FUT is more popular than FUE

[Melvin- Admin]

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.

 

Dr. Feller, I'm contrarian because I don't like smear campaigns, I'd be saying the same things if this thread was vilifying FUT, since I started commenting on your thread my position has always been patient decision, much like physicians who perform both procedures regularly like Dr. Diep, I was actually the first one to state that these threads should be taken with a grain of salt because you as a physician have monetary incentives, just like any other physician on here, that's why I encourage patients to do research for themselves, but you've been so adamant that the yields are terrible in comparison, but no physician that I've ever consulted has ever warned me of this, so is it that every physician is being dishonest? the things I've been told is that more surgeries will have to be performed for FUE and in sessions I've never been told FUE is scarless only that the scars are small and spread out. So see it's hard for me to believe the yield is so terrible especially since this announcement has been made within two weeks of your new procedure.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

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

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

???? This makes no sense. And I"m not going to bother to try and unravel it.

 

I'm growing tired of this negative back and forth. I'll throw out an olive branch:

 

Why don't you just admit that you and your paid reps mistakenly attacked me in your very first posts on this thread and that you apologize for it. Not the round about version you offered at the beginning, but a direct no nonsense admission and apology.

 

And then admit that you made a mistake in editing your video as you did and when you did. And that even though you don't admit to any wrong doing it at the very least APPEARED bad and apologize for the confusion. Then we can let this all go as far as I'm concerned.

-OR-

We can keep at it which at this point serves exactly nobody.

 

What do you say?

 

I think if you and California could meet me on those grounds we can have an accord.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[HairLostYears]

Baffled why other doctors wouldn't participate in this thread, what could possibly go wrong? Incompetence, negligence, deception, hand tremors, etc...bah, just hollow inferences. Good wholesome family fun for all.

 

Maybe they could be "persuaded" to join in. Redo the contract wording a bit. Can't just drop off the monthly membership fee and be on your way anymore! According to the fine print in the updated agreement, you must chime in at least 2 posts on what mods deem the 'Hot Thread of the Month'.

 

<lead balloon redux>

 

 

[TakingThePlunge]

We would like to address this issue raised by Dr. Bhatti regarding Blake's training and partnership with Dr. Feller. We were obviously aware that Blake had intended to become a hair transplant surgeon and would likely be involved in training and internships. We did not know about his affiliation with or intention to partnership with Dr. Feller until approximately two months before he resigned as part-time co-moderator. When we were informed, we were told that he was partnering with Dr. Feller effective July 1st, 2015. We were unaware of any professional relationship before that date.

 

That said, we know that as a moderator, Blake had always conducted himself with the utmost professionalism and a true desire to educate. The fact that his opinions may have changed over the course of the time he spent transitioning from an observer of hair transplantation to a practitioner is really no surprise. Furthermore, it's also unsurprising that Blake would adapt many of Dr. Feller's views since his experience is closely aligned with that of Dr. Feller's since they work closely together.

 

I'd also like to address the notion that moderators and publishers of this community should be "unbiased". This is not true at all. If the leaders of this community were unbiased we would simply sit back and allow members to say whatever they want with a single notion that members must be respectful. And while members must be respectful, we feel the publishers and moderators of this community must be biased. We are biased towards quality. We are biased towards physicians who produce consistent results. We are biased towards procedures and tools that work. We don't have a problem being vocal with our opinions or correcting someone who is misrepresenting the truth. Frankly, the Hair Transplant Network would simply be an advertising site if the leaders of this community weren't biased. That way, we could sit back and let every physician who wants to be recommended join and we could sit back and be rich. We certainly would be a lot richer if we were unbiased :-). But we choose to create and uphold demanding standards that have come from a bias towards quality and the truth. Thus, nobody should make the mistake that the moderators and the publishers of this community are unbiased. We aren't and we are proud of that.

 

Don't get me wrong. We aren't saying that we have all the answers nor do we pretend to. Like anyone else, we believe we should form educated opinions so that we can inform prospective patients and, in a sense, spearhead the industry in terms of information about which doctors perform the best procedures.

 

I think anyone reviewing Blake's posts during his time moderating the forum will agree that he provided valuable advice, constructive criticism and deserved praise to all physicians and patients as appropriate, regardless of the procedure they'd chosen.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Baffled why other doctors wouldn't participate in this thread, what could possibly go wrong? Incompetence, negligence, deception, hand tremors, etc...bah, just hollow inferences. Good wholesome family fun for all.

 

Maybe they could be "persuaded" to join in. Redo the contract wording a bit. Can't just drop off the monthly membership fee and be on your way anymore! According to the fine print in the updated agreement, you must chime in at least 2 posts on what mods deem the 'Hot Thread of the Month'.

 

<lead balloon redux>

 

 

 

I agree with this. It is compulsory for doctors to post results, I agree this would be a better chat site if doctors were required to participate in the discussions a couple of times per month as well. But that just won't happen.

 

I also agree with your Rodney King analogy and call for peace. Enough is enough. Way too much negativity. So I extended an olive branch.

[Melvin- Admin]

 

I think anyone reviewing Blake's posts during his time moderating the forum will agree that he provided valuable advice, constructive criticism and deserved praise to all physicians and patients as appropriate, regardless of the procedure they'd chosen.

 

 

David, what's alarming to me is that Blake aka Future HT doc was the first to congratulate a member for choosing one of the recommended FUE physicians on this site, he was the first to tell members they were in good hands. Now all of the sudden, he's telling members the opposite, we're talking a change almost overnight, so it makes me question the sincerity, maybe he had to say that cause he was a moderator or maybe he has to say that now cause of his business. I dot know but either way it's been something that raised my concerns. I'm not saying either are the case I really do hope that he was sincere, but I'd be lying if I said the thought didn't cross my mind.

 

With that being said, I'd like for this thread to get back on course, I'd like to know why these 3 forces can not be reduced?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

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.

 

I know you're being sincere, Mickey. I think you and I have reached an accord of civility and mutual respect and I think we are both the better for it. Now on to your question:

 

In the real world, while the gross number of FUE procedures is indeed rising, it is not doing so at the expense of FUT. As I predicted, FUE has become an ADJUNCT to strip surgery, not a substitute.

 

Most patients going for FUE have already had FUT performed within the past 5-7 years. Look at the very patients Dr. Bhatti posted daily on this thread.They ALL had FUT in the recent past. That is, they chose FUT over FUE initially. Most of these patients would not submit to another strip surgery for various reasons so they would have been out of the market. But with the FUE option they will give it another shot. So the overall market of HT expanded by having the FUE option.

 

As for "first time" hair transplant recipients it's the same thing. Most of the people who submit themselves for FUE simply would not have FUT under any circumstances. But with the FUE option the market EXPANDED.

 

And of course the number of FUE practitioners exploded. Not so much in the US, but in Europe. Now a newbie doctor can get into the field with little training, no need for a large facility, or a large staff that needs to be trained and paid.

 

As for the ISHRS numbers, they are of course unreliable. I got the same questionnaire everyone else did and it was laughable. No doctor in this day and age is going to admit they don't do FUE. They're not going to allow the appearance of competency of their clinic to be any less than the next doctor's so they claim to be doing the procedures as well.

 

But look at the clinics who do both. Me, the Shapiro Brothers, Rahal, H@W, etc..., have they given up strip surgery? Not on your life.

 

An FUE-only clinic can not offer the patient a choice, so of course they are all in on offering only FUE. But those clinics who offer both side with and prefer to perform FUT because the results are more consistent and richer looking.

[mav23100gunther]

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;)

 

Why is it such a Conspirency? The two are related. He is presenting a problem, and then on another thread a solution? What exactly is the big deal?

[Swooping]

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

 

I am not surprised of that, fits his character perfectly! He has showcased his persona perfectly well in this topic and his standpoints. Everyone should be aware of that and as such I won't be stopped .

[Melvin- Admin]

Why is it such a Conspirency? The two are related. He is presenting a problem, and then on another thread a solution? What exactly is the big deal?

 

He's the one saying its a conspiracy, it's clear cut marketing, I don't know why he keeps denying this. It's not a big deal, the big deal is that he's continuing to say the two are unrelated and not meant to market off of each other. But that's not the point of the thread, so I'd rather keep the conversation relevant, as I've asked Dr. Feller why these 3 forces can't be decreased and or overcome.

[butchcoolidge]

No doctor in this day and age is going to admit they don't do FUE. They're not going to allow the appearance of competency of their clinic to be any less than the next doctor's so they claim to be doing the procedures as well.

 

Maybe I am dull, but I fail to see how lying on a survey would help a clinic who primarily performs FUT. Wouldn’t it serve the opposite purpose i.e. inflate FUE popularity numbers on the survey and therefore make the FUT clinic look like they’re behind the curve – essentially promoting a procedure they don’t perform?

 

If FUE is such a secondary/specialized procedure behind FUT, why would any reputable surgeon care about admitting that they don’t perform FUE? Don’t they have a steady client base of FUT candidates already? In that case, why would they worry about the “internet hype” (and not reality according to you) of FUE?

 

I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha” (in fact, I’ve found a lot of great information in some of your previous posts) but you seem to be really reaching with some of your recent statements. From an outsiders perspective, it takes away from some of the more thoughtful and educational things that you’ve posted.

 

Aside from some of the petty jabs, there’s a lot of great information in this thread from all sides. Kudos to the mods for keeping it open and kudos to Dr. Bhatti and Dr. Feller for having the guts to put their statements/claims out in the open – something no other surgeon apparently has the time or feels the need to do. A quick search shows that both of you have a lot of happy patients (myself included, and I’ve consulted with both of you) – in the end, that’s what the patients care about. You can criticize each other’s techniques all you want but I think potential patients are most interested in seeing how the end results look.

[mav23100gunther]

Although you were wrong stating for every 1000 FUT there is 1 FUE, slight miscalculation,

 

Why was he wrong for stating that? He was referring to the number of FUTs performed to date vs that for FUE?

[lileli]

I agree with this. It is compulsory for doctors to post results, I agree this would be a better chat site if doctors were required to participate in the discussions a couple of times per month as well. But that just won't happen.

 

I also agree with your Rodney King analogy and call for peace. Enough is enough. Way too much negativity. So I extended an olive branch.

 

Dr. Feller,

 

This is a great point. This is why it was valuable to see three doctors engage in this thread.As you will know, during the consult phase patients can't be fully assured of receiving unbiased advice. If we had more physicians participate and answer how they deal with multiple FUE sessions etc, it would be helpful and educational.

[1978matt]

I just re-read the ISHRS 2015 survey and note the following:

 

- 911 members are physicians, 899 email invitations were successfully sent but only 274 random responses were recieved (31%)

- The report states on page 3: "The results provide estimated information only. The results from the sample of ISHRS members who responded may be different from results if the entire population of ISHRS members had participated."

- Of the 274 respondents, 17% were female physicians.

- The average no. of years experience of respondents was 13 years, only 21% had 20+ years.

- Only 59% devoted over 75% of their time to hair restoration.

- 34.4% of respondents were from the US. The second highest was Asia (21.6%), then Europe (18%).

- 37% performed less than 100 surgeries per year.

- 45% performed less than 10 surgeries per month.

- Only 239 of the 274 respondents gave a breakdown of FUE/FUT surgeries performed in 2014.

 

Some comments:

 

- It appears roughly half of respondents were not full time HR physicians.

- Quite a lot of respondents had less than 13 years experience.

- Only 26% percent of the entire ISHRS membership gave a breakdown of FUE/FUT surgeries performed.

- The ISHRS admit that the results could be completely wrong.

[lileli]

I just re-read the ISHRS 2015 survey and note the following:

 

- 911 members are physicians, 899 email invitations were successfully sent but only 274 random responses were recieved (31%)

- The report states on page 3: "The results provide estimated information only. The results from the sample of ISHRS members who responded may be different from results if the entire population of ISHRS members had participated."

- Of the 274 respondents, 17% were female physicians.

- The average no. of years experience of respondents was 13 years, only 21% had 20+ years.

- Only 59% devoted over 75% of their time to hair restoration.

- 34.4% of respondents were from the US. The second highest was Asia (21.6%), then Europe (18%).

- 37% performed less than 100 surgeries per year.

- 45% performed less than 10 surgeries per month.

- Only 239 of the 274 respondents gave a breakdown of FUE/FUT surgeries performed in 2014.

 

Some comments:

 

- It appears roughly half of respondents were not full time HR physicians.

- Quite a lot of respondents had less than 13 years experience.

- Only 26% percent of the entire ISHRS membership gave a breakdown of FUE/FUT surgeries performed.

- The ISHRS admit that the results could be completely wrong.

 

It could of been completely wrong all the years it was conducted. The point is that it may be capturing a trend even if overstated or understated

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Maybe I am dull, but I fail to see how lying on a survey would help a clinic who primarily performs FUT. Wouldn’t it serve the opposite purpose i.e. inflate FUE popularity numbers on the survey and therefore make the FUT clinic look like they’re behind the curve – essentially promoting a procedure they don’t perform?

 

If FUE is such a secondary/specialized procedure behind FUT, why would any reputable surgeon care about admitting that they don’t perform FUE? Don’t they have a steady client base of FUT candidates already? In that case, why would they worry about the “internet hype” (and not reality according to you) of FUE?

 

I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha” (in fact, I’ve found a lot of great information in some of your previous posts) but you seem to be really reaching with some of your recent statements. From an outsiders perspective, it takes away from some of the more thoughtful and educational things that you’ve posted.

 

Aside from some of the petty jabs, there’s a lot of great information in this thread from all sides. Kudos to the mods for keeping it open and kudos to Dr. Bhatti and Dr. Feller for having the guts to put their statements/claims out in the open – something no other surgeon apparently has the time or feels the need to do. A quick search shows that both of you have a lot of happy patients (myself included, and I’ve consulted with both of you) – in the end, that’s what the patients care about. You can criticize each other’s techniques all you want but I think potential patients are most interested in seeing how the end results look.

 

Couldn't tell you why people or doctors do what they do. It doesn't always make obvious sense. But I know the mindset.

[1978matt]

It could of been completely wrong all the years it was conducted. The point is that it may be capturing a trend even if overstated or understated

 

Agreed.

 

In 2011, 149 respondents gave their FUE/FUT split for 2010. So in 2015, 90 more Physicians decided to respond.

 

It makes me wonder how many Neograft and Artas machines were sold between 2011 and 2014.

 

I'm guessing about 90;).

[lileli]

Agreed.

 

In 2011, 149 respondents gave their FUE/FUT split for 2010. So in 2015, 90 more Physicians decided to respond.

 

It makes me wonder how many Neograft and Artas machines were sold between 2011 and 2014.

 

I'm guessing about 90;).

 

One of the major problems affecting fue is the use of these machines by doctors who really don't care to learn how to conduct a hair transplant.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

This is an interesting "olive branch" that is being extended. An olive branch with conditions attached is not olive branch, sir. It is a prickly thicket that serves your interests alone. You'll understand my hesitation.

 

If you are referring to the "baseless" rant, comment there is no proof that you have presented. It is simply your opinion. You are assuming that the challenges you have experienced and have not ovecome in your FUE procedure are equally insurmountable by every other physician in the world. To apologize for this is to endorse your position, which I do not. In fact, the very idea of an apology for this, of all things, is humorous due to the sheer volume of insults and bulldog attacks you have made on not just me, which is of no real consequence, but my patients (Sethicles) and the respective readers and participants of this forum that dared to disagree with you.

 

And I also see no need to admit any mistake with my video. You have zeroed in on my original post which is over sixty pages back, in the middle of this thread as it stands now, while you posted the original video in subsequent posts, five times no less which negated your "cover up" claims. The mistake was yours, sir; yours because you did not pay attention to your own posts that have the original unedited video but for some reason you felt you should reach back sixty pages to attempt to shame me and call it a "cover up". Had you not attempted to wrongfully embarrass me with your accustations of subterfuge no one else would have given it much thought because you have been free to post the original, as you have, multiple times, just as you are still free to do so now. Do your five (so far) listings of the original video not negate any clandestine operations you accuse me of?

 

The apology I will give is to the readers and members. I feel that this thread is unfortunate and I do apologize for any misunderstandings or if I came across as rude. The true agenda of this thread is to tear down the merits of FUE and all that exercise it daily, a procedure that has already been through trial by fire during the early days of the online forum world where epic FUT vs. FUE battles have been waged. FUE has emerged, hardened from the experience, and validated by more and more clinics not only adopting the technique but converting to it 100%. Currently there is not a single reputable hold out doctor, that I am aware of, that is FUT only.

 

The agenda of this thread does not stop with the teardown of FUE. This thread is designed to discredit FUE while another, initiated by Dr. Feller's new partner, is designed to introduce mFUE as the perfect patent pending solution to the problems presented in this thread by FUE. It would be too obvious to have both arguments in the same thread but if two separate individuals initiate the strategy from different angles then it is more easily digested. Call it the "good cop/bad cop" routine, again patent pending.

 

To summarize what we have all learned:

 

1. No proof has been presented to show that the three physical forces described by Dr. Feller are insurmountable. None. There are no videos showing these forces, there are no photos showing these forces much less direct results of such forces directly tied into poor yield from any specific patient.

 

2. A "new" patent pending procedure has been introduced in the same time frame by Dr. Feller's partner that combines the "yield of FUT and the scarring of FUE" but Dr. Bloxham shares that FUE scarring is what people want while Dr. Feller says that FUE scarring is horrendous. I'm not clear on the difference but this is what is being stated but regardless of how you look at it, mFUE is here to save the day.

 

3. Dr. Feller did not make a single post, not one, between Janaury 2014 and June 2015. His account, "Dr. Alan Feller", had zero activity on this forum. When mFUE was announced by his partner, Dr. Feller's posting frequency rocketed through the stratosphere to discredit FUE. Why now? Why has Dr. Feller been completely and absolutely silent for a full year and a half before the announcement of mFUE, the proclamation of FUT being more popular than FUE, the mFUEvs.Stripvs.FUE thread, and the announcement of Dr. Blake now being a partner of Dr. Feller?

 

4. Dr. Feller attempted to create drama by saying that my editing of a video I posted sixty plus pages back, with the permission of Bill Seemiller, was a "cover up" like this forum had never seen before. This was said while five copies of the original, which I could have altered on Youtube at any time, rest untouched and unedited in his own posts. Did he overlook or choose to ignore? We'll never know.

 

I will close in saying that I agree the tone of this thread should return to a more healthy debate but I believe it is clear that if a more amicable level of participiation can be achieved it will most likely devolve again once another disagreement erupts. I will personally do what I can to refrain from such problematic posting and I will simply stick to the facts as I have continued to endeavor. However, as a question to the readership; How many clinics can you name in the past year that have switched to FUE, either partly or in whole? Now how many clinics can you name that have switched to or incorporated FUT into their practice, partly or in whole? The answer is what it is, the truth.

 

Good day.

[Swooping]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

This is an interesting "olive branch" that is being extended. An olive branch with conditions attached is not olive branch, sir. It is a prickly thicket that serves your interests alone. You'll understand my hesitation.

 

If you are referring to the "baseless" rant, comment there is no proof that you have presented. It is simply your opinion. You are assuming that the challenges you have experienced and have not ovecome in your FUE procedure are equally insurmountable by every other physician in the world. To apologize for this is to endorse your position, which I do not. In fact, the very idea of an apology for this, of all things, is humorous due to the sheer volume of insults and bulldog attacks you have made on not just me, which is of no real consequence, but my patients (Sethicles) and the respective readers and participants of this forum that dared to disagree with you.

 

And I also see no need to admit any mistake with my video. You have zeroed in on my original post which is over sixty pages back, in the middle of this thread as it stands now, while you posted the original video in subsequent posts, five times no less which negated your "cover up" claims. The mistake was yours, sir; yours because you did not pay attention to your own posts that have the original unedited video but for some reason you felt you should reach back sixty pages to attempt to shame me and call it a "cover up". Had you not attempted to wrongfully embarrass me with your accustations of subterfuge no one else would have given it much thought because you have been free to post the original, as you have, multiple times, just as you are still free to do so now. Do your five (so far) listings of the original video not negate any clandestine operations you accuse me of?

 

The apology I will give is to the readers and members. I feel that this thread is unfortunate and I do apologize for any misunderstandings or if I came across as rude. The true agenda of this thread is to tear down the merits of FUE and all that exercise it daily, a procedure that has already been through trial by fire during the early days of the online forum world where epic FUT vs. FUE battles have been waged. FUE has emerged, hardened from the experience, and validated by more and more clinics not only adopting the technique but converting to it 100%. Currently there is not a single reputable hold out doctor, that I am aware of, that is FUT only.

 

The agenda of this thread does not stop with the teardown of FUE. This thread is designed to discredit FUE while another, initiated by Dr. Feller's new partner, is designed to introduce mFUE as the perfect patent pending solution to the problems presented in this thread by FUE. It would be too obvious to have both arguments in the same thread but if two separate individuals initiate the strategy from different angles then it is more easily digested. Call it the "good cop/bad cop" routine, again patent pending.

 

To summarize what we have all learned:

 

1. No proof has been presented to show that the three physical forces described by Dr. Feller are insurmountable. None. There are no videos showing these forces, there are no photos showing these forces much less direct results of such forces directly tied into poor yield from any specific patient.

 

2. A "new" patent pending procedure has been introduced in the same time frame by Dr. Feller's partner that combines the "yield of FUT and the scarring of FUE" but Dr. Bloxham shares that FUE scarring is what people want while Dr. Feller says that FUE scarring is horrendous. I'm not clear on the difference but this is what is being stated but regardless of how you look at it, mFUE is here to save the day.

 

3. Dr. Feller did not make a single post, not one, between Janaury 2014 and June 2015. His account, "Dr. Alan Feller", had zero activity on this forum. When mFUE was announced by his partner, Dr. Feller's posting frequency rocketed through the stratosphere to discredit FUE. Why now? Why has Dr. Feller been completely and absolutely silent for a full year and a half before the announcement of mFUE, the proclamation of FUT being more popular than FUE, the mFUEvs.Stripvs.FUE thread, and the announcement of Dr. Blake now being a partner of Dr. Feller?

 

4. Dr. Feller attempted to create drama by saying that my editing of a video I posted sixty plus pages back, with the permission of Bill Seemiller, was a "cover up" like this forum had never seen before. This was said while five copies of the original, which I could have altered on Youtube at any time, rest untouched and unedited in his own posts. Did he overlook or choose to ignore? We'll never know.

 

I will close in saying that I agree the tone of this thread should return to a more healthy debate but I believe it is clear that if a more amicable level of participiation can be achieved it will most likely devolve again once another disagreement erupts. I will personally do what I can to refrain from such problematic posting and I will simply stick to the facts as I have continued to endeavor. However, as a question to the readership; How many clinics can you name in the past year that have switched to FUE, either partly or in whole? Now how many clinics can you name that have switched to or incorporated FUT into their practice, partly or in whole? The answer is what it is, the truth.

 

Good day.

 

Words of wisdom, thank you again Dr. Bhatti.

[tommygun]

Dr Bhatti going all "New York" on the New Yorker!!!

 

Love it!

[Swooping]

Funnily enough Dr. Feller tried the same exact context of discussion on HLH. This was in 2008. Obviously he was also attacking other people who didn't agree with him, calling them shills etc. However the admin stopped him immediately from doing that there.

 

In fact Dr. Feller likes to do this as the following discussion held in 2008 also. I'll just copy some of the discussion between Dr. Feller and Dr. **** ;

 

(If you want to read more google is your best friend)

 

Dr. Feller

 

Did you see how the doctor stabbed the skin and twisted vigorously? THAT is problem number one with FUE. That twisting may functionally transect the graft even if the graft LOOKS intact afterward. The more the graft is twisted back and forth, the more damage is done. I believe this is the number one reason for poorer FUE yields compared to strip where no such force is encountered.

 

The second area is where the graft is pulled out of the skin with forcepts. In this particular patient the grafts came out without much difficulty and that DOES happen in a number of lucky patients. But MOST patients are not that lucky.

 

In most patients the amount of traction is much higher than in this video. You will not see an edited video demonstrating this. The problem is that in some patients, if the doctor cuts too low with the punch it will cut the graft. So to insure that happens he cuts a bit more shallow. When that happens, however, it's harder to remove the graft from the skin because there is still too much lower skin anchoring it. To overcome this problem the doctor has to pull HARDER with the forcepts and SQUEEZE harder to keep a grip.

 

Those are the three forces that I believe have limited FUE with comparison to strip:

1. Torsion

2. Traction

3. Compression.

 

This is a UNIVERSAL fact of all FUE to date. Notice that NO FUE doctor has come on here to SPECIFICALLY refute this truth. They know that if they did, they would not be offering "informed consent" and would therefore be breaking the law and opening themselves up to lawsuits.

 

Forget about the rest of the noise, those 3 forces are all that count.

 

Dr. ******

 

 

Feller wants to see everyones tool, in person or on videotape.

 

He has relentlessly posted aggressive challanges to everyone performing FUE, and attacked me in particular.

 

So why is he so obsessed with seeing everyones tools ?.

 

All the other doctors seem to be getting on with it and not giving a damn over someone elses instruments. Its just Feller.

 

Question is why.

 

Here is my opinion.

 

Feller regards himself as an inventor. Since early 2003 he has patented various contraptions and designs regarding follicular extraction.

 

Every conceivable possibility he has tried to patent, including PERFORATIONS, SERRATIONS, VACUUM CHAMBERS , RELIEVED TIPS etc etc. He has tried to cover everything with a patent

 

Evidently, he still performs strip, so his gadgets aren't working so well.

 

But he must be certain that whatever instrument any doctor anywhere in the world is using , they MUST BE USING AT LEAST ONE OF HIS PATENTED COMPONENTS.

 

That means the doctor is in breach of a patent . All Feller needs to do is have a peek and then the legalities begin, ensuring he gets a cheque in the mail every time an FUE is performed.

 

Its what I think is the reason for his ongoing almost frantic posts over instrument disclosure, challenges etc

 

Dr. Feller

 

I only get interested in particular competitors when they make questionable claims or intimations. You claim loudly that your technique is better than the FUE technique of any competitor. That may or may not be true. I simply challenge your claim. If you are going to go public with such a pronouncement, then I can certainly challenge it on a public forum. Which I have done, and continue to do. To date you have only attacked me instead of supporting your claim.

 

I wonder, for all your “patient’s rights” rhetoric, do you provide complete “Informed Consent”? Specifically, the fact that FUE grafts must undergo 3 traumatic forces that strip grafts never endure:

1. Torsion

2. Traction

3. Compression

(and a few other minor ones).

 

For those of you out there who have wondered why FUE has not yet put an end to STRIP, it is because of these 3 detrimental forces. In the best of hands these forces are minimized, that’s what my patents are all about, but even so, yields are STILL lower than with strip surgery and is why I believe that if large procedures are needed, they should be done with strip, not FUE. ( The exception, of course, being patients like Franklin who would rather never have a strip surgery again. That’s a different matter).

 

Personally, I couldn’t care less what techniques Dr. ***** uses. I doubt they are revolutionary or even interesting. But if he is going to claim superiority in this field, he is going to have start by at least telling his patients before surgery the true differences between strip surgery and FUE surgery. Specifically, the limitations of FUE surgery.

 

Well, Dr. *****. How about it? Do you inform your patients of these three destructive FUE forces prior to surgery? 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression ?

 

You see, HT doctors do not make patients sign “waivers” as Dr. ****** loves to claim in his never ending effort to vilify other HT doctors. What he clearly doesn’t understand is that patients CAN’T “waive” their rights. That’s what makes them “rights”. And what he calls “rights” aren’t actually “rights”.

 

What HT doctors actually give patients is an INFORMED CONSENT document that TELL them what possible problems they might face should they decide to go ahead with a procedure. It also INFORMS them, specifically, of the downside of any procedure and that ALTERNATIVE treatments were discussed (in some states). The three detrimental forces of FUE and their resulting lower yields for FUE procedures must be included to have offered full informed consent.

 

 

Dr. *****

 

There are a few things Feller cannot own, control or patent.

 

He cannot own , control or patent the years of hard work and experimentation another doctor has done.

 

He cannot own, control and patent the care and commitment another doctor has given his patients

 

He cannot own control or patent the microsurgical skills another doctor has acquired.

 

But it is my guess, if he could find a way , he would.

 

In my opinion, that is what this guy is all about.

 

I think Feller has scribbled everything he could imagine and turned it into a patent, and like a spider , he waits for someone to "infringe"

 

As we all know , in every business venture, there are those who will out smart, or just plain screw hard working dedicated people who just didn’t see the threat coming.

 

But not in this town....boy

I

To all doctors performing FUE, with total commitment and hard work. I wish you all great success and great results

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

Funnily enough I loved Dr. A. P. (well respected IAHRS member) his response to Feller and he is spot on;

 

Not all fue is the same.

There will be doctors who -

1. Do not have the correct techniques,

2. Do not have the correct instrumentation,

3. Do not have the requisite training,

3. Do not have the requisite experience,

4. Do not have the requisite commitment,

to perform fue.

 

They will blame fue - not their own inadequacies - for the lack of results in their hands. Yesterday, I met a patient who had, ?fue technique performed on him. I was horrified at what was inflicted in name of fue.

 

Do not lay too much importance on utterances of doctors like Feller etc.

If in any doubt, go for a smaller test session or meet former patients.

 

 

I'm surprised you even offer FUE to be honest Dr. Feller? Why Dr. Feller?

Edited August 30, 2015 by Swooping

[BaldingBogger]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

This is an interesting "olive branch" that is being extended. An olive branch with conditions attached is not olive branch, sir. It is a prickly thicket that serves your interests alone. You'll understand my hesitation.

 

If you are referring to the "baseless" rant, comment there is no proof that you have presented. It is simply your opinion. You are assuming that the challenges you have experienced and have not ovecome in your FUE procedure are equally insurmountable by every other physician in the world. To apologize for this is to endorse your position, which I do not. In fact, the very idea of an apology for this, of all things, is humorous due to the sheer volume of insults and bulldog attacks you have made on not just me, which is of no real consequence, but my patients (Sethicles) and the respective readers and participants of this forum that dared to disagree with you.

 

And I also see no need to admit any mistake with my video. You have zeroed in on my original post which is over sixty pages back, in the middle of this thread as it stands now, while you posted the original video in subsequent posts, five times no less which negated your "cover up" claims. The mistake was yours, sir; yours because you did not pay attention to your own posts that have the original unedited video but for some reason you felt you should reach back sixty pages to attempt to shame me and call it a "cover up". Had you not attempted to wrongfully embarrass me with your accustations of subterfuge no one else would have given it much thought because you have been free to post the original, as you have, multiple times, just as you are still free to do so now. Do your five (so far) listings of the original video not negate any clandestine operations you accuse me of?

 

The apology I will give is to the readers and members. I feel that this thread is unfortunate and I do apologize for any misunderstandings or if I came across as rude. The true agenda of this thread is to tear down the merits of FUE and all that exercise it daily, a procedure that has already been through trial by fire during the early days of the online forum world where epic FUT vs. FUE battles have been waged. FUE has emerged, hardened from the experience, and validated by more and more clinics not only adopting the technique but converting to it 100%. Currently there is not a single reputable hold out doctor, that I am aware of, that is FUT only.

 

The agenda of this thread does not stop with the teardown of FUE. This thread is designed to discredit FUE while another, initiated by Dr. Feller's new partner, is designed to introduce mFUE as the perfect patent pending solution to the problems presented in this thread by FUE. It would be too obvious to have both arguments in the same thread but if two separate individuals initiate the strategy from different angles then it is more easily digested. Call it the "good cop/bad cop" routine, again patent pending.

 

To summarize what we have all learned:

 

1. No proof has been presented to show that the three physical forces described by Dr. Feller are insurmountable. None. There are no videos showing these forces, there are no photos showing these forces much less direct results of such forces directly tied into poor yield from any specific patient.

 

2. A "new" patent pending procedure has been introduced in the same time frame by Dr. Feller's partner that combines the "yield of FUT and the scarring of FUE" but Dr. Bloxham shares that FUE scarring is what people want while Dr. Feller says that FUE scarring is horrendous. I'm not clear on the difference but this is what is being stated but regardless of how you look at it, mFUE is here to save the day.

 

3. Dr. Feller did not make a single post, not one, between Janaury 2014 and June 2015. His account, "Dr. Alan Feller", had zero activity on this forum. When mFUE was announced by his partner, Dr. Feller's posting frequency rocketed through the stratosphere to discredit FUE. Why now? Why has Dr. Feller been completely and absolutely silent for a full year and a half before the announcement of mFUE, the proclamation of FUT being more popular than FUE, the mFUEvs.Stripvs.FUE thread, and the announcement of Dr. Blake now being a partner of Dr. Feller?

 

4. Dr. Feller attempted to create drama by saying that my editing of a video I posted sixty plus pages back, with the permission of Bill Seemiller, was a "cover up" like this forum had never seen before. This was said while five copies of the original, which I could have altered on Youtube at any time, rest untouched and unedited in his own posts. Did he overlook or choose to ignore? We'll never know.

 

I will close in saying that I agree the tone of this thread should return to a more healthy debate but I believe it is clear that if a more amicable level of participiation can be achieved it will most likely devolve again once another disagreement erupts. I will personally do what I can to refrain from such problematic posting and I will simply stick to the facts as I have continued to endeavor. However, as a question to the readership; How many clinics can you name in the past year that have switched to FUE, either partly or in whole? Now how many clinics can you name that have switched to or incorporated FUT into their practice, partly or in whole? The answer is what it is, the truth.

 

Good day.

 

Bravo Dr Bhatti. Could not have it put better!

[tommygun]

I would love to know the number of lawsuits in which Feller has been involved.

[mav23100gunther]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

This is an interesting "olive branch" that is being extended. An olive branch with conditions attached is not olive branch, sir. It is a prickly thicket that serves your interests alone. You'll understand my hesitation.

 

If you are referring to the "baseless" rant, comment there is no proof that you have presented. It is simply your opinion. You are assuming that the challenges you have experienced and have not ovecome in your FUE procedure are equally insurmountable by every other physician in the world. To apologize for this is to endorse your position, which I do not. In fact, the very idea of an apology for this, of all things, is humorous due to the sheer volume of insults and bulldog attacks you have made on not just me, which is of no real consequence, but my patients (Sethicles) and the respective readers and participants of this forum that dared to disagree with you.

 

And I also see no need to admit any mistake with my video. You have zeroed in on my original post which is over sixty pages back, in the middle of this thread as it stands now, while you posted the original video in subsequent posts, five times no less which negated your "cover up" claims. The mistake was yours, sir; yours because you did not pay attention to your own posts that have the original unedited video but for some reason you felt you should reach back sixty pages to attempt to shame me and call it a "cover up". Had you not attempted to wrongfully embarrass me with your accustations of subterfuge no one else would have given it much thought because you have been free to post the original, as you have, multiple times, just as you are still free to do so now. Do your five (so far) listings of the original video not negate any clandestine operations you accuse me of?

 

The apology I will give is to the readers and members. I feel that this thread is unfortunate and I do apologize for any misunderstandings or if I came across as rude. The true agenda of this thread is to tear down the merits of FUE and all that exercise it daily, a procedure that has already been through trial by fire during the early days of the online forum world where epic FUT vs. FUE battles have been waged. FUE has emerged, hardened from the experience, and validated by more and more clinics not only adopting the technique but converting to it 100%. Currently there is not a single reputable hold out doctor, that I am aware of, that is FUT only.

 

The agenda of this thread does not stop with the teardown of FUE. This thread is designed to discredit FUE while another, initiated by Dr. Feller's new partner, is designed to introduce mFUE as the perfect patent pending solution to the problems presented in this thread by FUE. It would be too obvious to have both arguments in the same thread but if two separate individuals initiate the strategy from different angles then it is more easily digested. Call it the "good cop/bad cop" routine, again patent pending.

 

To summarize what we have all learned:

 

1. No proof has been presented to show that the three physical forces described by Dr. Feller are insurmountable. None. There are no videos showing these forces, there are no photos showing these forces much less direct results of such forces directly tied into poor yield from any specific patient.

 

2. A "new" patent pending procedure has been introduced in the same time frame by Dr. Feller's partner that combines the "yield of FUT and the scarring of FUE" but Dr. Bloxham shares that FUE scarring is what people want while Dr. Feller says that FUE scarring is horrendous. I'm not clear on the difference but this is what is being stated but regardless of how you look at it, mFUE is here to save the day.

 

3. Dr. Feller did not make a single post, not one, between Janaury 2014 and June 2015. His account, "Dr. Alan Feller", had zero activity on this forum. When mFUE was announced by his partner, Dr. Feller's posting frequency rocketed through the stratosphere to discredit FUE. Why now? Why has Dr. Feller been completely and absolutely silent for a full year and a half before the announcement of mFUE, the proclamation of FUT being more popular than FUE, the mFUEvs.Stripvs.FUE thread, and the announcement of Dr. Blake now being a partner of Dr. Feller?

 

4. Dr. Feller attempted to create drama by saying that my editing of a video I posted sixty plus pages back, with the permission of Bill Seemiller, was a "cover up" like this forum had never seen before. This was said while five copies of the original, which I could have altered on Youtube at any time, rest untouched and unedited in his own posts. Did he overlook or choose to ignore? We'll never know.

 

I will close in saying that I agree the tone of this thread should return to a more healthy debate but I believe it is clear that if a more amicable level of participiation can be achieved it will most likely devolve again once another disagreement erupts. I will personally do what I can to refrain from such problematic posting and I will simply stick to the facts as I have continued to endeavor. However, as a question to the readership; How many clinics can you name in the past year that have switched to FUE, either partly or in whole? Now how many clinics can you name that have switched to or incorporated FUT into their practice, partly or in whole? The answer is what it is, the truth.

 

Good day.

 

Dr Bhatti, you are a gentleman sir! Dr Feller's olive branch reminds me of the sort of olive branch I would expect president Vladimir Putin to offer to our own dear president Obama.

 

Dr, I do have a question regarding point #3 - what exactly is your point there? What exactly is the big deal with Dr Feller being radio silent for a year and a half, and what is wrong with him a) trying to market MFUE; and b) providing his opinion on FUE which is basically discrediting it. I know they both inter-relate, but what is so bad about him doing that?