FUT is more popular than FUE

[Rawkerboi]

Great words Dr.Bhatti!

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

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?

 

 

 

Again, not very believable.

 

Your video in and of itself is scandalous. A virtual tutorial on how to mishandle grafts during FUE extraction. And it ran against every word you wrote about "advancements" in FUE surgery on this thread. Moreover, it supported everything I had been writing. In your zeal you posted it because you believed everyone would be impressed with the SPEED of your technique. But in doing so you blinded yourself to the increased graft mishandling that speed would necessitate. You also underestimated the HTN community by thinking they wouldn't notice it. They did.

 

Right after I posted my critique of the technique in your video you knew you had to pull it off but couldn't because you knew you'd get caught. That's the only reason why I can still reference it now. So you went into damage control mode and created the edited version. That in and of itself is not clandestine. But going back into your old post to plant it there in place of the original video is blatant subterfuge. You did that so that any reference to your own post, or any search engine that happened to find that post in your name in the future, would have the edited video and not the original.

 

Then you would let some time go by when attention turned away from this thread and quietly kill the original Youtube video, leaving just the edited version. And if this thread were ever pulled up by anyone in the future your new edited link would still be there, while the links to the original video that are in my posts would be broken. Or, you would have just kept the links in my post alive but switched in the edited video on the Youtube side very quietly.

 

At the eight day mark after posting the video you ran into a problem though, didn't you? I suspect you found that you could no longer edit your post and make the switch because the edit function for that post expired. So to get into your old post and make the change you had to contact Bill to allow it. You wrote as if he knew and approved of what you were actually going to do and why. While he gave you "permission" to make an edit, I doubt he knew what you're intentions were in doing so. If you wanted to post a new video, that is, an edited version of the one you already had already posted, I'm sure Bill would have told you to just make a NEW post so there would be no confusion. So my guess is that Bill is not aware of what you did once he unlocked the edit feature on your old post. I suspect when he learns of what you did and why, the old link will be re-established, as it should be.

 

There could be no other explanation for you going back into an old post eight days after you posted it to switch out the link to a new video. If you wanted to make a new version of the video that "focuses more on the surgery", or whatever, then you would have simply made your edits and published it in a NEW post with the headline "New Bhatti Video", or something like that. But you didn't do that. (By the way, I still fail to see how blurring out most of the video and shortening it by one third "focuses" more on the surgery. But it's your video. )

 

It is clear you don't want the public to see that original video any more than they have to. The fact that you blurred ANY part of it out shows any rational person you are indeed engaging in a cover up. Literally. And the fact that you went back into a post you wrote 8 days prior and changed the link to a newly edited video shows again that you are engaging in another level of cover up. Had the scenes you deleted and blurred had nothing to do with our debate then I wouldn't have said a word. But the opposite was true, everything you edited had everything to do with our debate and so should never have been edited and switched in your original post.

 

I have not shamed you Dr Bhatti. You have truly shamed yourself through your own actions. I will alert the moderator to your activities.

[Shera]

Dr Fellar, you come across as very bitter and twisted, surely you can see this when you proof read your posts.

 

Maybe you need to face reality and accept that you no longer are perceived as the King of HT, every dog has his day and yours has maybe come and gone.

 

Now please quietly move on and enjoy the rest of your life. New York is a wonderful place with so much out there to see and do, enjoy! Get yourself a girlfriend, have a few beers, party on, chill out, get down man!

[lileli]

Dr. Harris,

 

I was able to see our post before it was removed. Thank you for your views. It added to the discussion in a meaningful way. I hope your post reappears.

[Melvin- Admin]

Is there any reason his post disappeared it was very insightful, especially since Dr. Harris is doing FUE research in ISHRS can any mods explain what happened?

[Britanium]

Dr Harris - will you please repost your excellent information. Thanks !

[voxman]

I read it too - great post.

 

It's entirely possible there were keywords that flagged it for review.

[lileli]

The crux of his post was that all early studies indicate that FUE grafts are more fragile but if handled correctly then survival rates are the same.

[tommygun]

Beware the man that builds monuments to himself...

Edited September 1, 2015 by tommygun

[Bill - Seemiller]

Guys, I am reading reports that Dr. Harris' post disappeared and I am investigating it now. I did see his post come through my email and I want to be real clear that neither the publishers nor the moderators of this community removed it. In fact I applauded when I read his post because I felt that he made some excellent points. Maybe Dr. Harris himself removed the post? I will go back and scroll through and do my best to find out what happened. If Dr. Harris removed his own post, I'd be hesitant to reinstate it because maybe he just doesn't have time to get into the debate. But he clearly has some valuable things to say and I really hope that if he removed it, he reinstates his own post.

[Bill - Seemiller]

OK, I do see in fact that Dr. Harris removed his own post. I'm disappointed to see that he did that however, his reasons were that he misunderstood the purpose of the topic. That said, I do think his comments were very appropriate and spot on and should be included in the discussion. However, I feel uncomfortable reinstating his post without his direct permission. Thus, I will send him an email asking for his permission to reinstate his comments as I feel that his contributions to the field of FUE and his comments on this topic are highly valuable.

[lorenzo]

I read it too - great post.

 

It's entirely possible there were keywords that flagged it for review

If there were any keywords I don't think it would be published from the start.

[voxman]

If there were any keywords I don't think it would be published from the start.

 

Yeah, but now we see it was because he deleted it. Too bad - I can understand his reluctance if he misunderstood the purpose of the topic. It was a very good post.

 

But it's still in my email and I can read it every day now...in fact, I'm going to go read it again now!

[tommygun]

I think you should post it.

[lorenzo]

I think you should post it.

 

You have to respect the doctors decision. He may have decided after he posted that he didn't want to get involved and I don't blame him.

[FUE2014]

I read it too. I hope he re posts it. It made very relevant points. Doc please reinstate it. You don't have to participate further in the debate.

[voxman]

You have to respect the doctors decision. He may have decided after he posted that he didn't want to get involved and I don't blame him.

 

I wouldn't entertain the thought of posting anything with out anyones permission. Not even asking to do so.

[tommygun]

You have to respect the doctors decision. He may have decided after he posted that he didn't want to get involved and I don't blame him.

 

You really can not blame any doctor for not engaging.

[HairJo]

I feel he said what he needed to say and does not want to engage in a debate or maybe he's reconsidering what he said. I guess we shall wait and see.

[Swooping]

Content deleted by moderator

Edited September 2, 2015 by David - Moderator
Reposted without permission from Dr. Harris

[Yaz89]

Swooping did you read Bill's reply why Dr Harris deleted his post:

 

"OK, I do see in fact that Dr. Harris removed his own post. I'm disappointed to see that he did that however, his reasons were that he misunderstood the purpose of the topic"

 

What is the point of adding more fire to the smoke?

 

Moderators is this right? Knowing the good doctor deleted his own post?

[Mickey85]

Swooping did you read Bill's reply why Dr Harris deleted his post:

 

"OK, I do see in fact that Dr. Harris removed his own post. I'm disappointed to see that he did that however, his reasons were that he misunderstood the purpose of the topic"

 

What is the point of adding more fire to the smoke?

 

Moderators is this right? Knowing the good doctor deleted his own post?

 

I have to agree here. Whilst I did not see the initial post and was curious as to what was written, I don't personally think it should have been re-posted(publicly anyway) as it was willingly deleted by Dr Harris by choice.

[Yaz89]

I have to agree here. Whilst I did not see the initial post and was curious as to what was written, I don't personally think it should have been re-posted(publicly anyway) as it was willingly deleted by Dr Harris by choice.

 

Thank you Mickey. This forum is about educating and passing on information in a civil way.

[mav23100gunther]

Landed in my e-mailbox, from anonymous;

 

Swooping, I assume you received the approval/consent from Dr Harris to post this on his behalf or b) you are assuming ownership over the opinion as your own and can stand by them? If neither of the above, you are opening yourself up

[hairshopeing]

Mickey

I read the post before Dr Harris removed it and he was basically saying fue has grown and continues to do so,also in his belief technology had moved on regarding people using neo graft and artas etc he also said that fue in his and several other Dr's practices is on par with strip results and I can't remember exact figures but between 80-92 % growth with fue!

 

Basically he was opposing Dr fellers view and saying what Dr feller had written wasn't factual in terms of fue growth in the industry or in terms of yield from grafts!

 

Shame he removed it, but can't blame him, Dr feller can't demand his gull name and email address as there already on here!!!

 

Just joking Dr feller, you can occasionally seem an OK feller!!