Dr Feriduni 9 month update 2200 FUE

[Stig]

 

HairJo I do apologise for taking the micky out of your comments, but I am sick to death of this site being so against FUE, and yes it does make angry, i need to work on that.

 

Don't think this site is so against FUE at all. It's only really Dr Feller and a few of his cronies that seem to be anti-FUE. On the contrary, I think a lot of members are intrigued by FUE. If anything, you and HTsoon keep coming off as anti-FUT. I personally love the concept of FUE, but seeing Dr Bhatti's video and reading the facts laid out by Feller, I have too many doubts about that procedure when compared to the gold standard of FUT. Only time will tell once FUE has been given more time to season. With Dr Ron Shapiro and H&W now offering more of it, it can only improve right?

[Stig]

It's been said before but I'll say it again this comment is a bunch of bull.

 

It's tough when you are not really seeing more of the bad FUE results and benchmarking those against the failed FUT ones. I am not interested in looking at the FUE success stories cherry picked by clinics to show to word and promote

[Sethticles]

i rekon we've hjacked this thread a little bit too much and best bet we head over to the other thread...

[newbie33]

I'm sure Ezel won't mind us discussing this in general.

 

SunSeeker. I came at this about three years ago with a totally open mind. It was actually after a consultation with Feriduni that I seriously thought FUE was an option for me. Alas, despite my absolute bias to wanting FUE to work out for me, I can't objectively get myself over the line to go through with it, honestly believing it's the best option (or acceptably near to best) for the number of grafts I'd need over a lifetime. Hence the fact I'm three years down the track and I've done nothing besides take fin to slow the hair loss.

[HairJo]

There's a bit of cross-purpose conversation going on here - deliberate or not.

 

Feller and the strip, strip, strip argument is that you get the highest amount of grafts over your lifetime to cover an expanding balding area.

 

The fue 'touch up' being discussed here is using grafts to restore a basically failed/sub-optimal result from fue.

 

Seth, couple of questions for you too. The 5000 grafts you suggest which makes for a good strip candidate - is that 5000 over a lifetime or in one session? And second, had a v quick look at your result and couldn't quite make out - what's the reason you got another 1000 grafts so soon after the first 3000?

 

Newbie, you've gotten what I"m saying. Seth does not. I don't think Dr. Feller is picking on FUE, he is just telling it like it is but he gets attacked for it. I think other doctors don't come on here for fear of being attacked as well. I think Dr. Feller should be commended for giving us information in the face of such hostility. I just wrote my opinion here about FUE and I get attacked too. It's like the FUE guys are emotionally connected to FUE like a girlfriend. It's really weird. All I've seen Dr. Feller do is give out facts and his view that FUT is the safer option for growth and healing and it makes complete sense to me plus I've seen it with my own eyes on my friends heads. But everyone can have their preference and thats ok, but the FUE guys have to stop attacking everyone who chooses FUT and let them express their opinion without it being called bullocks or crap or whatever was posted within a few minutes of me giving my opinion.

 

Doesn't it make sense that if ezel had this information from Dr. Feller before his FUE he might have chosen FUT instead and be enjoyig his new hair instead of being upset about his FUE growth failure and wondering what to do next?

[BaldingBogger]

Doesn't it make sense that if ezel had this information from Dr. Feller before his FUE he might have chosen FUT instead and be enjoyig his new hair instead of being upset about his FUE growth failure and wondering what to do next?

 

Or he could be like the poster notakesback who had an FUT with feller and is not only dealing with a sub par result. But having a big strip scar to contend with also.

[Melvin- Admin]

Newbie, you've gotten what I"m saying. Seth does not. I don't think Dr. Feller is picking on FUE, he is just telling it like it is but he gets attacked for it. I think other doctors don't come on here for fear of being attacked as well. I think Dr. Feller should be commended for giving us information in the face of such hostility. I just wrote my opinion here about FUE and I get attacked too. It's like the FUE guys are emotionally connected to FUE like a girlfriend. It's really weird. All I've seen Dr. Feller do is give out facts and his view that FUT is the safer option for growth and healing and it makes complete sense to me plus I've seen it with my own eyes on my friends heads. But everyone can have their preference and thats ok, but the FUE guys have to stop attacking everyone who chooses FUT and let them express their opinion without it being called bullocks or crap or whatever was posted within a few minutes of me giving my opinion.

 

Doesn't it make sense that if ezel had this information from Dr. Feller before his FUE he might have chosen FUT instead and be enjoyig his new hair instead of being upset about his FUE growth failure and wondering what to do next?

 

First of all, the majority of FUE guys don't attack people for choosing FUT, the attacks are made when bias unsubstantiated claims are made like that of Dr. Feller, what facts has he presented? The only fact is that his claims have not been proven, so until scientifically proven his claims are considered theories. There lies the problem, that people take one case and attach a whole procedure to that specific case, I've had an FUE I've been completely happy with, I'd say growth was on par with FUT and I don't have a scar. Is it right for me to take my specific case and say FUE is superior to FUT for my following reason? No it's not, every surgeon has had a patient with low growth for what ever reason possibly beyond their control. To say the majority of FUE cases wind up with unhappy patients is unfounded and simply wrong, if the procedure was a failure, it would be declining in popularity, however the exact opposite has occurred, 5 years ago these FUE vs FUT conversations weren't even happening because the procedure was so far behind. Now FUE is becoming as popular as FUT and thus surgeons who primarily practice FUT are panicking thus resorting to fear tactics in an attempt to discredit the procedure.

[1978matt]

The occasional lesser yield of FUE compared to FUT has been discussed at just about every conference on the subject in the last 15 years and is in every text book on the subject. I don't know why you FUE gurus find that so difficult to believe. There is nothing 'scientific' that needs to be proven as it is accepted by the majority of HT surgeons worldwide (with a handful of dubious objectors).

 

How many doctors claim on their websites that their FUE is always as successful as their FUT? It is virtually none. That speaks volumes.

 

Doctors who want your business will tell you their yields are usually 'on a par' with FUT because it is what you want to hear. They are hardly going to tell you that occasionally it yields barely 60% as it did in this case.

 

The FUE/FUT argument is nothing new and was going on over 10 years ago.

 

 

First of all, the majority of FUE guys don't attack people for choosing FUT, the attacks are made when bias unsubstantiated claims are made like that of Dr. Feller, what facts has he presented? The only fact is that his claims have not been proven, so until scientifically proven his claims are considered theories. There lies the problem, that people take one case and attach a whole procedure to that specific case, I've had an FUE I've been completely happy with, I'd say growth was on par with FUT and I don't have a scar. Is it right for me to take my specific case and say FUE is superior to FUT for my following reason? No it's not, every surgeon has had a patient with low growth for what ever reason possibly beyond their control. To say the majority of FUE cases wind up with unhappy patients is unfounded and simply wrong, if the procedure was a failure, it would be declining in popularity, however the exact opposite has occurred, 5 years ago these FUE vs FUT conversations weren't even happening because the procedure was so far behind. Now FUE is becoming as popular as FUT and thus surgeons who primarily practice FUT are panicking thus resorting to fear tactics in an attempt to discredit the procedure.

[Melvin- Admin]

The occasional lesser yield of FUE compared to FUT has been discussed at just about every conference on the subject in the last 15 years and is in every text book on the subject. I don't know why you FUE gurus find that so difficult to believe. There is nothing 'scientific' that needs to be proven as it is accepted by the majority of HT surgeons worldwide (with a handful of dubious objectors).

 

How many doctors claim on their websites that their FUE is always as successful as their FUT? It is virtually none. That speaks volumes.

 

Doctors who want your business will tell you their yields are usually 'on a par' with FUT because it is what you want to hear. They are hardly going to tell you that occasionally it yields barely 60% as it did in this case.

 

The FUE/FUT argument is nothing new and was going on over 10 years ago.

 

10 years ago when I began researching hair restoration there was no argument, it was pretty much FUT= more grafts and more growth, now their is an argument, so I disagree with your first statement.In addition, you are one of the individuals who loves to present one case and attach a procedures worth to that individual case. I'm actually surprised you didn't try and use ezel's result to try and prove your point.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Melvin-HTsoon
Removed posting for Dr. Feller

[SunSeeker]

Hi Newbie33. Sounds like we are pretty much in the same boat. At least you can take propecia. I can't and really wish I could. I am still trying to research FUE with an open mind, but I just feel less confidant about it every day.

 

Hi Matt and HTsoon. I thought everybody said the growth from strip was higher than FUE? But with FUE you don't get the scar line, so this is the advantage. But I thought everybody knew that the growth was not as good?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Fellers claims that the "three detrimental forces" can not be overcome.. .

 

HTsoon,

I never wrote nor said that. You are just blindly quoting Dr. Bhatti (an FUE-only doctor) who made it up and falsely attributed to me.

 

Show me where I ever said or wrote that the three detrimental forces cannot be overcome. Find it and then cut and paste it right here. I challenge you.

[Melvin- Admin]

HTsoon,

I never wrote nor said that. You are just blindly quoting Dr. Bhatti (an FUE-only doctor) who made it up and falsely attributed to me.

 

Show me where I ever said or wrote that the three detrimental forces cannot be overcome. Find it and then cut and paste it right here. I challenge you.

 

I'm not going to comb through 150 pages, I remember you said the forces could not be completely overcome only reduced, you said this when you answered my question as to how you specifically overcame the three forces. You presented an FUE case in which you did FUE in to the strip scar do you remember?

[Sethticles]

There's a bit of cross-purpose conversation going on here - deliberate or not.

 

Feller and the strip, strip, strip argument is that you get the highest amount of grafts over your lifetime to cover an expanding balding area.

 

Yes I get that, but it also to increase areas that had lower yields, because no method is 100% full proof, stripped out is in other words a touch up. the only difference is that FUE may need 2 or 3 sessions to achieve the same look that FUT can achieve in 1 session, but its this 2-3 sessions thing thats now being twisted and turned into what FUT'ers call the TOUCH UP. as far as im concerned touch up is nothing more than a its a debatable term to make FUE look inferior and Stripped out is promoted to make FUT seem like your ticket to a life time of hair. Worse fact about stripped out logic is that you revert to having FUE, when FUE will thin your donor area exposing your strip scar. Makes no sense to me this stripped out logic. Feller himself has had 3 FUT sessions, and is need of another, what happens when he's stripped out, he'll go FUE and expose his scar or maybe he's already stripped out and wont go FUE due to the fact he'll runs the risk of exposing his scars. If he is already stripped out and still a NW4 or 5 doesn't say much for FUT or his stripped out logic, he falls into the way below par FUT category which many people do.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Apologies for the mis-post. That patient asked for help to sign up for an account at the office and the secretary left it open on the computer. Now straightened out.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I'm not going to comb through 150 pages, I remember you said the forces could not be completely overcome only reduced, you said this when you answered my question as to how you specifically overcame the three forces. You presented an FUE case in which you did FUE in to the strip scar do you remember?

 

Excuse me, but if you are going to quote someone on a public forum you should be ready, willing, and able to back it up. Clearly you can't because I never wrote it. So remove the false quote.

 

You are now trying to claim that my saying the detrimental forces of FUE "can't be COMPLETELY overcome" is the same as my supposedly saying they "CAN'T be overcome" ? I don't think so.

 

Remove your false quote.

[newbie33]

HairJo, I can understand why people get attached to a procedure/doctor. There's a lot of monetary and emotional investment going into this stuff - all bound up with our identify and various values and intelligence we ascribe to choosing the 'right' procedure. I'm not an especially emotional person, but fortunately I work for a multinational and I'm fairly competent so they've given me loads of training to understand how to manage different people - and to the untrained eye I can even appear like a feeling, sentient being now! Still, someone feeling one way or another about a procedure isn't not going to make a blind bit of difference to how I view it - I'll always be drawn to the rational, objective. evidence-based argument. And that's for good or bad.

 

SunSeeker. Fin is probably buying me a few years, and I don't take the recommended dose. It looks like 0.5mg gets to about 96% efficacy of the recommended 1mg, so I figure if I take 0.5 there's less chance of the side effects. Maybe you can experiment with dosage, after consulting with a doctor, of course.

 

Seth, I twice said how I think most people use the term 'touch up', so I'm not going to labour the point. But I will say, if you ascribe motivations to others and define for them how they use words, then to yourself you will never be wrong. But you might be missing the point they are trying to make, and it might not convince those who are neutral.

 

And in general, I think that basically framing this whole thing as FUTers versus FUEers just makes people more inclined to look for evidence that backs up their own argument - not look at all the evidence and then develop an argument based on it.

 

Peace and love, chaps.

Edited September 17, 2015 by newbie33

[Melvin- Admin]

Excuse me, but if you are going to quote someone on a public forum you should be ready, willing, and able to back it up. Clearly you can't because I never wrote it. So remove the false quote.

 

You are now trying to claim that my saying the detrimental forces of FUE "can't be COMPLETELY overcome" is the same as my supposedly saying they "CAN'T be overcome" ? I don't think so.

 

Remove your false quote.

 

Unfortunately I did not overcome the three detrimental forces of FUE. I diminished them a little through true and actual advances in instrumentation and technique, but not to the level of delivering an FUE graft that is as intact and uninjured as an FUT graft. If I had, I would only be doing FUE. But this is not the case.

 

The gold in your last post is that you are recognizing what I have been trying to say, and that is that if you are going to have an FUE procedure then you have to know, acknowledge, and consent to the reality that your grafts are going to be injured to a greater extent than that for FUT and will thus need more grafts transplanted to achieve the same cosmetic look.

 

The three detrimental forces of FUE have been identified and proven to exist, even if many FUE doctors refuse to admit it.

Torsion is evidenced by the immediate decapitation that occurs during the scoring process.

Traction is evidenced by the missing lower half of grafts that are removed, or lost parts of the lower half, or outright transection

Compression is evidenced by the crush injury that can be seen when the graft is removed from the scalp

 

All are in evidence and to try to minimize their significance is to go against 25 years of Hair Transplant gospel. Graft handling and preparation has always been at the heart of high yield hair transplantation. That doesn't go out the window because a few dozen practitioners decide it does.

 

In order for an FUE procedure with all it's involved injury to grafts to consistently produce results on par with FUT it must utilize more grafts during the procedure. The more the better. But this is only because so many are injured or killed in the process of extraction. Yes, you can point to a megasession recipient and say he looks great and thick. But he most likely needed more grafts to achieve that look because so many were injured in the extraction process. Specifically due to one or a combination of the three detrimental forces.

 

Now I asked you how you overcame the three detrimental forces by your own admission you said you did not overcome them only slightly dominished them, so let me ask you can the three detrimental forces be overcome? If you say yes I'll remove my post I'm not going to get in a words game with you, things need to be taken in to context.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Now I asked you how you overcame the three detrimental forces by your own admission you said you did not overcome them only slightly dominished them, so let me ask you can the three detrimental forces be overcome? If you say yes I'll remove my post I'm not going to get in a words game with you, things need to be taken in to context.

 

I don't understand how me saying I haven't overcome them can be confused with me saying they CAN'T be overcome. So why are you pulling this quote?

 

But to answer your question the answer is YES I believe the three detrimental forces CAN be overcome. Just that nobody has overcome them to date. No physician and no technology. TO DATE. This, however, has not stopped unscrupulous or clueless doctors from saying they have or implying they have.

 

I myself am still working on reducing these forces, so obviously I believe it can be done. My general philosophy is that if it can be imagined it can be done. In fact I'm going to start another thread that asks the public for their ideas. Sort of an inventors meeting. All will be able to participate.

 

Whoever can eliminate or reduce these forces to FUT levels will become a billionaire. No joke.

[Melvin- Admin]

I don't understand how me saying I haven't overcome them can be confused with me saying they CAN'T be overcome. So why are you pulling this quote?

 

But to answer your question the answer is YES I believe the three detrimental forces CAN be overcome. Just that nobody has overcome them to date. No physician and no technology. TO DATE. This, however, has not stopped unscrupulous or clueless doctors from saying they have or implying they have.

 

I myself am still working on reducing these forces, so obviously I believe it can be done. My general philosophy is that if it can be imagined it can be done. In fact I'm going to start another thread that asks the public for their ideas. Sort of an inventors meeting. All will be able to participate.

 

Whoever can eliminate or reduce these forces to FUT levels will become a billionaire. No joke.

 

Very well I have removed the posting as you have just stated the forces could be overcome. I disagree that no physician has been able to overcome them. But that's neither here nor there. I'm actually glad you're trying to improve FUE as I believe the procedure provides the best overall aesthetic result (as long as growth is good).

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Very well I have removed the posting as you have just stated the forces could be overcome. I disagree that no physician has been able to overcome them. But that's neither here nor there. I'm actually glad you're trying to improve FUE as I believe the procedure provides the best overall aesthetic result (as long as growth is good).

 

 

Thank you.

[Stig]

Very well I have removed the posting as you have just stated the forces could be overcome. I disagree that no physician has been able to overcome them. But that's neither here nor there. I'm actually glad you're trying to improve FUE as I believe the procedure provides the best overall aesthetic result (as long as growth is good).

 

HTsoon - unfortunately I don't think you are quite ready to go up against the big boys like Feller, although I must admit I respect your tenacity, despite the fact that he seems to easily bulldoze his way easily through those who try to go up against him. I do want to ask you though, how qualified are you in this Hair restoration stuff? You seem to have alot of opinions that you document away as facts, are you a practising hair surgeon, or just a very smart chap?

[Melvin- Admin]

HTsoon - unfortunately I don't think you are quite ready to go up against the big boys like Feller, although I must admit I respect your tenacity, despite the fact that he seems to easily bulldoze his way easily through those who try to go up against him. I do want to ask you though, how qualified are you in this Hair restoration stuff? You seem to have alot of opinions that you document away as facts, are you a practising hair surgeon, or just a very smart chap?

 

I try not to get in to gotcha matches with Dr. Feller, no doubt he is a good debater, and if he would've chosen law school instead of med school I'm sure he would've been a great lawyer. I'm not a surgeon, I'm just a hairloss sufferer like feller himself, Ive researched hair restoration for roughly 10 years, I've had dozens of consultations, I've tried every hairloss medication around, so when I speak I'm speaking from my experiences. I don't intend to state things are facts, the only fact that i state is that FUE is increasing in popularity which is true and there is statistical evidence to back this.

 

I dislike smear campaigns, so to state the majority of FUE patients wind up unhappy, I don't think makes any sense logically speaking, do you think a restaurant that serves bad food would increase in popularity every year? I feel that in the right circumstances with the right surgeon the yield is comparable. We know that hairloss does not become visible until 50% of hair has been lost. Now let's say FUE gives you 5% less yield overall, do you think that 5% is going to be visible, I don't think it will make a significant cosmetic impact, I personally think the difference in yield can be even less like 3% with the right surgeon. This is my opinion though I'd never say that is a fact, but I dislike when Dr. Feller gives his opinions and passes them off as facts, even though he is a practicing surgeon, he simply does not have the necessary evidence to state it's a fact.

[HairJo]

I think with 20 years in the business and his before and after are enough for me to believe what he is saying by the way what if the percentage in some cases is much higher then you quote what do you say to those guys ?

[Melvin- Admin]

I think with 20 years in the business and his before and after are enough for me to believe what he is saying by the way what if the percentage in some cases is much higher then you quote what do you say to those guys ?

 

Id give that person my sympathies but poor growth can occur in either procedure, not every single FUT is a stunning success, the choice of surgeon is important, by Dr. Fellers own admission his first FUT had poor growth, does poor growth occur in FUE yea of course, but poor growth also occurs with FUT, however the insult to injury with FUT is a scar from ear to ear.

[Stig]

I try not to get in to gotcha matches with Dr. Feller, no doubt he is a good debater, and if he would've chosen law school instead of med school I'm sure he would've been a great lawyer. I'm not a surgeon, I'm just a hairloss sufferer like feller himself, Ive researched hair restoration for roughly 10 years, I've had dozens of consultations, I've tried every hairloss medication around, so when I speak I'm speaking from my experiences. I don't intend to state things are facts, the only fact that i state is that FUE is increasing in popularity which is true and there is statistical evidence to back this.

 

I dislike smear campaigns, so to state the majority of FUE patients wind up unhappy, I don't think makes any sense logically speaking, do you think a restaurant that serves bad food would increase in popularity every year? I feel that in the right circumstances with the right surgeon the yield is comparable. We know that hairloss does not become visible until 50% of hair has been lost. Now let's say FUE gives you 5% less yield overall, do you think that 5% is going to be visible, I don't think it will make a significant cosmetic impact, I personally think the difference in yield can be even less like 3% with the right surgeon. This is my opinion though I'd never say that is a fact, but I dislike when Dr. Feller gives his opinions and passes them off as facts, even though he is a practicing surgeon, he simply does not have the necessary evidence to state it's a fact.

 

10 years is a long long long time. I'd like to tap into your knowledge and experience. In your opinion, who are the top few FUE surgeons,and who are the top FUT surgeons? In your opinion of course - besides the Stig of course