6. None of these doctors, including those performing the studies has shown any demonstrable results in before/after photos or in person. Laser therapy for hairloss has been around for 25 years, I think they've had enough time.

 

7. The doctors you cited are offering laser therapy for pay right now. I am not. That alone should give me at least a bit more credibility in your eyes.

 

8. I showed conclusively that the light that strikes the follicles is NOT coherent. It is no longer laser.

 

9. I showed you that most of the laser power is consumed within the first millimeter of tissue.

 

10. Finally, you should not be conflicted over what I or other doctors observe and report. You should make decisions concerning treatments you offer patients based ultimately on YOUR OWN observations and assessments. To date you admit you have made NO observations on your own and have no evidence to report. Yet, in the gross absence of these key elements of decision making, your final assessment is to grant credibility to LLLT.

 

 

You wrote:

-------------

well its an monocromatic, coherent light source like any other but amplified by stimulation. its not rays like X Rays or gamma. So ofcourseit wont cross the finger or paper.

-------------

That is exactly my point. I don't understand why you continue to miss it. If upon striking a simple Klenex tissue most of the power is dissipated AND the remaining light loses ALL of it's coherent properties, then how can you believe the premise that coherent light can even make it down to the level of the follicle through a layer of epidermis, and then a thick dermis, and then positively affect it? It is impossible.

Don't you see that? It's not a sophisticated observation, it's common sense.

 

You wrote:

-----------------

What happens, this light source of certain wave length is actually absorbed by what we call is chromophore and the light is changed there into heat or some other form of energy.

----------------

 

Again, this is my exact point. Once a laser is absorbed it can do only one thing of consequence and that's to impart heat. Once absorbed, the light (be it coherent or not) is converted largely to heat. HOWEVER, remember, the industry name for this "therapy" is "LOW light laser therapy" (LLLT), or sometimes it's even known as COLD laser light. There is not enough energy imparted to the scalp from these milliwatt lasers to even compare with a walk during a nice day or a brightly lit room. So the heat imparted is negligable.

 

Remember, laser advocates point to the COHERENT nature of the light as the magic ingredient in LLLT. Yet you clearly understand now that by the time the coherent light strikes the epidermis it instantly collapse to standard monochromatic light which then transmits uncoherently down to the dermis where there follicle lives. Even at that point the remaining standard light is simply converted to a degree of heat that is inconsequential to the follicle. A degree of heat that couldn't even come close to competing with a hair dryer or just wearing a cap.

 

Don't you see the conflict in the way the LLLT advocates claim their therapy works and the reality of what's actually happening?

 

LLLT advocates never said it was HEAT that caused follicle stimulation, they claimed it was a heretofore unexplained benefit of coherent light. Yet you can see beyond a doubt that NO coherent light, that is, no laser light, makes it down to the follicles. This was a major oversight on the part of LLLT advocates and it will ultimately be their undoing.

 

You wrote:

-----------------

If you see the video of DR Feller, you would be able to see the light actuall illuminating th whole of his fingure nail....laser penitrate the skin but does not pass through.

------------------

Ahh, but the light DID pass through, that's why you are able to see my finger glow on camera. The glow that you see, however, is NOT coherent light, if it were, you would only see a small dot in the middle of my fingernail. Instead you see my finger lighting up, that's because the second the light contacted my epidermis the light became instantly scattered and ceased to be coherent. The little bit of coherent light that made it past my porus epidermis was instantly absorbed in the denser shallow dermis and converted to multidirectional monochromatic light. This standard light was then transmitted through the entirety of my finger, then through the nail, and then to the camera. No coherent light ever made it thorough, the only thing that did was what LLLT advocates call useless light and heat.

 

You wrote:

-----------------

This is the basis of laser hair reduction, and all othernon-abalative laser treatment for skin.

----------------

This is incorrect. The bases for hair reduction or ablative laser treatment for skin is very different than that proposed by LLLT advocates. As it's name implies, "ablative" therapy is destructive. It uses HOT lasers, not cold, and it uses very HIGH power, not Low. It works by destroying the tissue in its path and it need NOT be a laser to produce the desired results. It's just that the use of lasers are more EFFICIENT in delivering power at a certain frequency.

 

But again, even in the case of hot lasers, it is NOT the coherent nature of the light that destroys the tissue, it is what happens only AFTER the coherent light strikes the tissue surface that the effect is seen, in this case burning of the tissue. This is the exact OPPOSITE phenomenon that is proposed by LLLT advocates.

 

What is confusing you is the fact that tissues of different color absorb HEAT energy more efficiently than others at certain wavelengths. But just because energy may be more efficiently absorbed in a deeper layer of the skin where the pigment is, doesn't mean the more proximal layers aren't also being highly heated. Just ask any laser hair removal patient how much the process hurts and just look at the epidermis after treatment. The effect of the heat is obvious even at the more shallow layers.

 

Remember, the laser is converted to standard non-coherent high energy light at a particular wavelength upon striking the surface of the skin. The ENTIRE skin is heated up as the light is absorbed, it's just that the light frequency was tuned to allow the pigmented cells to more EFFICIENTLY pick up the incorherent light and thus be converted to heat.

 

As interesting as this all is, the physics of high energy hot lasers designed to destroy tissue do not lend themselves to the claims made by cold low laser light therapy (LLLT) advocates.

 

You wrote:

---------------

anyway, if you do not believe in some thing that does not mean you should be so against it, atleast either prove us wrong with a good study or dont brush aside other studies by saying its not enough.

---------------

I did prove you wrong. I did it with common sense by writing about the obvious dearth of before/after photos worldwide. When that didn't work, I gave an undisputed scientific explanation, when that made no impression I debated Dr. Bauman and David Michaels of Hairmax laser comb and destroyed them on the radio, when that didn't take I made a video that clearly demonstrates the fatal flaw in the fundementaltheory all LLLT advocates rely on, including the doctors you cited. You have all been easily proved wrong.

 

Dr. Mohmand,

Take some time to review the errors you made in your last post concerning laser physics. Take a moment to allow the corrections I made sink in. Then re-analyze the position of LLLT objectively. There is no more room for debate, the issue is dead...and so is LLLT. The only thing keeping it alive is the ignorance of the public who will pay for anything to regrow hair, the ignorance of doctors concerning how lasers actually work, and enlightened doctors who disingenuously advocate for LLLT anyway to make money.

 

The facts I've demonstrated here are axiomatic and undeniable. They were based on basic scientific principles of physics and demonstrated very easily on camera repeatedly. Because these facts are indisputable, any study supporting the grand claim of LLLT proponents is invalid on it's face. Just like I don't need to do a study on carpets to know they can't fly, I know I don't have to do an LLLT clinical trial to prove it doesn't work. You know it's not my job to disprove a hypothesis.

 

Let's step back and look at the big picture. It is your current position that the few papers presented by clinical doctors(not research experts)outweighs the absolute and total lack of before/after results from tens of thousands of LLLT patients and their doctors WORLDWIDE, including your own clinic. Objectively speaking, don't you see a problem with this position?

 

Take some time to reconsider your position. If you can counter anything I've written here, then I will reconsider. I think that is a fair deal. But if we are to both honorably continue to call ourselves doctors ONE of us is going to have to change his position.

 

I look forward to your reply Dr. Mohmand, and thank you for watching my video and reading my viewpoints and how I supported them. I really appreciate it and I look forward to your learned counterpoints.

 

Dr. Feller

[Dewayne]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

If somebody's stupid enough to buy one of those lasers,

 

Its no different then guys stupid enough to let a surgeon put plugs in his hairline. If anything that shows how f-ing STUPID people can be.

Or is it desperation and lack of information?

Deception is deception .

By the way its not permanent with todays repair procedures unless all of the donor has been wasted.

But I agree those doctors are criminals but these laser advocates are gigantic scam artists,just short of criminal activity.

There are hundreds of threads addressing the surgery issue . I believe a couple threads on bogus treatments is warranted and I applaud Dr Feller for what he is doing.

With his rep he could make ALOT of money with a few laser stations.

 

It's a lot different, PGP. There's a difference in getting sliced up by a doctor than buying some lamp to shine on your head. I agree it's suspect for a doctor to be recommending them, but it's a lot different.

 

To me it's about the same as the "Euro-Glide Slim Master" machine I bought for my wife 15 years ago because they said it'll make her have rock hard abs. I'm just saying that anyone with a brain ought to be able to figure out that won't work.

 

And, I agree with Feller.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Dewayne I understand that there is a big diference but it doesnt make this thread any less important as I felt you were implying.

I just get a little irritated when I keep hearing that people falling for this very expensive scam are stupid or ignorant when its the fricken doctors we are taught to trust that are scamming us.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

LASER is not suppose o pass through the scalp anyway. I would not like that to happen.

When a laser is thrown on a tissue

the following happens

1) Absorbtion

2)refraction (scattered light in tissue)

3) reflection

 

it is the irst two situation we are interested in.

 

This absorbed light and refracted light is taken up by tissue called chromophere. for LLLT the chromophore is in red zone like cappilaries etc. the depth of the laser is due to two things

 

1) Wavelength ( the higher the wavelength the deeper the penitration)

2) Pulse width ( the longer the pulse the depeer the penitration)

3) the fluence isthe energy so call cold or hot laser is based on the fluence.

 

If you increase the fluence high enough the laser will become hot, it will impart so much energry that it will distrup the chromophore hence vessle will coagulate and pigmented thing will burn.

 

If the dose is less it can stimulate the chromophore...that is why we do see every now and then after laser hair removal there can be a surge of hair growth. Though the pathway is different that what we are discussing.

 

Just like non-abalative lasers like pulse dye laser and some diodes we induce the growth of collagen by triggering the blood vessels. other llasers like FRAXEL also hit the deeper tissue sparring the skin and tightens the skin.

 

Now I do not think they claim that the pathway is really through the mitochondria by photobiostimulation and increase the anagen phase, I think it is this what they think it is.

 

The real pathway though not clear in my openion but I have seen in my practice that the laser do work.

 

PLEASE KEEP this in mind, it has a serious limitation and in my openion it reduces the rate of hair loss plus if anything it gives about 10 to max 20% improvement if there is no hair loss. It has to be used properly and religiously. only then it will give you that effect.

 

In my humble openion if the LLLT can deliever even 5 to 10 % improvement in terms of delay hair loss and increase hair growth, its worth a while. ALL you spend is about 400 to 700 US$ one time. This is equalevent to 230 grafts in an averge DR Clinic. There are minimal side effects, 230 grafts of 3000 to 4000 surgery is less than 10%. so I think its worth a try....

 

I on the contrary do agree that over selling and giving expectation more than what one can achieve is bad and unethical, but then that is true for those doctors who over sell the hair transplant procedure as well. it can be FUE or simple extra fine folliclar grafts.

 

Any practice in my openion showing the pre and post pictures drawn on computers with softwere is even worse than this.....

 

ONE more thing for all those people who are saying bad things about plugs......had it not be for them we would not have achieved what we have today. YES plugs thes days are bad and no one should do, but a decade back it was a norm.

 

Have you ever seen an unnatural looking follicular unit grafts in a straight line as if ruler was placed along the grafted area, my dear firends thats as bad as plugs or selling any bad items......

 

 

MY QUESTION to all of you

 

WHY did FDA cleared LLLT for hair growth there must be a reason.....I do not beleieve for a second they have been bribed or they have a financial interest in LLLT. they must have been convinced.

 

DR Feller theory is true but its only a theory...there is no clinical evidence based on what Dr Feller can categorically say that I have proved it. as much as he can prove on paper, we can prove on paper......

so lets do a study, an honest study, it can be baised that LLLT does not work....then lets see if that is true or not.

 

If LLLT can produce results which is not statistically significant, I am still in for it, I need all the help for my patients even if Its 5%.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear Bill

 

I am not afraid of lions den, as far as I know and understand what I am doing I will do it.

 

If I am proved wrong its in the best of my interest, I learn. Humility teaches me strength and willingnessto fight on. If I am right, it gives me motivation to carry on, either way I win.

 

Trust me had it not been the minimum requirement of the forum to use microscopes, I would have shown with my results that microscope or no microscope its the man behind the gun that matters.

 

I with the grace of Allah, am so confident about my results I can prove myself no less than any one.

 

I will show you some pictures that I have taken.

two dishes one with microscope dissection and one with loop, same width of strip and side by side....microscope yield 350 grafts and Loop about 275 grafts.

 

having said that, I still went ahead to see for my self does it matter if I use microscope?

 

I have to wait and see

 

One thing is for sure my average session has gone bigger.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Just out of interest

 

is it legal to priscribe proscar for hair loss, i mean ask them to buy and then divide into 5 or 4 pieces and then to eat?

or its off shell thing

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

[Capt'N Mop!!!]

Originally posted by Dr M Humayun Mohmand:

Dear Friends

 

You need to understand one thing there arnt many treatments available for the hair growth which are really proven and are 100%.

As far as sacrificethe goat and chicken are concern, trust me there are people in the world who are doing it and may be one out of 100 might have benifited this is the world of woodoo and its real out there.

 

 

if you had your way, there would be a goat in the COALITION:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKkwaqZf4i4

 

SHAMELESS...

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear PGP

 

I do appreciate your input in every way. I think you are a very regular member of this forum.

 

In last one year since i was voted out because I was not using microscope gave my competitors a chance to call me cheat etc and they made a claim that i was voted out because I am a sub standard surgeon in the world.

 

I proved all of them wrong with my results and paper presented in the different National and International forums. I would not mind you a single bit what ever you want to call me, its your personal right and openion.

 

I stand above the personal things and I judge people based on their results. If my results with or without microscope are better than most of the surgeons, i guess its time for people to recognise that and appreciate that.

 

As I said we are here to debate on a point, we are not here to judge someone's character.

 

If you will be biased in this forum then i guess you will be doing injustice to the people out there who will seek your openion about a surgeon. What about if I am the best option in this part of the world and you guide them to some one else, just because you do not agree with my openion on one subject and they get a bad result who's fault will it be?

 

You have the right to disagree with me.

 

I wish you a very good luck.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

For those that are not familiar with the terminology:

Loupes (often mistakenly spelled as "Loops") are nothing more than magnifiers of different types worn over the eyes. They are usually supported by an eyeglass frame or headband.

 

I have to agree with Dr. M that a clinic does not have to use microscopes to perform top quality results.

 

If a technician is adept at using loupes and is meticulous, they will cut grafts every bit as good as a microscope user. I learned this when I was transitioning my clinic from loupes to microscopes in 2000-2001. After all, grafts are not microscopic structures.

 

With that said, however, I use microscopes exclusively and do not allow the use of loupes and I will tell you why. It is much easier to train a new technician to cut high quality grafts using a microscope as compared to loops. Because you can see better under the scope and it is stationary it is easier for the trainee to develop the coordination to become an excellent cutter. The use of loupes, on the other hand, takes FAR more time and effort.

 

Another advantage of microscopes is that they are less punishing on the back and neck. With Mantis scopes (the only ones worth using in my opinion) the technician can sit straight up and not have to lean over. When performing many surgeries per week this ergonomic design makes the difference between a stiff neck and sore back.

 

Another advantage is quality control. I rig up my scopes with video cameras and digitally record how the technician disects the donor area. This is possible because the microscope is stationary, where as attaching a camera to a techs headband while using loupes is impractical. I know this because I tried it years ago. Just knowing their work is being recorded, technicians will always give it their best. If I notice that the number of grafts coming out of one technician's station is very different from the others I will analyze the video and find the problem. This is impossible for loupe using techs.

 

I think the biggest reasons clinics don't adopt scopes is because the transition from loupes is usually resisted by veteran staff and, of course, the expense. A good Mantis microscope with support accessories designed for the HT industry cost about $7,000 a piece. And any clinic worth its salt has at least 8 techs. That's a $56,000 investment plus another $14,000 for two back up scopes. Heavy investment, but well worth it.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

As matter of fact Im the one that was on your side when you got the scopes . Go back and look

My comments were based on all the little comments youve made recently and in the past .

Not just because of this laser discussion as Dr Feller has actually made you look a little silly.

At least you tried even though you started backpeddling faster then Lance Armstrong

With all the arrogance misdirections ,and erroneous claims surgical and non surgical,its hard to believe anything you say.

Yes from what I see on here your the best choices in Pakistan ,but there is a whole world out there

Sometimes being in the position your in, you would be better to show us results then post nonsense. Its insulting.

You say you do 3 surgeries a day but where are all these results you brag of?

By the way we here in US try and keep people away from doctors that try and do more then one surgery a day everyday. They are called mills.

You give a reason to recommend you then it will happen but 85% nonsensical jiberjaber and 15% of what were really looking for isnt going to get it done. Have a good day.

 

-----

Dr M Im going to go back and erase my post . It was a little harsh and we do need a good surgeon in Pakistan .

I would like to see more results and less complaining about the scopes though .

You can have all the views you want as you are entitled to that.

Just do me a favor and give Osama Bin Laden one of your laser brushes on the house .

Hopefully one of our UAVs will recongize the illumination in his cave and blow him into pieces

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Another advantage is quality control. I rig up my scopes with video cameras and digitally record how the technician disects the donor area.

 

This is something I never thought of but its something most clinics should think of doing .

I see some good doctors on here that dont get the consistent results compared to what we call the "top docs",

We all know that the techs are just as important if not more for a successful surgery and this is a way to make sure they stay focused.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear PGP

 

I do acknowledge the fact that you supported me. I apprciated that though in my heart.

 

All I am saying is please see the paper I have scanned and sent to Bill

 

Read that, If you all think that it has a chance just give it a chance.

 

I dont back track its a probem with the way we communicate, I try to express myself but when I see that the words has been taken in the wrong context I try to refrase that but my basic theme is same.

 

For example, I never believe to say I believe in woodoo but i also know that there are people who do, so I reffered to that, what happens i am branded to be the woodo believer and some one says that i will be the goat in this forum.

 

It breaks my heart that why people get so emotional on issues, in which they have difference of openion. If some one does not agree then he is a bad guy....

 

I do acknowledge that I have not done any study on LLLT, but my personal experience since 2004 has been mainly good. I use to buy them every time I would go to attened ISHR conference for patient who would order it, i would get it for 120US$ I would sell it for 200, this 80 US$ cause I would pay TAX, fraight and custom duties. so no big bucks for me. But I heard so many leading Icons in ISHRS who would speak high about it and have done the studies that I have mentioned.

 

Then my patients would refer their relatives and friends to buy it from me. and so on. its only this year when i have asked a company to import LLLT in Pakistan.

 

Dr Feller is just like those colleagues of mine. He is the only one who I know of that is opposing the use.

 

I respect him, like I respect others.

 

I will still ask you including Dr Feller to go through the paper that was presented and I would try to check if DR Marai has any disclosure about the LLLT.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Do you all know why am I still here defending

 

Cause I believe in it. The day I feel its not right I will stop.

 

for me hair trasplant is like my passion.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

there is a difference of economics in both countries.

 

I buy all my stuff for surgery from a-z, I buy it for same price if not more like any other US doctor.

I pay 65% tax etc on top.

 

Then the patients cannot pay more than 0.75 US$ per graft.

 

In this part of world we work about 10 hours a day. in my hands it takes me 1 to 1.5 hours to do my part of job, there is a team, each only specified for one surgery a day. So the tedious work of tech is limited to one surgery a day only.

 

I will show you lot more of my cases.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

I edited my post above Dr .

Do you think in Pakistan it might just be the fact how fancy those brushes look and people believe it has to work.

Not to downgrade your country but I have a nephew in the Marines and have seen hundreds of pics and the word hightech doesnt slap me in the face .

I mean if a martian came to me and brought an incredible looking laser Ive never seen before and said it would grow hair Id fall for it.

This isnt the first time we have been down this laser road on here and many other forums .

The general agreement for quite awhile now has been that lasers dont help and thats why there are so many emotions .

We are tired of being scammed.

[Guest]

Please grow Please , you crack me up