FUT is more popular than FUE

[TakingThePlunge]

David, Dr. Bhatti has just been exposed in a literal cover up the likes of which has never been seen on this site and you have nothing to say about it? This is not conjecture or supposition, it just happened in undisputed reality but nothing from you? Really?

 

The proof of two of the three detrimental forces he claims don't even exist are right in his own video. But he only realized it AFTER I made him aware of it. So he tried to cover it up by editing them out. Don't you see that?

 

 

Dr. Feller,

 

I'm going to limit my comments on this thread to the procedures being discussed based on my personal experience and understanding of each.

 

Dr. Bhatti offered an explanation for altering the video and I'm going to take that at face value just as I did your explanation surrounding the confusion over Sethticles having financial motivations. Despite the occasional references to that issue that keep arising, I did urge the community to accept it as a misunderstanding a move on.

 

I've said this before and, perhaps it makes me a numbskull of sorts, but I'm far more interested in final results than how those results are produced and I'm not finding a lot of value in the virtual barroom brawl that this thread keeps devolving into.

 

I know it's been a guilty pleasure for a lot of folks, akin to old Jerry Springer Show but, from a moderation standpoint, it's no fun at all.

 

I would urge everyone to stop speculating on the motivations of others and continue to focus on their personal experience, documented facts and verifiable outcomes.

 

I think my question is valid. What assumptions can be made if the patient in the video has a quality result from the procedure? After all, do not yet know what the outcome will be.

Edited August 30, 2015 by David - Moderator
Fized quote and typo

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

I think it's clear that Dr. Feller's assertion that FUT likely produces more consistent yields and exposes grafts to less potential problem is true - that's almost self evident. However it is also equally true that the "fundamental forces" argument doesn't hold up quite so well. It's clear that talented FUE surgeons are mitigating these issues and producing great results and good yields. Consistently as good as FUT? That's almost impossible to know short of a genuine scientific study of various clinics and their outcomes.

 

Manhog,

You can't believe FUT likely produces more consistent yields and exposes grafts to less potential problems unless you also believe my fundamental forces argument. Because if not for the fundamental detrimental forces inherent to FUE how could FUT be considered more likely to produce more consistent yields?

 

I agree with you that we have run into a SEEMINGLY circular argument. But we have not. If you can cut away all the BS and read the actual substantive material you would see that what I've been writing about is as indisputable as gravity.

 

I understand that not everyone can follow the details. You really need to perform the procedure to appreciate what I'm saying. That said, you can also rely on the credibility of the people in the debate. I have been forthright and transparent. Dr. Bhatti has been the opposite and has used his hired reps to run interference for him. Then there was his video, and then the edit of the video, and the cover up of the edit.

 

See for yourself:

 

[lileli]

Dr. Feller,

 

Dr. Bhatti kept the original video up. Sure it looks suspicious but so does you bringing up the three forces before launching mFUE. I don't doubt your intentions or his. I just don't think engaging in gotcha moments is helpful. You brought up a lot of interesting points that we should continue investigating.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Feller,

 

I'm going to limit my comments on this thread to the procedures being discussed based on my personal experience and understanding of each.

 

Dr. Bhatti offered an explanation for altering the video and I'm going to take that at face value just as I did your explanation surrounding the confusion over Sethticles having financial motivations. Despite the occasional references to that issue that keep arising, I did urge the community to accept it as a misunderstanding a move on.

 

I've said this before and, perhaps it makes me a numbskull of sorts, but I'm far more interested in final results than how those results are produced and I'm not finding a lot of value in the virtual barroom brawl that this thread keeps devolving into.

 

I know it's been a guilty pleasure for a lot of folks, akin to old Jerry Springer Show but, from a moderation standpoint, it's no fun at all.

 

I would urge everyone to stop speculating on the motivations of others and continue to focus on their personal experience, documented facts and verifiable outcomes.

 

I think my question is valid. What assumptions can be made if the patient in the video has a quality result from the procedure? After all, do no yet know what the outcome will be.

 

That's some equivalence you're making there David. Seth had not only already been accused of being a paid rep long before I started posting, but had been investigated for it as well. My suspicions and accusation were not without merit. Even thereafter Bill had to warn him again to stop engaging in obvious rep behavior.

 

I think that's a little different than what happened here with Dr. Bhatti and is way more than just a "misunderstanding".

[FUE2014]

Somewhat off tangent here, but perhaps a bit of light relief.

 

In the last 5 years or so, what procedure (FUE or FUT) has been most popular among celebrities?

 

In terms of the Euro ones I am aware of (Rooney, Cesc, Stuart Broad, Callum Best) they have all been FUE....any others to add?

[Melvin- Admin]

That's some equivalence you're making there David. Seth had not only already been accused of being a paid rep long before I started posting, but had been investigated for it as well. My suspicions and accusation were not without merit. Even thereafter Bill had to warn him again to stop engaging in obvious rep behavior.

 

I think that's a little different than what happened here with Dr. Bhatti and is way more than just a "misunderstanding".

 

You still can't admit that you were wrong inferring that Seth was a rep? I do recall Bill warning you as well Dr. Feller, as I recall he had to warn you a few times because you kept ignoring his posts, but let's get to the issue at hand. I wonder why physicians that perfor

both procedures have less bias views.

 

Here is a quote from Marcio Cristostomo M.D "FUE and FUT are both very good options for hair restoration.

There are many discussions and opinions about what is best: FUT or FUE.

My personal opinion is that there is no need for this "competition", both are very safe, well stablished ways to restore hair. In fact, they are only different ways of getting hair from the scalp: FUT through an excision of a strip to produce the follicular units (FUs) and FUE extracting FUs one by one with micro punches of less than 1mm.

Both techniques leaves scar(s) in the donor area: FUT with a long linear scar (that in patients with good elasticity, properly operated with closure under no tension can be very fine and discrete in most cases); and FUE leavinf no linear scar, but hundreds (or thousands) of punctiforme scars that are usually very discrete allowing patients to have a very short haircut.

Patients with a linear strip scar or with FUe scars (some FUE scars can be noticeable, if the punch used has a diameter higher than 1mm or if multiple sessions are done) can camouflage their scar(s) with scalp micropigmentation, if needed, orientated by their surgeon.

Inittially Strip surgery preduced more grafts in one session than FUE, but nowadays, very experienced surgeons can produce megasessions of more than 3,000 grafts with both methods.

In some countries FUE corresponds to maybe more than 80-90% of the procedures. In my country, Brazil, for example, FUT still is the dominant technique.

FUT has been the gold standard for decades and FUE is rising in the last decade and is an actual tendency, even during medical congresses. But we should not say that one is the latest technique, or more advanced, because both can produce good results and the result doensn't depent only of the extraction method, but in reality a lot of other factors are involved as: proper indication, age and family history observed, good anterior hairline design, refined technique during implantation time, among others.

For all this reasons, in my opinion there is no better technique. Instead of it, there is a better indication for each individual patients. And in some cases of more advanced degrees, secondary cases with limitations in the donor area or poor donor suply, both techniques can be used combined to achive more grafts and offer better results. For this reson, they are not techniques in competition, but instead, complementary to each other.

So, I think a specialist can choose one technique to perform and to defend, but the ideal is to have all opitons available to offer individualized surgical plan for each case.

These are some of my thoughts and I hope it can be useful information."

[TakingThePlunge]

That's some equivalence you're making there David. Seth had not only already been accused of being a paid rep long before I started posting, but had been investigated for it as well. My suspicions and accusation were not without merit. Even thereafter Bill had to warn him again to stop engaging in obvious rep behavior.

 

I think that's a little different than what happened here with Dr. Bhatti and is way more than just a "misunderstanding".

 

Dr. Feller, I understand your point and, had Dr. Bhatti asked my opinion on editing the video at this stage for any reason, I would have advised him to wait until this thread ran its course. But, I still feel strongly that much like a political debate, this thread would have far more value if all individuals would spend more time presenting the irrefutable data to support their positions rather than playing "gotcha"!

[wazaam]

This chart sums up in all these arguments a nutshell given the title of the thread. The rest is just theories and pure conjecture regardless of what side of the fence one is on.

 

It appears that barring some MAJOR setback FUE will surpass FUT in popularity. Any statements suggesting FUT is by far more popular is inaccurate based on ISHRS data.

 

[wazaam]

Somewhat off tangent here, but perhaps a bit of light relief.

 

In the last 5 years or so, what procedure (FUE or FUT) has been most popular among celebrities?

 

In terms of the Euro ones I am aware of (Rooney, Cesc, Stuart Broad, Callum Best) they have all been FUE....any others to add?

 

Recent additions to add;

FUE

Gordan Ramsey (allegedly)

https://www.google.com/search?q=gordon+ramsay+hair+transplant&biw=1067&bih=526&tbm=isch&imgil=5lPIZy08ch5wFM

 

FUE

Chris Gronkowski (pro football player Rob "Gronk" Gronkowski's brother)

 

FUE

Jason Gardiner (famous TV judge)

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Feller, I understand your point and, had Dr. Bhatti asked my opinion on editing the video at this stage for any reason, I would have advised him to wait until this thread ran its course. But, I still feel strongly that much like a political debate, this thread would have far more value if all individuals would spend more time presenting the irrefutable data to support their positions rather than playing "gotcha"!

 

Excuse me David, but this isn't a case of mere "gotcha". But even if it were, so what? He was caught being sneaky. Remember, this isn't some anonymous poster this is a physician. And what he did isn't just some small point. It's major.

 

He now claims he edited his video to focus on the surgery? How does blurring out 95% of the field help to focus on the surgery? Nonsense, he was covering up THE aspect of the surgery that clearly demonstrated the detrimental forces of FUE as I had described them. That is, massive traction and massive compression. Not to mention that hideous raking of the grafts.

 

Yet he STILL screams for "scientific evidence" when that's exactly what he's trying to cover up in his edited video. Why do you think he blurred out the actual extractions? Isn't that part of the surgery? Notice in the edited video that you can no longer see what he's doing with the forceps?

 

He also claimed that he does all the extractions himself. So that was HIM who was ripping them out. And now he wants to "focus on the surgery" by cutting out the very part that he supposedly performs himself? That just doesn't make any sense.

 

And he didn't just edit the video, David, he also quietly snuck the link of the edited version into his old post so nobody would notice. There is no other explanation for that maneuver.

 

Don't you see that video of his is THE irrefutable data that you are asking for? And that him editing out the actual extractions is his confirmation?

 

It's your forum, there's nothing more I can do other than expose the truth. The rest is up to you.

 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[Sethticles]

This chart sums up

 

 

are these the results of HT debutantes, or are these the total numbers of HT performed with patients having previous procedure included.

[mav23100gunther]

Excuse me David, but this isn't a case of mere "gotcha". But even if it were, so what? He was caught being sneaky. Remember, this isn't some anonymous poster this is a physician. And what he did isn't just some small point. It's major.

 

He now claims he edited his video to focus on the surgery? How does blurring out 95% of the field help to focus on the surgery? Nonsense, he was covering up THE aspect of the surgery that clearly demonstrated the detrimental forces of FUE as I had described them. That is, massive traction and massive compression. Not to mention that hideous raking of the grafts.

 

Yet he STILL screams for "scientific evidence" when that's exactly what he's trying to cover up in his edited video. Why do you think he blurred out the actual extractions? Isn't that part of the surgery? Notice in the edited video that you can no longer see what he's doing with the forceps?

 

He also claimed that he does all the extractions himself. So that was HIM who was ripping them out. And now he wants to "focus on the surgery" by cutting out the very part that he supposedly performs himself? That just doesn't make any sense.

 

And he didn't just edit the video, David, he also quietly snuck the link of the edited version into his old post so nobody would notice. There is no other explanation for that maneuver.

 

Don't you see that video of his is THE irrefutable data that you are asking for? And that him editing out the actual extractions is his confirmation?

 

David, I got to agree with Feller on this one. Dr Bhatti editing that video and blurring a good chunk of the procedure is pretty shady. What is Dr Bhatti hiding? I think Feller caught him with his pants down, and kudos to him for calling him out on it. To me the cover-up is pretty telling, and extremely relevant to this thread.

[Melvin- Admin]

You know whats funny, is that when Dr. Bhatti exposed Dr. Feller's obvious marketing ploy to market his procedure mFUE he stated that it was a mere distraction, he also tried to change the subject many times, now that posters are actually posting statistical evidence that shows FUE is in fact becoming more popular than FUT, he goes back to Dr. Bhatti's video, who's the one distracting now? Isn't the title of this thread "FUT is more popular than FUE" so I really want to know what are your thoughts on the chart presented by ISHRS Dr. Feller.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

You know whats funny, is that when Dr. Bhatti exposed Dr. Feller's obvious marketing ploy to market his procedure mFUE he stated that it was a mere distraction, he also tried to change the subject many times, now that posters are actually posting statistical evidence that shows FUE is in fact becoming more popular than FUT, he goes back to Dr. Bhatti's video, who's the one distracting now? Isn't the title of this thread "FUT is more popular than FUE" so I really want to know what are your thoughts on the chart presented by ISHRS Dr. Feller.

 

We've already dealt with this ISHRS statistical nonsense. Even THEY don't stand by it. Here's the disclaimer that came with the report (again):

 

Prepared by Relevant Research, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA

Notice: This Practice Census is published by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and is a compilation of information provided solely by participating physicians. The information published in this survey was developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information. Neither Relevant Research, Inc. nor ISHRS has verified the accuracy, completeness or suitability of any information provided here, and ISHRS does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information reported in this survey. ISHRS makes no warranty, guarantee or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this survey.

 

And as for the mFUE marketing conspiracy I would post my response but Bigfoot stole it.

[Melvin- Admin]

We've already dealt with this ISHRS statistical nonsense. Even THEY don't stand by it. Here's the disclaimer that came with the report (again):

 

Prepared by Relevant Research, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA

Notice: This Practice Census is published by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and is a compilation of information provided solely by participating physicians. The information published in this survey was developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information. Neither Relevant Research, Inc. nor ISHRS has verified the accuracy, completeness or suitability of any information provided here, and ISHRS does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information reported in this survey. ISHRS makes no warranty, guarantee or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this survey.

 

And as for the mFUE marketing conspiracy I would post my response but Bigfoot stole it.

 

How is that disclaimer any different from the information you have presented Dr. Feller? Basically all of the information you have provided has been solely you and your partners, Hair Restoration Network hasn't verified the accuracy of the information you have presented as FACT, as a matter of fact I'm glad you posted this disclaimer, because the same disclaimer should be used for this thread I believe that HRN feels the same way about the information you are presenting.

 

As for mFUE conspiracy, how is it a conspiracy that both threads were created less than two weeks from each other both of which were by you. It doesn't take a scholar to put two and two together, but I guess that was just a coincidence;)

[Mickey85]

He said he had overcome the 3 detrimental forces and proceeded to show us an awful video of the grafts being stretched while in the process of being forcibly removed. Vories just made comments in relation to his own experiences with the two procedures and a bit about graft placement being critical. I don't recall him attempting to question much, if anything, of the initial post.

 

 

 

He has a good video on youtube titled 'Is FUE a newer and better technique than FUT? - Hair Transplant Myths Dispelled '. Well worth a watch. That will tell you all you need to know about where he stands on the topic.

 

 

 

You're the one posting nasty comments not me!...as an aside, I see yesterday on another thread a patient of your doc has just been offered free grafts to fix his poor results. I bet he is feeling angry and emotional.

 

 

 

There's nothing to be gained by a doctor coming on here to support Dr Feller. Why would they? The FUE guru's have shown the type of response they can expect:

 

- derogatory comments about their techniques

- derogatory comments about their results

- jibes about their bedside manner

- negative comments about their authority on the topic

- conspiracy theories

 

I mean why would they bother?

 

On the other hand there is plenty of incentive for an FUE doc to come on here. Look at all the support they would have and think of how much extra business it would bring in.

 

Will check the video shortly. Thanks for that.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

How is that disclaimer any different from the information you have presented Dr. Feller? Basically all of the information you have provided has been solely you and your partners, Hair Restoration Network hasn't verified the accuracy of the information you have presented as FACT, as a matter of fact I'm glad you posted this disclaimer, because the same disclaimer should be used for this thread I believe that HRN feels the same way about the information you are presenting.

 

As for mFUE conspiracy, how is it a conspiracy that both threads were created less than two weeks from each other both of which were by you. It doesn't take a scholar to put two and two together, but I guess that was just a coincidence;)

 

Sorry HTsoon, but that is not just a mere disclaimer, it's a statement in fact that the very company who produced the numbers has not verified its accuracy, so even THEY don't stand by their own presentation.

 

The information I've presented was made very clear in Dr. Bhatti's own video. There's one difference That's about asa factual as you get. And when he edited his video and slipped it into his old post to cover it up he was giving his admission, another fact.

 

Honestly HTsoon, why are you so contrarian and resistant to what's being put right before your eyes? You have no problem with a doctor on this site doing what Dr. Bhatti clearly did? But you keep attacking me for some conspiratorial marketing scheme that Dr. Bhatti invented.

Does that really seem right to you?

 

In the end this thread is for you and other patients and people who would not know better if not for the information contained herein. Don't you get that?

 

This site is, or at least was, all about transparency. Now it seems more about cheering for your favorite team and vilifying FUT doctors.

[Mickey85]

Just watched Dr Karadeniz's video on strip/FUE. I can certainly understand alot of his sentiments(strip taking the strongest/most permanent hairs in the donor, FUE not being scarless etc) but would have been cool if he touched on the subject of the yields of both procedures. I could always send him an email and I'm sure he would answer.

[Mickey85]

Dr Feller, I ask you this question in respect and sincerity. Whilst the ISHRS data on strip/FUE percentages is certainly not definitive by any means, could it not at least be vaguely indicative of the trend in hair transplantation procedures? As in, FUE is currently and slowly taking away the 'market share"(if we can call it that) of strip? Would that be a fair assumption? Curious as to your thoughts on this. Again I'm not saying the data is 100% accurate as it excludes many vital elements.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Sorry HTsoon, but that is not just a mere disclaimer, it's a statement in fact that the very company who produced the numbers has not verified its accuracy, so even THEY don't stand by their own presentation.

 

The information I've presented was made very clear in Dr. Bhatti's own video. There's one difference That's about asa factual as you get. And when he edited his video and slipped it into his old post to cover it up he was giving his admission, another fact.

 

Honestly HTsoon, why are you so contrarian and resistant to what's being put right before your eyes? You have no problem with a doctor on this site doing what Dr. Bhatti clearly did? But you keep attacking me for some conspiratorial marketing scheme that Dr. Bhatti invented.

Does that really seem right to you?

 

In the end this thread is for you and other patients and people who would not know better if not for the information contained herein. Don't you get that?

 

This site is, or at least was, all about transparency. Now it seems more about cheering for your favorite team and vilifying FUT doctors.

 

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

It would appear that in your quest for the ultimate “gotcha” moment you have overlooked a small detail in such a way that I was confused as to what you felt was such a problem to call it the "cover up the likes of which has never been seen on this site". The video was edited on the link that I posted. The video you have seen fit to link to no less than five times has not been edited in any way since it was originally posted and currently has 405 views.

 

 

This is the edited version, which you failed to mention still shows 30 seconds of footage without the focused blur effect. There is one link to this video on this entire thread, on my original post.

 

 

 

This is the original, which you have linked to five times throughout this thread. The link in your five separate posts are still active and legitimate. They have not gone anywhere:)

 

 

 

As stated, I edited the video for reasons I previously shared, which were approved by Bill, I might add. I did not remove the original and it is still available freely, in it’s unedited form. You have seen fit to link to it five times, and I’m sure you will link to it again. To your benefit, this has deflected again from the original subject matter.

 

Remember, Dr. Feller. Stay on point☺

 

From your post #988

FUT will continue to grow as FUE continues to sputter along.

 

From Dr. Blake's announcement of mFUE when he was still a moderator of this forum working for you...

The FUE technique continues growing in popularity. Patients clearly want FUE. Whether it's the less invasive nature or the lack of the linear scar, hair loss sufferers have spoken!

 

Which is the truth? If FUE growing in popularity or is it going to continue to "sputter along"? Where is your proof that FUT is growing? You have nothing, sir, to back up your claims as per usual and your own employee/forum moderator/partner/trainee contradicts the very title of this thread with the introduction of your patent pending mFUE. However when the results of a survey are given from multiple years at the ISHRS conference, and the response continues to show FUE increasing in popularity and use, you dismiss it as unreliable. A survey is a survey and nowhere is it claimed that the survey was a scientific study. How would the survey company verify the results to begin with? Visit each clinic of the 1200 member base of the ISHRS and confirm the surgery they are performing is FUE or FUT? What have you, sir, to refute the survey results aside from your opinion? If you had something, anything, aside from just your word to refute this then there would be room for consideration, but you have nothing to present to the contrary.

 

Where is your proof that the three forces exerted on follicular grafts are insurmountable?

 

What is the size of the mFUE punch you are patenting. How large must it be to encompass 18 to 20 follicular units at once AND the accompanying tissue that exists between follicular units?

 

Where is the proof that your skillset is the determining reference for how all FUE procedures will result? You have repeatedly insulted my technique of which I can handle but you appear to be of the opinion, and have stated as much, that your skillset is the pinnacle of what any other FUE surgeon can consider to be achievable and thus better survival averages are impossible. Your three detrimental forces may be insurmountable to you, sir, or perhaps they are an excuse for your shaky hand seen in your video, but until you prove they are insurmountable to everyone else that is successfully performing FUE on a daily basis you have nothing more than conjecture. You cannot prove your points. If you could, you would have by now, after 50,000 plus views and 130 pages. Instead, you point at pictures and videos and say that they prove your point but that is no different than pointing at the horizon as proof that the world is flat. The world is not flat, Dr. Feller and FUE is on the rise.

[Swooping]

We've already dealt with this ISHRS statistical nonsense. Even THEY don't stand by it. Here's the disclaimer that came with the report (again):

 

Prepared by Relevant Research, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA

Notice: This Practice Census is published by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and is a compilation of information provided solely by participating physicians. The information published in this survey was developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information. Neither Relevant Research, Inc. nor ISHRS has verified the accuracy, completeness or suitability of any information provided here, and ISHRS does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information reported in this survey. ISHRS makes no warranty, guarantee or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this survey.

 

And as for the mFUE marketing conspiracy I would post my response but Bigfoot stole it.

 

 

Dr. Feller, somebody posted yesterday in another forum "Looking for good Hair Transplant docs in NY NJ area". He was looking for somebody for FUE. Somebody mentioned you. As I'm quite active on all forums and most people know me by my name I kindly advised everyone not go with you because you are a sub-par FUE surgeon with some huge character flaws.

 

It made me quite happy as I shielded someone from you. I sincerely believe nobody should have surgery with you, not even for FUT now and most definitely never ever for FUE. After all you won't even perform FUE on your own head! I'll keep continue to do this across every forum aside from this one, but what would you care? I mean the online environment doesn't matter right?

 

In this topic you have shown many things. After accusing someone of being a paid shill which was totally wrong you even threatened someone with a lawsuit? What gives you the right to do these things to members here? Then you start calling a recommended doctor a "noobie" when he doesn't share your opinion? Jup an opinion, because you don't have more than that.

 

Oh and trust me Feller, this topic won't help you to regain FUT popularity. FUE is already more popular and will take over. Everything is indicative of this. You seem to be the only one thinking otherwise.

 

You have shot yourself in the foot with this topic and your actions.

[Sethticles]

51% in favor of FUT, looks like Feller is the winner, congratulations you were right all along. Although you were wrong stating for every 1000 FUT there is 1 FUE, slight miscalculation,

[FUE2014]

Swooping you have big kuhunas! Feller has a reputation of threatening legal action against people who rub him up the wrong way!

[lileli]

Dr. Feller, somebody posted yesterday in another forum "Looking for good Hair Transplant docs in NY NJ area". He was looking for somebody for FUE. Somebody mentioned you. As I'm quite active on all forums and most people know me by my name I kindly advised everyone not go with you because you are a sub-par FUE surgeon with some huge character flaws.

 

It made me quite happy as I shielded someone from you. I sincerely believe nobody should have surgery with you, not even for FUT now and most definitely never ever for FUE. After all you won't even perform FUE on your own head! I'll keep continue to do this across every forum aside from this one, but what would you care? I mean the online environment doesn't matter right?

 

In this topic you have shown many things. After accusing someone of being a paid shill which was totally wrong you even threatened someone with a lawsuit? What gives you the right to do these things to members here? Then you start calling a recommended doctor a "noobie" when he doesn't share your opinion? Jup an opinion, because you don't have more than that.

 

Oh and trust me Feller, this topic won't help you to regain FUT popularity. FUE is already more popular and will take over. Everything is indicative of this. You seem to be the only one thinking otherwise.

 

You have shot yourself in the foot with this topic and your actions.

 

Dr. Bhatti,

 

In your experience, how many maximum grafts can be harvested via fue before scarring is visible? Do you have a harder time doing an second or third fue on person due to the scarring tiasue? Thanks

[mahhong]

Manhog,

You can't believe FUT likely produces more consistent yields and exposes grafts to less potential problems unless you also believe my fundamental forces argument. Because if not for the fundamental detrimental forces inherent to FUE how could FUT be considered more likely to produce more consistent yields?

 

I agree with you that we have run into a SEEMINGLY circular argument. But we have not. If you can cut away all the BS and read the actual substantive material you would see that what I've been writing about is as indisputable as gravity.

 

I understand that not everyone can follow the details. You really need to perform the procedure to appreciate what I'm saying. That said, you can also rely on the credibility of the people in the debate. I have been forthright and transparent. Dr. Bhatti has been the opposite and has used his hired reps to run interference for him. Then there was his video, and then the edit of the video, and the cover up of the edit.

 

See for yourself:

 

 

I don't think anybody is necessarily trying to say your fundamental forces argument holds no weight. It stands to reason there is the potential for more stress on the follicles. The point of contention is, are there doctors who have the skill and experience to overcome these? I think what Dr. Bhatti is trying to say, rightly or wrongly, is that there are surgeons out there who feel confident enough in their abilities and their results to claim these fundamental forces are not an overly detrimental factor in their performance of FUE. I think on balance FUT is still the more likely to produce consistent yields - but how MUCH more likely, I am less than certain. There are a few FUE-only surgeons whose work I admire greatly. It may be they are cherry-picking their best results and hiding the rest, but I am not in a position to judge that.

 

I don't think it's that people can't follow the details, although as an out-and-out layman I fully admit I have no experience of either procedure. As I say, broadly speaking I am on your side - except that I do not think the discrepancies between top-FUE and top-FUT are as wide as you perhaps feel, and I do think FUE is becoming exponentially more popular and, even if that's not a good thing, it is something every surgeon will have to think long and hard about in the future (and ultimately, that was the title of the topic).

 

Also, I'm not sure there has been any 'cover-up'. As Dr. Bhatti says, the original video is still online and linked multiple times in this thread. I can see where your suspicions are coming from but I think it's a bit full-on to accuse the doctor of an out-and-out conspiracy.

 

I know you have disagreements and those are healthy, but you're both doing consistently good work, so it's a shame if what could be a constructive debate ends in out-and-out acrimony.