Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Senior Member
I have finer hair and lower donor density, so for me if FUE was the only option I would not have opted for a hair transplant because I wouldn't have been able to obtain a sufficient amount of grafts.....if I chose to go with FUE I doubt I would have even been able to obtain 3000 grafts throughout my entire lifetime. for a large number of patients total donor availability is their biggest issue and for most of these patients FUE simply cant provide enough grafts over their lifetime. I believe I probably have a total of 7000-8000 donor grafts available to me via strip depending on how my laxity returns after each procedure. Whereas I would be lucky to get 3000 grafts in total from FUE alone which would not get me to where I need to be.

 

That's very interesting info.

Edited by Shampoo

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Senior Member

Mickey...have you noticed I and others really do not have a problem with the others?

 

No one wants you silenced.....look in the mirror dude.

 

You make outrageous statements that question the integrity, honestly, and motivations of the most highly recommended surgeons on this website.

 

Then you pretend to be the victim...people wanting you silenced...but it is you making outrageous unsubstaniated statements about doctor's integrity and motivations in regards to their patients that cause the uproar.

 

Look it's easy to see you are a smart guy. Probably a lot more book smart than I am....but you must realize the way you say things, the way you seem to be on a mission that "my facts make me right...Dr. Lindsey or whoever be damned" can cause problems with people. Realize people can study intelligently and arrive at different conclusions.

 

 

 

Notice that question came only after you question the integrity, honesty, and skill level of highly respected clinics and doctors recommended by this website.

 

You basically besmirch highly regarded doctors and question their integrity

because as you imply "well it's my way or the highway"...."my facts are right and the doctors not doing FUE are thus crooks or not skilled enough".

 

Think about it, you make demeaning unsubstantiated statements and maybe you will sometimes get counterpunched back. Is that a surprise? Bomb-throwers get bombs thrown back at them. That’s pretty much how life works. Bullies get punched back!

 

 

You have not demeaned anyone? Are you that blind and wrapped up in your own opinion that you can’t see the insulting claims you have made about these highly respected doctors and their clinics?

 

What do you call implying that highly respected doctors on this website steer their patients away from FUE, or dont offer FUE simply for financial reasons? Basically implying that FUT doctors know that FUE is better, but they dont care and just wanna make money off unknowing patients. That's insulting dude...can you not see that?

 

Or that these doctors just lack surgical skills and ability? That's not demeaning?

 

Do you not see that you assume the worst about people/doctors if they arrive at a different conclusion than you?

 

Can you comprehend that many of these doctors may have studied the issue and concluded FUT is an over-all superior procedure?

 

Many of these highly esteemed doctors have chosen FUT over FUE for their patients. Is it possible to arrive at an educated different conclusion than you and it not be because of some questionable motivation like financial reasons?

 

I will reply to this soon but thank you for being concise and i more civil this time around. Thats all i ask for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Mickey...have you noticed I and others really do not have a problem with the others?

 

No one wants you silenced.....look in the mirror dude.

 

You make outrageous statements that question the integrity, honestly, and motivations of the most highly recommended surgeons on this website.

 

Then you pretend to be the victim...people wanting you silenced...but it is you making outrageous unsubstaniated statements about doctor's integrity and motivations in regards to their patients that cause the uproar.

 

Look it's easy to see you are a smart guy. Probably a lot more book smart than I am....but you must realize the way you say things, the way you seem to be on a mission that "my facts make me right...Dr. Lindsey or whoever be damned" can cause problems with people. Realize people can study intelligently and arrive at different conclusions.

 

 

 

Notice that question came only after you question the integrity, honesty, and skill level of highly respected clinics and doctors recommended by this website.

 

You basically besmirch highly regarded doctors and question their integrity

because as you imply "well it's my way or the highway"...."my facts are right and the doctors not doing FUE are thus crooks or not skilled enough".

 

Think about it, you make demeaning unsubstantiated statements and maybe you will sometimes get counterpunched back. Is that a surprise? Bomb-throwers get bombs thrown back at them. That’s pretty much how life works. Bullies get punched back!

 

 

You have not demeaned anyone? Are you that blind and wrapped up in your own opinion that you can’t see the insulting claims you have made about these highly respected doctors and their clinics?

 

What do you call implying that highly respected doctors on this website steer their patients away from FUE, or dont offer FUE simply for financial reasons? Basically implying that FUT doctors know that FUE is better, but they dont care and just wanna make money off unknowing patients. That's insulting dude...can you not see that?

 

Or that these doctors just lack surgical skills and ability? That's not demeaning?

 

Do you not see that you assume the worst about people/doctors if they arrive at a different conclusion than you?

 

Can you comprehend that many of these doctors may have studied the issue and concluded FUT is an over-all superior procedure?

 

Many of these highly esteemed doctors have chosen FUT over FUE for their patients. Is it possible to arrive at an educated different conclusion than you and it not be because of some questionable motivation like financial reasons?

 

I will try and be as polite and precise as I can here.

 

I never said Lindsey knows FUE is a superior procedure champ, never. I said "I believe FUE to be a superior procedure". What I meant about Lindsey(and others) is that they have not become adept to FUE as surgeons like Lorenzo, Bisanga, Feriduni etc hence why they recommend FUT over FUE. I never said Lindsey knows FUE is better but sticks to FUT anyway. I do believe commerce and good results are a factor for doctors like Lindsey, Feller etc because the two factors are tied together. Good results equals good word of mouth equals more revenue. There is no escaping that. Surgeons like Lindsey stick to FUT because it is tried and true. Now this is where I have a problem(and subsequently you guys have a problem with me), I believe surgeons should become more adept to FUE because it has less drawbacks than FUE. The results will suffer initially because it is a new skill to them but if Docs like Lorenzo, Bisanga, Erdogan, Umar, Feriduni etc can learn FUE at a top tier level, why can't Docs like Lindsey, Feller etc? They could gradually built up to it by performing small cases and moving up to higher Norwoods slowly but I have not seen any evidence of this sadly, in fact I see a regression of less and less FUE cases in general from them.

 

That is my problem with the FUT dominant clinics. You may prefer FUT which is fine, I have never demeaned a patient for choosing FUT(that is what I meant) but I call out any surgeon anytime I see something amiss. I have been vocal about Lorenzo(my favorite FUE surgeon) for his insanely high UK prices, I have been vocal about Bhatti's(another FUE surgeon) ridiculous claims of less than 2% transection. It's not just about FUT and FUE, I just don't believe that surgeons(recommended or not, FUE or not) are infallible my friend. Some stories that patients of recommended surgeons have told me made me sick to my stomach, I wish I could share them but it's not my place.

 

Again, I stick by my comment of certain surgeons steering people to the procedure they perform best, the one that gets them the better results. But I have a problem when a surgeon simply says "FUT is more consistent". If the surgeon simply said "I get much better results from FUT" I would not have a problem at all. But when they downplay a whole technique when there are others who perform FUE at the same standard as FUT, I see a problem.

 

I have heard a myriad of excuses from FUT docs regarding FUE and most of it did not hold water. At first it was "FUE is like plugs but smaller" back in 2001. Then it was "FUE has too much transection". Then it was "FUE is only good for small cases at best". Then it was "Lorenzo only can treat Spanish patients because of the donor density(even though he was achieving it via 4,000-6,000 grafts which most patients can reach). Its those kind of statements that have made me cautious and aware of an apprehension to FUE by FUT clinics. I did not conjure this 'quest' or this conspiracy out of thin air. I did not wake up one day and think "Lindsey is against FUE!!!".

 

Where you think I mean "These surgeons lack the skills for FUE" I actually mean "These surgeons have not taken the time to become adept to FUE", that is not demeaning at all, it is a statement of fact. Maybe they aren't interested in FUE, but it doesn't change that they have not become adept to it. If they did have the skill to perform FUE at a top level we would be seeing Lorenzo-like results from North American doctors weekly, but we are not. You assume I demean surgeons but I just call certain things out. Demeaning someone You also assume the worst of me in that manner as we are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

I hope this clears some of my perspective for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
I don't know if I would make a blanket statement like that, but I do have similar views. If a patient has freakishly high density then FUE could possibly yield enough grafts over the patients lifetime to keep up with their loss.

 

My case is a prime example of why strip is now and will always be (until hair multiplication is a reality) a better option for a lot of patients. I started losing my hair pretty much as soon a puberty set in, and I have advanced loss. I have finer hair and lower donor density, so for me if FUE was the only option I would not have opted for a hair transplant because I wouldn't have been able to obtain a sufficient amount of grafts. However because I have very good laxity I have been able to obtain a little over 4000 grafts in total so far with more in reserve, if I chose to go with FUE I doubt I would have even been able to obtain 3000 grafts throughout my entire lifetime.

 

I feel like a broken record at this point, but for a large number of patients total donor availability is their biggest issue and for most of these patients FUE simply cant provide enough grafts over their lifetime. I believe I probably have a total of 7000-8000 donor grafts available to me via strip depending on how my laxity returns after each procedure. Whereas I would be lucky to get 3000 grafts in total from FUE alone which would not get me to where I need to be.

 

I think the Strip scar argument is similar to the propecia side effects argument. People who have had a bad strip experience think all the doctors performing strip are crooks and butchers who mutilate patients and think the procedure should be banned, while people with a positive strip experience think those people are fear mongers who over react because their scar is a complete non-issue. Just like people with propecia side effects think Merck is an evil empire that hides the facts about the drug and suppresses any future treatments, whereas people with no sides think those people are crazy. With both cases the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but all you ever hear is the two most extreme ends of the spectrum, and honestly it is becoming exhausting.

 

That is a great post greatjob.

2 poor unsatisfactory hair transplants performed in the UK.

 

Based on vast research and meeting patients, I travelled to see Dr Feller in New York to get repaired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
I don't know if I would make a blanket statement like that, but I do have similar views. If a patient has freakishly high density then FUE could possibly yield enough grafts over the patients lifetime to keep up with their loss.

 

My case is a prime example of why strip is now and will always be (until hair multiplication is a reality) a better option for a lot of patients. I started losing my hair pretty much as soon a puberty set in, and I have advanced loss. I have finer hair and lower donor density, so for me if FUE was the only option I would not have opted for a hair transplant because I wouldn't have been able to obtain a sufficient amount of grafts. However because I have very good laxity I have been able to obtain a little over 4000 grafts in total so far with more in reserve, if I chose to go with FUE I doubt I would have even been able to obtain 3000 grafts throughout my entire lifetime.

 

I feel like a broken record at this point, but for a large number of patients total donor availability is their biggest issue and for most of these patients FUE simply cant provide enough grafts over their lifetime. I believe I probably have a total of 7000-8000 donor grafts available to me via strip depending on how my laxity returns after each procedure. Whereas I would be lucky to get 3000 grafts in total from FUE alone which would not get me to where I need to be.

 

I think the Strip scar argument is similar to the propecia side effects argument. People who have had a bad strip experience think all the doctors performing strip are crooks and butchers who mutilate patients and think the procedure should be banned, while people with a positive strip experience think those people are fear mongers who over react because their scar is a complete non-issue. Just like people with propecia side effects think Merck is an evil empire that hides the facts about the drug and suppresses any future treatments, whereas people with no sides think those people are crazy. With both cases the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but all you ever hear is the two most extreme ends of the spectrum, and honestly it is becoming exhausting.

 

You make some great points. I'm sure I've said this before but you generally can get more grafts out of FUT than FUE(unless you opt for both) and I never argue otherwise. But I don't think strip surgeons are crooks or butchers. My main problem for FUT itself is that the scar result is unpredictable even in the best hands. FUT clinics(and composite clinics) always boast about the state of the art dual layer trico closure that produces a fine scar but when it stretches they blame the patient physiology. That I have a problem with as it is rarely, if ever, stated that patient physiology is a factor until after the fact. It's the same with FUE and FUT surgeons claiming a ridiculous 2% transection rate on their websites when it is anything but. Or FUE surgeons(like one recommended on here) still claiming on his Youtube videos that FUE is scar-free...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
You make some great points. I'm sure I've said this before but you generally can get more grafts out of FUT than FUE(unless you opt for both) and I never argue otherwise. But I don't think strip surgeons are crooks or butchers. My main problem for FUT itself is that the scar result is unpredictable even in the best hands. FUT clinics(and composite clinics) always boast about the state of the art dual layer trico closure that produces a fine scar but when it stretches they blame the patient physiology. That I have a problem with as it is rarely, if ever, stated that patient physiology is a factor until after the fact. It's the same with FUE and FUT surgeons claiming a ridiculous 2% transection rate on their websites when it is anything but. Or FUE surgeons(like one recommended on here) still claiming on his Youtube videos that FUE is scar-free...

 

Yeah mickey I dont disagree with anything you said here, and I definitely was not refering to you in my post as crazy fear mongers and crooks or butchers or anything. My problem is when people reccomend a procedure without sufficient information, whether it be FUE or strip. There are a ton of factors to consider when recommending a HT plan and without assessing all of those factors its pretty much impossible to give a recommendation, and usually when i see that I step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Hehehe oh I knew you weren't referring to me, but some people may see me as exactly that and I wanted to further clear up my sentiments in what my problem with FUT exactly is. I do think FUE has less drawbacks but that doesn't mean FUE physicians are infallible or free of human traits either, nor does it mean FUE is a perfect method. Just elaborating for those that might want to know what I'm about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
anybody thats a norwood 4 and up needs to do FUT, that we can all agree on , yes?

 

Never!

Not for me. The less hair you have, the less you need a strip scar.

 

But on e matter of getting robust growth and fast dramatic results, a big strip gives it to you.

 

Seriously, my feeling is that you will never have enough grafts, so don't max it if you are already so far behind. Think geometry, hairlines...angles etc, but not BIG hair.

 

Thats my take. For me it is too late. I am a hypocrite cause right now I am going for the illusion with density..but still.

 

I don't think these are pissing matches at all, though it is somewhat tempting to react to people, who, in good faith, swallow the whole story from docs and reps without ever asking themselves, that there may have been a time, when e same arguments were being made viz-a-viz the merits of strip vs scalp reduction, or mini-grafts vs FUs etc..

 

Of course, the forum needs 'balance' so I am happy to say, horses for courses...but the wheel keeps turning anyway.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Surgeons like Lindsey stick to FUT because it is tried and true. I believe surgeons should become more adept to FUE because it has less drawbacks than FUT.

 

But see there you go again. You assume the surgeons should know, or do know that "FUE has less drawbacks than FUT"....like that is a scientific statement of fact.....that is your opinion....you may think it is fact, but obviously after careful study these highly esteemed surgeons may disagree with that conclusion.

 

The results will suffer initially because it is a new skill to them

 

Why should these surgeons make their patients suffer "intially" by trying a new skill that they don't believe in or think is a better procedure?

 

It's not just about FUT and FUE, I just don't believe that surgeons(recommended or not, FUE or not) are infallible my friend.

 

Straw-man......I never said or even implied any surgeons are infallible. I do think some surgeons have an outstanding record and achieve outstanding results more often than not. Most of these surgeons are highly educated, passionate doctors that literally are changing people's lives. I studied the doctors, saw outstanding results, chose my doctor, then put my trust in that doctor, and now feel I got outstanding results. I don't feel Dr. Wong is infallible, but at some point after study the patient must place trust in his doctor, the doctor's skill, experience, and knowledge in hair transplant surgery.

 

Some stories that patients of recommended surgeons have told me made me sick to my stomach, I wish I could share them but it's not my place.

 

I can't comment on hearsay....in fact it is somewhat worthless to demean "recommended surgeons" without naming anyone in particular or presenting a single specific fact of the cases. We know nothing about what patients or what doctors you refer to, yet you claim the results were so bad from a recommended surgeon on this website that it made you sick? What if I said "I have heard complete horror stories about some recommended FUE doctors, but I won't name any names". Come on dude be honest....you would utterly dismiss a claim like that unless I was more specific.

 

Where you think I mean "These surgeons lack the skills for FUE" I actually mean "These surgeons have not taken the time to become adept to FUE", that is not demeaning at all, it is a statement of fact. Maybe they aren't interested in FUE, but it doesn't change that they have not become adept to it.

 

Mickey...it is in a way demeaning, because you again assume "the surgeons just haven't taken the time". Does it occur to you that maybe they did take the time to really study FUE vs FUT and do not agree with you that FUE is a superior procedure?

 

Different approaches in most industries are actually quite common. For example there are probably different approaches to foot surgery. I've had foot problems. Some doctors use a method that others do not. Medicine is almost never an exact science, it is always evolving. It was evolving 20 years ago, it is evolving now, and will be evolving 20 years from today. Obviosuly some of these highly educated successful doctors have honestly concluded that FUE is not the better route for their patients at this time, not because they "haven't taken the time", but because they did take the time to study it and came to a different conclusion.

Edited by Shampoo

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
But see there you go again. You assume the surgeons should know, or do know that "FUE has less drawbacks than FUT"....like that is a scientific statement of fact.....that is your opinion....you may think it is fact, but obviously after careful study these highly esteemed surgeons may disagree with that conclusion.

 

 

 

Why should these surgeons make their patients suffer "intially" by trying a new skill that they don't believe in or think is a better procedure?

 

 

 

Straw-man......I never said or even implied any surgeons are infallible. I do think some surgeons have an outstanding record and achieve outstanding results more often than not. Most of these surgeons are highly educated, passionate doctors that literally are changing people's lives. I studied the doctors, saw outstanding results, chose my doctor, then put my trust in that doctor, and now feel I got outstanding results. I don't feel Dr. Wong is infallible, but at some point after study the patient must place trust in his doctor, the doctor's skill, experience, and knowledge in hair transplant surgery.

 

 

 

I can't comment on hearsay....in fact it is somewhat worthless to demean "recommended surgeons" without naming anyone in particular or presenting a single specific fact of the cases. We know nothing about what patients or what doctors you refer to, yet you claim the results were so bad from a recommended surgeon on this website that it made you sick? What if I said "I have heard complete horror stories about some recommended FUE doctors, but I won't name any names". Come on dude be honest....you would utterly dismiss a claim like that unless I was more specific.

 

 

 

Mickey...it is in a way demeaning, because you again assume "the surgeons just haven't taken the time". Does it occur to you that maybe they did take the time to really study FUE vs FUT and do not agree with you that FUE is a superior procedure?

 

Different approaches in most industries are actually quite common. For example there are probably different approaches to foot surgery. I've had foot problems. Some doctors use a method that others do not. Medicine is almost never an exact science, it is always evolving. It was evolving 20 years ago, it is evolving now, and will be evolving 20 years from today. Obviosuly some of these highly educated successful doctors have honestly concluded that FUE is not the better route for their patients at this time, not because they "haven't taken the time", but because they did take the time to study it and came to a different conclusion.

 

I'm not too savvy on the multi-quotes(I should learn though) but I'll address things in paragraphs, it might be slightly inconvenient for you.

 

In regards to me stating FUE has less drawbacks as a fact. I ask you, in terms of quantity, does FUE not offer less drawbacks than strip? Either you agree or disagree. You can look at my thread and tell me which ones you disagree with. Of course they are potential drawbacks that might only happen in 1 in 10 cases, but the theory is still the same. I was fair to put down trivial things like having to shave ones head for FUE as a disadvantage and I declined to put down the use of body hair meaning FUE has more grafts than FUT. In terms of quantity, FUE does have less drawbacks. Maybe alot of the drawbacks are trivial to the patient, but they still are inherent in strip surgery itself. Maybe the surgeons get much better yield via strip but it does not negate that, one for one, FUE has less drawbacks(again some minimal, some not).

 

Results might suffer initially because they are new to FUE. They can overcome this by offering smaller sessions at a reduced rate, test sessions, small pro bono sessions etc. Umar had to start somewhere. Lorenzo had to start somewhere. Medicine, science and surgery evolve. There would be no progress if everyone stuck to what was tried and true.

 

Sometimes it does sound like you think surgeons are infallible. When you tell someone to trust and listen to a surgeon, that is giving that individuals power entirely to the surgeon. I'm all for a patient doing thorough and extensive research, narrowing down his choices to a method and a few surgeons, consulting with each and deciding on one and THEN trusting a surgeon. But you often make it as if the individual should trust a surgeon right off the bat.

 

In terms of the "makes me sick" comment, it was not in regard to results champ. No doctor bats 100%. It had more to do with what happens after a unsatisfactory result. I also never mentioned if they were FUE or FUT docs. In fact, the worst story I had heard of was of a composite 25/75 FUE/FUT surgeon. It wasn't about results and it wasn't about FUT and FUE. It was about how surgeons(even recommended ones) are not saints all the time.

 

Maybe it is demeaning Shampoo, but maybe it is true. If the surgeons have not taken the time, then they have not taken the time to perfect or master FUE. It is not an insult at all. Skill and ability are too different things. If I said "Dr X does not have the ability to perform good FUE" that would be an insult as a lack of ability implies that he cannot perform it regardless of his training. Skill is a measure of current ability. I do believe FUE can be mastered via training and practice. If a surgeon has not taken the time to master FUE, that is his choice, for whatever reason. But it is not an insult or purposely demeaning for me to mention that.

 

Medicine, science and cosmetic surgery are all leaning toward less invasive methods. Facelifts have turned into injections and chemical peels. Open rhinoplasty turned into closed rhinoplasty, several major surgeries are now key-hole surgeries. You are right in that different approaches are common, I just believe that less invasive procedures are more appealing and of more benefit to the patient. I know FUE in general does not yield as well as strip, but FUE has improved significantly in the last 3-4 years and the reasons against it back then are not valid now, especially for minimal norwood 1-3 loss. My opinion. I had a bad procedure with a renowned strip surgeon and sustained all the drawbacks from strip. Now strip has given many many people amazing results. But if I sustained the drawbacks from it from a highly regarded surgeon, then what makes everyone else immune? It's the unpredictability of the drawbacks and difficultly in repairing those said drawbacks that I have an issue with.

 

This is a cool debate. See I'm not too bad when things are civil. I know I'm not going to turn you into changing your opinions but it shows people what I'm about, good, bad and ugly.

Edited by Mickey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
In regards to me stating FUE has less drawbacks as a fact. I ask you, in terms of quantity, does FUE not offer less drawbacks than strip? Either you agree or disagree.

 

Mickey to be honest I feel I am in no way able to in any real sense argue pro/con the intricate medical and surgical protocols of hair transplant surgery. I can't intelligently answer a question like that. No more than I could answer what is the definitive "best way" to remove a kidney stone when there are multiple options and even doctors/urologists do not agree on what is the "best option".

 

I am a patient, not a doctor. Yes I studied hair transplant surgery as best as I could from a layman's point of view and studied detailed patient reviews of certain doctors. Next I "hired" a highly educacted, highly skilled, highly rated, experienced surgeon to perform surgery on me.

 

Just like when I hire a computer programmer to fix something at my company, I choose one with a great reputation, with references, and one I have good chemisty with. I certainly could not begin to understand every detail of which codes to write languages are the best. When I hire a plumber, or HVAC guy....I look for the best, look at reviews, check BBB, then hire one. I don't go up into the attic with the HVAC guy and discuss the plus or minus factor of using certain instruments he uses.

 

It is the same with hair transplant surgeons. Do you really think that you or I have the medical background to sit down with someone like Dr. Feller and discuss the intricate details of surgery the way he would with fellow doctors?

 

Do you feel like you would be capable of teaching other doctors how to perform FUT or FUE surgery like these doctors can that we are discussing? And please understand that I am not trying to put you down, but it is a way of showing how as patients we can certainly study and ask good questions, but at a certain point we must place our trust in a doctor that knows a hell of a lot more about medical science than we do.

 

you often make it as if the individual should trust a surgeon right off the bat..

 

Vs what?

I certainly would trust Dr. Feller's opinion over your's sight unseen.

Don't you think most logical people would?

How many patients do you think would trust your opinion on FUT vs FUE

over say Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Arocha, Dr. Hasson, Dr. Wong, or Dr. Feller?

The doctors have a reputation that can be quantified.

Anonymous message board posters do not.

That's not a slam on you, it is reality.

 

Note: I studied and visited with several doctors, several patients for over a year before choosing my doctor, so I am in no way a "right off the bat" type guy.

 

In terms of the "makes me sick" comment, it was not in regard to results champ.

 

Ok fair enough, but that was certainly not clear in your earlier statement.

 

 

If a surgeon has not taken the time to master FUE, that is his choice, for whatever reason. But it is not an insult or purposely demeaning for me to mention that.

 

It is if it leaves an impression that "he should have taken the the time to master FUE". Why should a surgeon "take the time" to master something that he/she investigated and concluded is not a superior procedure?

 

Plus I believe you have stated there are only two FUE surgeons in North America that you could highly recommend. Do you really feel all the hair surgeons in North America except two are wrong and you are right? Do you not think those doctors have examined and investigated FUT/FUE and come to a different conclusion than you about the pros/cons of the procedure itself?

 

I just believe that less invasive procedures are more appealing and of more benefit to the patient.

 

Again, I am not a doctor or a surgeon so I can not speak as to whether or not all surgeons feel FUE is less invasive, but even if it is, "less invasive" is not always "better" or as successful.

 

I had a bad procedure with a renowned strip surgeon and sustained all the drawbacks from strip. Now strip has given many many people amazing results. But if I sustained the drawbacks from it from a highly regarded surgeon, then what makes everyone else immune? It's the unpredictability of the drawbacks and difficultly in repairing those said drawbacks that I have an issue with.

 

Who was the renowed surgeon that you feel resulted in a "bad procedure"?

Do you not think "bad results" happen in a some FUE surgeries?

If some FUE turn out bad, does that make FUE "unpredictable" as well?

If a FUE turns out bad, then what makes everyone else immune?

 

This is a cool debate. See I'm not too bad when things are civil. I know I'm not going to turn you into changing your opinions but it shows people what I'm about, good, bad and ugly.

 

I agree. I think you well informed, you mean well and are very passionate about what you believe in. But I think you tend to....probably unintentionally....paint broad brushes and make assumptions about some very highly skilled doctors because of your own personal experience and passion for what you feel is the injustice in your result. Of course we all come with our own preconceived notions and experiences. Heck I might feel different had I suffered a bad result as you state you experienced.

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Mickey to be honest I feel I am in no way able to in any real sense argue pro/con the intricate medical and surgical protocols of hair transplant surgery. I can't intelligently answer a question like that. No more than I could answer what is the definitive "best way" to remove a kidney stone when there are multiple options and even doctors/urologists do not agree on what is the "best option".

 

I am a patient, not a doctor. Yes I studied hair transplant surgery as best as I could from a layman's point of view and studied detailed patient reviews of certain doctors. Next I "hired" a highly educacted, highly skilled, highly rated, experienced surgeon to perform surgery on me.

 

Just like when I hire a computer programmer to fix something at my company, I choose one with a great reputation, with references, and one I have good chemisty with. I certainly could not begin to understand every detail of which codes to write languages are the best. When I hire a plumber, or HVAC guy....I look for the best, look at reviews, check BBB, then hire one. I don't go up into the attic with the HVAC guy and discuss the plus or minus factor of using certain instruments he uses.

 

It is the same with hair transplant surgeons. Do you really think that you or I have the medical background to sit down with someone like Dr. Feller and discuss the intricate details of surgery the way he would with fellow doctors?

 

Do you feel like you would be capable of teaching other doctors how to perform FUT or FUE surgery like these doctors can that we are discussing? And please understand that I am not trying to put you down, but it is a way of showing how as patients we can certainly study and ask good questions, but at a certain point we must place our trust in a doctor that knows a hell of a lot more about medical science than we do.

 

 

 

Vs what?

I certainly would trust Dr. Feller's opinion over your's sight unseen.

Don't you think most logical people would?

How many patients do you think would trust your opinion on FUT vs FUE

over say Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Arocha, Dr. Hasson, Dr. Wong, or Dr. Feller?

The doctors have a reputation that can be quantified.

Anonymous message board posters do not.

That's not a slam on you, it is reality.

 

Note: I studied and visited with several doctors, several patients for over a year before choosing my doctor, so I am in no way a "right off the bat" type guy.

 

 

 

Ok fair enough, but that was certainly not clear in your earlier statement.

 

 

 

 

It is if it leaves an impression that "he should have taken the the time to master FUE". Why should a surgeon "take the time" to master something that he/she investigated and concluded is not a superior procedure?

 

Plus I believe you have stated there are only two FUE surgeons in North America that you could highly recommend. Do you really feel all the hair surgeons in North America except two are wrong and you are right? Do you not think those doctors have examined and investigated FUT/FUE and come to a different conclusion than you about the pros/cons of the procedure itself?

 

 

 

Again, I am not a doctor or a surgeon so I can not speak as to whether or not all surgeons feel FUE is less invasive, but even if it is, "less invasive" is not always "better" or as successful.

 

 

 

Who was the renowed surgeon that you feel resulted in a "bad procedure"?

Do you not think "bad results" happen in a some FUE surgeries?

If some FUE turn out bad, does that make FUE "unpredictable" as well?

If a FUE turns out bad, then what makes everyone else immune?

 

 

 

I agree. I think you well informed, you mean well and are very passionate about what you believe in. But I think you tend to....probably unintentionally....paint broad brushes and make assumptions about some very highly skilled doctors because of your own personal experience and passion for what you feel is the injustice in your result. Of course we all come with our own preconceived notions and experiences. Heck I might feel different had I suffered a bad result as you state you experienced.

 

You keep talking about North American surgeons knowing better than I do. That's fine. But if you believe all the US doctors have looked into FUE as much as Lorenzo, Umar, Erdogan, Esey, Demisroy, De Reys and Hakan have? Then where are the results? Where are the plethora of FUE results from Hasson and Wong, Feller, Arocha, Lindsey etc? The difference is those FUE surgeons LEFT strip behind(that's a fact) or didn't learn it altogether(Umar) and went for FUE. I wonder why? Given that they cannot perform 5,000 graft sessions the financial side would not be as lucrative as one might imagine.

 

Please, now you are putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say people should listen SOLELY to me? I'm for people listening to their own conscience after they have thoroughly researched. I would certainly prefer that than listening to a rep. I don't believe in listening to surgeons for direction though. Sorry.

 

Why should a surgeon take the time to master FUE? Because doctors around the world have been getting consistent and almost on par results with fewer severe drawbacks. I recommend doctors based on their current talents. If that means I only recommend 2 in North America, then that is what it is. Are Bisanga, Feriduni, Lorenzo, De Reys, Erdogan, Hakan, Eser, Umar, Mwamba wrong in performing FUE then? The difference is that those docs moved on from FUT(although some still perform it) and learnt FUE(a newer method) and the North American surgeons have predominantly stayed with FUT for the most part. It isn't about right or wrong. It's about progressing. FUT does yield great results but FUE can yield great results and be better for the patient.

 

 

I'm not going to talk about my surgeon. My complications were from the FUT scar which is exclusive to FUT. I did have bad yield also but that can happen with FUE, I have never claimed otherwise. My issue is the unpredictability of the scar stretching. Bad yield can occur from both FUE and FUT but stretched scar is exclusive to FUT. My main concern is the scar of FUT turning bad. Something that is not inherent in FUE.

 

Again, everyone is free to make up their own mind.

Edited by Mickey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Where are the plethora of FUE results from Hasson and Wong, Feller,

Arocha, Lindsey etc?

 

Maybe they investigated it and obviously did not like what they saw.

So why would there be results from something they were not interested in?

 

Given that they cannot perform 5,000 graft sessions the financial side would not be as lucrative as one might imagine.

 

So again you state it's about greed/money?

Some of the very best surgeons recommended on this site do FUT because they make more money

and are not interested in what is really best for their patients?

It's gotta be greed if they dont agree with Mickey?

Gotta be sinister?...not scientific conclusion?

 

Please, now you are putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say people should listen SOLELY to me? .

 

Mickey...you never said that, nor did I say you said that.

 

I used a hypothetical to show that you as a message board poster

do not have the medical education, or medical reputation to

be on par with the highly esteemed doctors this forum recommends that believe FUT is the way to go for the vast majority of patients. These doctors and patients may feel it is worth the small risk of a poor scar to save what can amount to a large sum of money over several procedures and get what they feel is a better use of their donor area.

 

 

Doctors around the world have been getting consistent and almost on par results with fewer severe drawbacks. If that means I only recommend 2 in North America, then that is what it is..

 

But Mickey that's "Almost on par" for a lot more money.

Most guys are barely able to afford transplant surgey as it is,

and now you suggest they spend significantly more money

for something that is "almost as good"?

How many patients would choose not

even having surgery if the only choice was much more expensive FUE

and only two surgeons in North America?

 

Are Bisanga, Feriduni, Lorenzo, De Reys, Erdogan, Hakan, Eser, Umar, Mwamba wrong in performing FUE then? .

 

No.....it's what they feel is best.

Other highly educated medical opinions do not agree that it is best.

It is what it is.

 

The difference is that those docs moved on and the North American surgeons have predominantly stayed with FUT for the most part. It isn't about right or wrong. It's about progressing.

 

But if doctors as respected as Dr. Hasson, Dr Lindsey, and many other doctors feel FUE at this date is not the progression you and a few

other doctors do, then I assume that's why they remain with the "Gold Standard" of hair transplantation.

 

I'm not going to talk about my surgeon

 

Are you afraid if you did, that the doctor or their rep may divulge facts

about your case that you would rather keep hidden?

 

The only reason I ask this is you seem to cast indirect aspersions on some highly recommended doctors on this site...to the point that the results are sometimes "sickening" but then you refuse to talk specifics and name names, Then you also talk about your sub-par results but refuse to name the doctor. Why if it is such an important issue are you afraid to be fully transparent?

Edited by Shampoo

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Maybe they investigated it and obviously did not like what they saw.

So why would there be results from something they were not interested in?

 

 

 

So again you state it's about greed/money?

Some of the very best surgeons recommended on this site do FUT because they make more money

and are not interested in what is really best for their patients?

It's gotta be greed if they dont agree with Mickey?

Gotta be sinister?...not scientific conclusion?

 

 

 

Mickey...you never said that, nor did I say you said that.

 

I used a hypothetical to show that you as a message board poster

do not have the medical education, or medical reputation to

be on par with the highly esteemed doctors this forum recommends that believe FUT is the way to go for the vast majority of patients. These doctors and patients may feel it is worth the small risk of a poor scar to save what can amount to a large sum of money over several procedures and get what they feel is a better use of their donor area.

 

 

 

 

But Mickey that's "Almost on par" for a lot more money.

Most guys are barely able to afford transplant surgey as it is,

and now you suggest they spend significantly more money

for something that is "almost as good"?

How many patients would choose not

even having surgery if the only choice was much more expensive FUE

and only two surgeons in North America?

 

 

 

No.....it's what they feel is best.

Other highly educated medical opinions do not agree that it is best.

It is what it is.

 

 

 

But if doctors as respected as Dr. Hasson, Dr Lindsey, and many other doctors feel FUE at this date is not the progression you and a few

other doctors do, then I assume that's why they remain with the "Gold Standard" of hair transplantation.

 

 

 

Are you afraid if you did, that the doctor or their rep may divulge facts

about your case that you would rather keep hidden?

 

The only reason I ask this is you seem to cast indirect aspersions on some highly recommended doctors on this site...to the point that the results are sometimes "sickening" but then you refuse to talk specifics and name names, Then you also talk about your sub-par results but refuse to name the doctor. Why if it is such an important issue are you afraid to be fully transparent?

 

They don't like what they saw? Did they not like that is was less invasive? Did they not like that the patient had less downtime after a procedure? Did they not like that the patient can resume physical activity much faster? These some of the many benefits of FUE that cannot be disputed. If they simply did not like FUE because it takes alot of time to master, then that's fine but does not negate it from being better for the patient.

 

You are seeing what you want to see. I was referring to the notion of FUE-exclusive surgeons ditching FUT because FUE is more dollars per graft. Please read things more carefully. I simply said the financial side may not be as lucrative as one might imagine. Nothing to do with greed or FUT surgeons. Read things over more than once. Of course you see it how you want and say I think they are sinister. I stating the reasons FUE surgeons ditched FUT were not purely financial. Geez.

 

I do not have the medical knowledge of a physician? Gee wizz, you split the atom there. It's not only about the scar. FUT can(can) cause permanent numbness and tingling in the donor area. FUT changes the direction of hair flow because it cuts a section of scalp out and closes two foreign areas together. FUT disrupts the hair caliber and grouping gradation. The trico closure causes mis-angled hairs. The sutures used can result in the traintrack effect and kill hair through the sutures. If I know this, then FUT surgeons definitely know this. How come they never mention this factors? Where is the informed consent? FUE avoids ALL those factors.

 

I can understand that FUE is expensive buddy, it really is. I even listed it as a disadvantage to FUE even though it is not inherent in the method itself. Do I wish it were cheaper? Hell yes. I don't think FUE surgeons are doing anyone favors by charging almost double the price of FUT. However the patient is not just spending much more money on something that is almost as good. They are spending more money on a procedure that is much more minimally invasive(FUT cuts out a centimeter or so of deep tissue), on a procedure that will let them continue sports and weights after 10 days, on a procedure that has less downtime, on a procedure that doesn't have the potential for scar strecthing. Etc etc. I really see what you mean here and I wish the cost was not a factor. But there are issues with FUT that are avoided with FUE, so to me the cost is justified. It's up to each individual to see if the cost is worth it to them.

 

I can't mention my Doctor for a few reasons, PM me if you want to know some details. It really isn't to hide anything about myself or to allow me to bad mouth FUT. The issues I sustained from my FUT surgery involved a stretched scar, change in hair caliber gradation and permanent numbness. Even if I didn't sustain this issues, they still can occur in FUT. Or do you deny that? You don't even know if my surgeon is recommended or not, so it isn't necessarily a jab at recommended surgeons here. And I NEVER said I find some recommended surgeons 'results' sickening. Only the after care or when how a failed case is handled. Some stories of those situations I have found sickening. Again stop seeing what you want to see.

Edited by Mickey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Docs and reps are humble and frank in different ways according to at what level of the information/business matrix you encounter them...and at what stage of history we are at.. just as I am sure, we, as patients and potential patients, change and bend in all sorts of ways as we approach and respond to all the slips and slides along the journey.

Many a time I have read docs downplay shock loss (some patients, etc., sometimes etc.,) only for them to firmly tell me they won't touch my crown cause they don't want to kill the pissy little finery I got still hanging on there.

Just trying to say, the marketing end of the stick is definitely carved into a different shape than the surgical end..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
"And I NEVER said I find some recommended surgeons 'results' sickening"

 

Oh really?

 

 

"Some stories that patients of recommended surgeons have told me made me sick to my stomach, I wish I could share them but it's not my place"

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Oh really?

 

Can you read my friend? Where did I say "results"???? I said stories as in the post op care or what happens when there is a failed case. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Can you read my friend? Where did I say "results"???? I said stories as in the post op care or what happens when there is a failed case. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

 

So a failed case is not about results?

Kind of like "define is".

Keep digging a deeper hole!

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
So a failed case is not about results?

Kind of like "define is".

Keep digging a deeper hole!

 

How a failed case is handled my friend. Keep seeing what you want to see. I had a good laugh. Here it is again for you:

 

'And I NEVER said I find some recommended surgeons 'results' sickening. Only the after care or when how a failed case is handled. Some stories of those situations I have found sickening'

 

I even put it in bold just for you. Where does it say or even imply results?? NO WHERE.

 

Do 'Stories' equate exclusively to 'results' for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
How a failed case is handled my friend.

Keep seeing what you want to see. I had a good laugh.

 

Oh it's about "how it's handled" not the miserable results?

Yeah sure....that really makes sense.

And once again no details, no names, no verifiable facts,

just wild unsubstantiated claims.

"Oh I have horrible results and so did a bunch of others,

but oh no I cant name any verifiable facts, or names".

You'd be laughed out of any courtroom dude.

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Oh it's about "how it's handled" not the miserable results?

Yeah sure....that really makes sense.

And once again no details, no names, no verifiable facts,

just wild unsubstantiated claims.

"Oh I have horrible results and so did a bunch of others,

but oh no I cant name any verifiable facts, or names".

You'd be laughed out of any courtroom dude.

 

Hmmmm resorting to low jabs after a detailed reply. Sounds like a cry baby to me. Again, do 'stories' equate exclusively to 'results' for you? Good rationale right there....

 

Do you deny that FUT scars can stretch even with excellent surgeons? Yes or No? It doesn't matter what happened to me. Do you deny that even the best FUT surgeon and technique can result in a stretched scar??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Hmmmm resorting to low jabs after a detailed reply. Sounds like a cry baby to me.

 

Hmmmm you demean surgeons, their reps, their clinics, imply money is a reason why they use certain procedures over others, ask a poster "if they can read?", state you are "laughing" at responses given to your questions and then you "cry" about "low jabs"?

 

Again, do 'stories' equate exclusively to 'results' for you? Good rationale right there....

 

"Stories that make you sick" about hair transplant patients would be associated with results. To pretend you are ok with the bad results and only concerned with the handling is really a reach. But it's really an irrelevant point, in that whether it's results or handling....it is still the case of the patient of the recommended doctor you claim made you sick....the fact remains you have been making slanderous claims about recommended FUT doctors on this site without giving any verifiable details ...why are you afraid to divulge what you are claiming?....lets hear the facts? lets see names? lets hear verifiable details, lets see before and after pics? Again NOTHING from you except these very negative claims about some of the recommended doctors on this site? Why remain so vague? It really raises questions about your credibility. You are like the prosecutor that can't supply any verifiable details of the case. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury the patient's case was handled so poorly it sickened me, but I can't supply any verifiable evidence to support this claim".

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
They don't like what they saw?

 

Yes these higly respected medical surgeons obviously came to a different medical conclusion that you did. What else could it be? Do you really think they studied FUE, think it is better for the patient, but don't want to do what is best for the patient? Do you think these surgeons are reckless? If a doctor knows there is a "better way" but refuses to treat the patient with the "better way" would that not be unethical and/or reckless? So either they "dont like what the see"....they think FUT gets better results for their patients or they are reckless? Which is it?

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Lol those forum members confided in me with their stories. You want me to go public with that? Laughable. I actually respect these individuals as people and will not divulge their details as to which doctor did what when a result did not turn.

 

You have been hounding me this whole time, don't pretend like you haven't. You saw what you wanted to see, ignored the hard questions, twisted details against me(stories = results lolllll) and asked rhetorical questions. I demean certain doctors? Wow, give me the electric chair. I call out docs as I see it. Dr Diep claims FUE is scarless on his Youtube videos, should I stay silent because he is recommended? Or am I being demeaning?? Of course I am ok with bad results, every doctor gets bad results sometimes. It's how they handle it and stick with their guarantee that makes them good or bad. Revealing anything to YOU would not convince YOU because you have made up your mind, as I have made up mine.

Edited by Mickey85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Lol those forum members confided in me with their stories. You want me to go public with that? Laughable. I actually respect these individuals as people and will not divulge their details as to which doctor did what when a result did not turn..

 

So Mickey basically you make negative claims about recommended doctors on this site, but can't back up your claims with verifiable facts/pics/names. Do you not see how that can be a problem?

 

You have been hounding me this whole time, don't pretend like you haven't.

 

I thought you were enjoying the conversation?

Now it is "hounding"?

Do you define "hounding" as you having a one-way street to make unsubstaniated claims and if one responds asking for clarifications, details, pics, proof/verification of your claims.....it is suddenly "hounding"?

 

I demean certain doctors? Wow, give me the electric chair.

 

You are missing the point again.

The problem is not that you demean doctors.

The problem is you demean doctors by using wild

unproven allegations about their motives which involves ethics.

 

I call out docs as I see it.

 

Oh really?

So what top recommmended Docs do you have a problem with,

& specifically what is the problem?

 

Or maybe this would be easier...do you only think 2 doctors on this site's recommended list are worthy of your approval?

 

It's how they handle it and stick with their guarantee that makes them good or bad.

 

And Mickey how are you privy to how various clinics handle their guarantee?

How do you know the intimate details from both sides of the cases?

How do you know case histories of the various clinics?

Do you define a clinic by the rare squeaky wheel that may or may not have merit. How are you able to make an intelligent conclusion when you do not have access to a clinic's records? Maybe the clinic has handled 99% of all problems perfectly, but one squeaky wheel gets on the internet with a debate-able result or problem and it seems you want to crucify the clinic.

Do you admit sometimes the clinics deal with "nutty" patients, that can never be satisfied? Do you realize that clinics that educate their patients about realistic expectations can still face a post-op outcry of how the results are not satisfactory when the clinic performed the very best result possible on the patient? Honest question.....do you think clinics should "comp" all nutty patients multiple surgeries?

Dr. Dow Stough - 1000 Grafts - 1996

Dr. Jerry Wong - 4352 Grafts - August 2012

Dr. Jerry Wong - 2708 Grafts - May 2016

 

Remember a hair transplant turns back the clock,

but it doesn't stop the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...