Questions About Hasson&Wong

[greatjob]

See -- now this is arguing with "passion" and KO basically proves one of my points about some proponents of propecia who do not want to hear counter arguments (there was another nastier comment that he edited out subsequently).

 

so eager to refute he did not even bother to read the paragraph properly. when i referred to patients with moderate loss told by (some) consultants to go on propecia , it was in a positive light , as it relates to those consultants since they are turning away a potential customer and $$

 

but the fact remains - propecia makes the doctors and consultants job easy by masking the true results of a hair transplant. and i am saying this as an advocate of hair transplants who has nothing but the highest regard for the doctors that did my procedures.

 

I'm not going to get involved in your and KO's argument, I understand both sides. I will say, however, it is my personal opinion that if someone has a large amount of native hair, but doesn't want to commit to being on fin long term, I don't consider them a candidate for a HT. If I was a surgeon I wouldn't operate on anyone in this situation. The risk is to high that the patient will end up losing a significant amount of hair and will not have the donor to keep up. Then they will be left with an unnatural balding pattern, my two cents

[KO]

I did read the paragraph carefully, about your point regarding "minor loss", but you conveniently forget that you went on complaining about "changing hormones" for "cosmetic reasons" and "accumulating toxicity". Really....cosmetic issues are not important? It's nothing but subtle trolling.

 

 

 

Even a NW7 starts off as minor loss. Anyways, there is no point arguing online about this. However, if you're in line for more hair loss down the line and you're not willing to take propecia, it would be foolish to get surgery done.

Edited May 3, 2013 by KO

[gasto]

No offence but... Can you subtract?

2009-2006 is 3 years, not 10.