FUT is more popular than FUE

[TakingThePlunge]

Guys,

 

I have removed Swooping's repost of Dr. Harris' comments. I agree it was a very compelling argument but he chose to remove the post and I have received no information indicating that he has since changed his mind.

 

Let's be respectful of Dr. Harris' wishes.

[Swooping]

Guys,

 

I have removed Swooping's repost of Dr. Harris' comments. I agree it was a very compelling argument but he chose to remove the post and I have received no information indicating that he has since changed his mind.

 

Let's be respectful of Dr. Harris' wishes.

 

Fair enough David. You are the moderator so you make the decisions. I got to respect that.

 

However in the light of this topic it's extremely valuable information for the consumers who are coming to this site. I'm all for consumers so that's why I decided to post the message. After all the message came into my e-mail.

 

I'll just say then that the message basically opposed Feller pretty much in every aspect. Most importantly the yield question.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Swooping

[HairJo]

Swooping how to you get off reposting something that isn't yours and has been removed by it's original author? Are you just a troublemaker or do you have some sort of hatred against Dr. Feller because you are always on his back.

[esrec]

I think controversial topics in particular should be shared. Difference of opinion should not prevent valuable knowledge sharing.

 

I am currently considering working with Dr. Harris or a well known NY surgeon. One of which is recommending SAFE because he can achieve equivalent RESULTS, while the other continues to challenge that premise.

 

How can we resolve such debate if the doctors opinions, if even opposing, are not shared in a constructive manner? Ego should not override information.

[1978matt]

I know how some enjoy a good conspiracy theory:

 

 

[destorius]

I know how some enjoy a good conspiracy theory:

 

 

 

Nice beat! Haha! Unless either more doctors come on here to give their opinion or a scientific study can be developed to test the theory, I would propose closing this thread - surely it has run its course?

[lorenzo]

I guess it works both ways.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Guys,

 

While I would have liked Dr. Harris to commit to his post and not remove it, we have to respect his decision and the fact that he wants it down. I ask that nobody repost any of his comments as he did email me personally asking that any comments that have been re-published without his permission be removed. Thus, I ask that everyone respect the doctor's decision and not repost any of his comments.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

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.

 

Dr. Bhatti,

 

I'm a little confused regarding the above comments. I never recommended that you edit the original video. In fact, I advised against it. In an email on August 15th, you said:

 

"Hi Bill,

Can the previous video I uploaded be replaced with this one-

 

Dr Tejinder Bhatti"

 

Below was my response:

 

"Dr. Bhatti,

 

You have the ability to edit your posts up to 10 days. Thus, technically you can edit your post and replace the video with the new one. However, I do not recommend it. People have already seen that video and they want a response to their comments and concerns. Removing the video and replacing it with a new one will make it look like you are trying to ignore people's concerns for hiding something. Instead, standby your video and explain everything in order to address everyone's concerns. In addition, feel free to post the new video as a new reply to the topic and explain your reasons for that as well.

 

Ultimately, remember that everything you post can't really be undone because people are always going to see it. Trying to go backwards and remove things or change things doesn't work very well and has the potential to make someone doing this look bad. Thus, it is my strong opinion and sincere advice for you to address the members concerns related to the previous video and then post the new video as a separate reply in order to explain where do whatever you need to do.

 

I hope this helps."

 

Your response was...

 

"Bill,

 

Thanks. I will take your advice. Never thought of removing the video though.

 

The change yesterday was to correct a sequence since in the old video beard harvesting was also shown as scalp harvesting and it looked weird.

 

Also I wanted to add where this video was aimed at and if you see it again I have now mentioned the thread and the forum's URL.

 

Regards,"

Dr. Bhatti, I'll admit that I haven't followed the topic that closely over the last week or two and thus, I did not see the entire original video nor did I see the edited video. I will be reviewing both of these videos shortly and then add my thoughts. That said, I stand behind my comments above. I really think you should have kept the original video and addressed concerns posted by both Dr. Feller and patient members rather than replacing it with a different one.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[FUE2014]

Bill,

 

The removal / reediting of the video is taking the debate backwards rather than forwards.

[California]

Dr. Bhatti,

 

I'm a little confused regarding the above comments. I never recommended that you edit the original video. In fact, I advised against it. In an email on August 15th, you said:

 

"Hi Bill,

Can the previous video I uploaded be replaced with this one-

 

Dr Tejinder Bhatti"

 

Below was my response:

 

"Dr. Bhatti,

 

You have the ability to edit your posts up to 10 days. Thus, technically you can edit your post and replace the video with the new one. However, I do not recommend it. People have already seen that video and they want a response to their comments and concerns. Removing the video and replacing it with a new one will make it look like you are trying to ignore people's concerns for hiding something. Instead, standby your video and explain everything in order to address everyone's concerns. In addition, feel free to post the new video as a new reply to the topic and explain your reasons for that as well.

 

Ultimately, remember that everything you post can't really be undone because people are always going to see it. Trying to go backwards and remove things or change things doesn't work very well and has the potential to make someone doing this look bad. Thus, it is my strong opinion and sincere advice for you to address the members concerns related to the previous video and then post the new video as a separate reply in order to explain where do whatever you need to do.

 

I hope this helps."

 

Your response was...

 

"Bill,

 

Thanks. I will take your advice. Never thought of removing the video though.

 

The change yesterday was to correct a sequence since in the old video beard harvesting was also shown as scalp harvesting and it looked weird.

 

Also I wanted to add where this video was aimed at and if you see it again I have now mentioned the thread and the forum's URL.

 

Regards,"

 

Dr. Bhatti, I'll admit that I haven't followed the topic that closely over the last week or two and thus, I did not see the entire original video nor did I see the edited video. I will be reviewing both of these videos shortly and then add my thoughts. That said, I stand behind my comments above. I really think you should have kept the original video and addressed concerns posted by both Dr. Feller and patient members rather than replacing it with a different one.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

I believe that Dr. Bhatti has explained in detail several times already why he felt the need to edit the original video. Please note that the original video is about 15 minutes long, and hence way too long for sharing on this Forum. There was no attempt to "change" or "hide" anything. Dr. Feller repeatedly re-posted Dr. Bhatti's video (at least 5 times, if not more). Had we been trying to "hide" anything, we could have easily taken down (or edited) our youtube video. We did NOT.

 

I am surprised by the different benchmarks and protocols that are being applied. Very recently, an esteemed HT Surgeon, Dr. James Harris posted his views about the FUT vs FUE debate on this thread. Everyone that read the post from Dr. Harris would agree that it was mainly pro-FUE and was refuting Dr. Feller's claims. A little while later, Dr. Harris deleted his post. Everyone (including most of the HRN members, David and yourself) agreed that we should respect Dr. Harris's wishes about deleting his original post. I also endorse that opinion. Now, flip over to the Dr. Bhatti video edit "issue" and see how big of a mountain has been "attempted" to be created out of a molehill!!! Does Dr. Bhatti not have the right refine what is his property (video)? Again, had there been any intention of concealment, the original video would not have been available anymore.....The fact that it is readily available for anyone to see (with multiple links from Dr. Feller on this thread alone) proves that the edit was done in good faith. The original video was a "rough cut" and the edit was done to make it more concise, shorter, to the point and refined. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Best regards,

California

[lileli]

Focusing on this video isn't moving the debate forward.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Hi Bill,

 

I believe that Dr. Bhatti has explained in detail several times already why he felt the need to edit the original video. Please note that the original video is about 15 minutes long, and hence way too long for sharing on this Forum. There was no attempt to "change" or "hide" anything. Dr. Feller repeatedly re-posted Dr. Bhatti's video (at least 5 times, if not more). Had we been trying to "hide" anything, we could have easily taken down (or edited) our youtube video. We did NOT.

 

I am surprised by the different benchmarks and protocols that are being applied. Very recently, an esteemed HT Surgeon, Dr. James Harris posted his views about the FUT vs FUE debate on this thread. Everyone that read the post from Dr. Harris would agree that it was mainly pro-FUE and was refuting Dr. Feller's claims. A little while later, Dr. Harris deleted his post. Everyone (including most of the HRN members, David and yourself) agreed that we should respect Dr. Harris's wishes about deleting his original post. I also endorse that opinion. Now, flip over to the Dr. Bhatti video edit "issue" and see how big of a mountain has been "attempted" to be created out of a molehill!!! Does Dr. Bhatti not have the right refine what is his property (video)? Again, had there been any intention of concealment, the original video would not have been available anymore.....The fact that it is readily available for anyone to see (with multiple links from Dr. Feller on this thread alone) proves that the edit was done in good faith. The original video was a "rough cut" and the edit was done to make it more concise, shorter, to the point and refined. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Best regards,

California

 

How was the edit done in good faith? You specifically blocked out all the parts that had supported my claims and refuted Dr. Bhatti's claims. Then you waited eight days for the thread to advance pages away from the original post and quietly went in and changed it even though Bill told you not to do it. By doing that you invalidated any subsequent post thereafter that referenced that original post and video. Basically put, you changed the past on the sly to hide the contents of the original video. But you got caught. You didn't think you would because who would check 40 pages back? But I did by shear luck.

 

Of course you couldn't take down the original video yet, you would have been instantly caught. You didn't leave it up in good faith. You left it up because you had to. I have no doubt you would have broken that link as this thread faded away leaving just the new version.

 

If you really produced the new video in good faith and wanted to post it in good faith you would have done so in a new post or a new thread and announced it loudly. You didn't. Instead you snuck it into an old post and falsely claimed that Bill approved of this maneuver. I knew he wouldn't and his email attests to that. Simple, Dr. Bhatti tried to cover up the video and got caught, then he lied about it and got caught again.

 

I think I've had just about enough of this negativity. I think everyone has. If you felt compelled to engage in this kind of obvious subterfuge then I suspect you're sick of it too. I've made my points. I am satisfied. Go and do your thing. I'll do my thing. But if I wish to express my opinions, observations, and experiences about FUE or anything else I will thank you not to harass me or try to silence me. I am entitled to my free expression on this site without harassment from you. Stay away from my threads and I, as always, will stay away from yours.

[Bill - Seemiller]

California,

 

Dr. Harris' post has nothing to do with this. Just like I advised Dr. Bhatti to keep the original video and simply post another one in addition if he wanted/needed to, I encouraged Dr. Harris to re-post his comments as I thought they were valuable to the discussion.

 

I haven't seen both clips yet so I can't comment on its content. Thus, I am not implying Dr. Bhatti is trying to hide anything nor am I arguing against it. However, the post I responded to made it sound like I provided "permission" to change the video when my email to him (and you) specifically advised against it. That's they point I was getting at.

 

I've already acknowledged that I haven't followed the debate closely over the last week or so. If discussion of the video is dead, that's fine. But I wanted to make it clear that I never advocated for the removal or editing of the original video. I am a firm believer that apart from minor revisions for spelling or grammar, members should stand behind their posts and do minimal editing.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[mav23100gunther]

Dr. Bhatti,

 

I'm a little confused regarding the above comments. I never recommended that you edit the original video. In fact, I advised against it. In an email on August 15th, you said:

 

"Hi Bill,

Can the previous video I uploaded be replaced with this one-

 

Dr Tejinder Bhatti"

 

Below was my response:

 

"Dr. Bhatti,

 

You have the ability to edit your posts up to 10 days. Thus, technically you can edit your post and replace the video with the new one. However, I do not recommend it. People have already seen that video and they want a response to their comments and concerns. Removing the video and replacing it with a new one will make it look like you are trying to ignore people's concerns for hiding something. Instead, standby your video and explain everything in order to address everyone's concerns. In addition, feel free to post the new video as a new reply to the topic and explain your reasons for that as well.

 

Ultimately, remember that everything you post can't really be undone because people are always going to see it. Trying to go backwards and remove things or change things doesn't work very well and has the potential to make someone doing this look bad. Thus, it is my strong opinion and sincere advice for you to address the members concerns related to the previous video and then post the new video as a separate reply in order to explain where do whatever you need to do.

 

I hope this helps."

 

Your response was...

 

"Bill,

 

Thanks. I will take your advice. Never thought of removing the video though.

 

The change yesterday was to correct a sequence since in the old video beard harvesting was also shown as scalp harvesting and it looked weird.

 

Also I wanted to add where this video was aimed at and if you see it again I have now mentioned the thread and the forum's URL.

 

Regards,"

Dr. Bhatti, I'll admit that I haven't followed the topic that closely over the last week or two and thus, I did not see the entire original video nor did I see the edited video. I will be reviewing both of these videos shortly and then add my thoughts. That said, I stand behind my comments above. I really think you should have kept the original video and addressed concerns posted by both Dr. Feller and patient members rather than replacing it with a different one.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

Wow - the e-mail trail looks pretty bad Dr Bhatti. I think it's pretty telling actually, especially when you combine with how the video was edited and certain key parts blurred out. Also love how all the FUT haters like HTsoon and Seth have nothing to say on this matter (yet have had a pushback for almost everything Feller related) and others are claiming that the video is taking the debate backwards/let's move on. I think this perceived cover-up by Dr Bhatti has everything to do with it. Would love to hear Bill's thoughts on the two videos too. Really good catch Dr Feller!

[mav23100gunther]

Bill,

 

The removal / reediting of the video is taking the debate backwards rather than forwards.

 

Why? Let's just ignore a perceived cover-up? The real reason why Dr Bhatti wanted to switch videos is absolutely relevant. Feller called him out on aspects of the video, and instead of standing his ground, Dr Bhatti tried to edit the video to an extreme and then try to switch videos without informing us as recommended by Bill. That says it all - was Dr Feller actually right all along? Does the video actually support the claims of the three forces. I don't know, but man the actions taken by Bhatti don't look good at all.

[lileli]

Wow - the e-mail trail looks pretty bad Dr Bhatti. I think it's pretty telling actually, especially when you combine with how the video was edited and certain key parts blurred out. Also love how all the FUT haters like HTsoon and Seth have nothing to say on this matter (yet have had a pushback for almost everything Feller related) and others are claiming that the video is taking the debate backwards/let's move on. I think this perceived cover-up by Dr Bhatti has everything to do with it. Would love to hear Bill's thoughts on the two videos too. Really good catch Dr Feller!

 

I think you are reaching. I don't believe Mr. Feller has a business angle to sell mFUE by destroYing fue . Let's stop with the video and the nonsense

[Sethticles]

we wont be able to judge the video's 1 or 2 for at least 6 month even 12months. if a video is taken down, re-edited, shuffled about, blurred out, and the result is 97% success rate, which it could be, then Dr Bhatti has not only shut the door on the 3 detrimental forces but shown speed, high level of skill is needed in FUE.

 

For those who have had HT with Dr Bhatti, this is what he has done to us, i feel i have had a great yield , Bill comments that his hair is actually not kinky wiry hair, comparing his FUT which was,

 

Dr Feller knows this, he knows he has to wait for the result but wants to turn this into some "gotcha game" when really the "gotch" will be Feller in say 9months when the results come out.

[mav23100gunther]

I think you are reaching. I don't believe Mr. Feller has a business angle to sell mFUE by destroYing fue . Let's stop with the video and the nonsense

 

If only Nixon and Brady were so lucky!

[esrec]

As a newer member I'm a bit surprised and disappointed by the tone here. It's a little sad to see such petty back and forth between physicians.

[Melvin- Admin]

People are still talking about the video, it's on his YouTube channel, pretty sure if he wanted to cover it up he would've switched the video on his YouTube account.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

I agree, the negativity has gone too far and I’m sure the posting history will show where the negativity is coming from.

 

I will remind everyone that the video was not removed. The video remains on Youtube, untouched, and in five postings by Dr. Feller.

 

Mr. Bill, you said the following,

 

“I've already acknowledged that I haven't followed the debate closely over the last week or so. If discussion of the video is dead, that's fine. But I wanted to make it clear that I never advocated for the removal or editing of the original video. I am a firm believer that apart from minor revisions for spelling or grammar, members should stand behind their posts and do minimal editing."

 

I did not suggest Mr. Bill that you advocate my actions. I stated earlier that you gave me permission. Do I misunderstand the word? I know the word “permission” to mean being allowed something. Does the word “permission” mean endorse or support? Indeed, you advised me and I chose to do what I thought would be acceptable. Dr. Feller has the original video posted five times so I did not believe it to be an issue and I do not understand why it is so controversial if the original is intact here and on my You Tube channel. I agree posts should remain with minor revisions for spelling or grammar and should not be removed but recent history suggests otherwise. My post was untouched but the video was edited over seventy pages ago and a private email exchange, that supports my original position still and shared without my permission, and I am being attacked for changing something that still exists in it’s original form with five copies and over 450 views. Dr. Feller even claimed that the embedding feature had been disabled when it clearly has not. Yet when another physician wishes to have his entire post removed it is done so without incident.

 

Mr. Mav23100gunther,

 

I believe this email trail, which was posted without my authorization, shows what I said from the beginning. I wished to concentrate on the extraction and I believe the circle of focus helps to do this. If you watch the edited version you will also see that from the 2:00 point to the 2:29 point there is no circle focus effect. You can also see that I have each sequence labeled for clarity and I have also included information about the forceps. They are the CIT forceps, which prevent crushing contrary to Dr. Feller’s claims. I’ve said this before.

 

I am of the belief that this obsession with the video is another effort to detract from the lack of evidence to support Dr. Feller’s claims. He says the detriment nature of the three forces he lists are fact but the only fact is that they are his theory. He has no proof that these forces are so detrimental that they cannot be overcome, which is required in science and medicine before a challenge to refute can be made. I also believe this is a ruse to reduce the credibility of FUE in support of his new procedure which supposedly solves problems that none of you knew existed.

 

I have some questions that I would like asked.

 

1. What is the size of the punch for mFUE?

2. How long has mFUE been in development?

3. Did Dr. Blake work on the development of mFUE while he was under your tutelage?

4. Did Dr. Blake know he would have a financial benefit from the development of mFUE or anything related to your practice?

 

Mr. Mavgunther21300, I believe you asked earlier why mFUE was of any concern regarding this thread. I had elected to not continue with this line of thinking as I felt the thread was finally retiring but since it is now revived I will tell you why I was discussing this. I believe it was compulsory for the professional relationship between Dr. Feller and Dr. Blake to be revealed to the community from the beginning, which according to Dr. Blake was two years ago. Dr. Feller is a competitor, not necessarily to me, but to many doctors in North America and particularly in New York and many of them are paying members of this website. For there to be a moderator of a forum that influences the surgical decision of many many people with his “opinion” while simultaneously being influenced by a a paying member that is a competitor, with financial gain either directly or assumed from the relationship, is a conflict of interest.

 

Harvard Medical School states…

 

"Research that involves human study participants or samples is subjected to higher scrutiny with respect to the potential for financial conflicts of interest. This is because the ramifications of bias in clinical research are more immediate and directly impact the safety and welfare of clinical research participants. This rule guards against bias, or the appearance of bias, that might occur if a faculty member conducted clinical research in which she or he had a financial stake in the outcome or allegiance to the funding company. Such a conflict might cause the faculty member to alter his or her study design, conduct, or reporting of the research in some way, whether consciously or unconsciously, or it may cause the public to lose trust in the reliability of the research outcomes. "

 

In a case such as Feller/Bloxham the “study participants” are you, the forum members. The “funding company” is Dr. Feller and the “faculty” is Dr. Blake.

 

In some cases some financial associations are acceptable but in every case the relationship must be disclosed, much like how representative on the forums must disclose their relationship with the clinic they work for, which was what Dr. Feller was accusing my patient Sethicles of being. In short, Dr. Blake was working/training with Dr. Feller and developing a new technique for two years with the intent of profit once training was completed and a partnership was formed. It is my opinion, based on statements and timelines shared that this is the entire reason for Dr. Blakes admitted transition from believing in FUE to being a naysayer. It is also the reason for the re-emergence of Dr. Feller after a year and a half and these threads designed to discredit FUE and deliver mFUE as the solution to the problem that cannot be proven to exist outside of Dr. Feller’s hands.

 

 

Good day.

[FUE2014]

It does appear at some point (towards the latter stages of his role as a moderator) that Blake would have had a conflict of interest due to his association with a predominantly FUT based practice. Now, whether that was disclosed to Bill or the community is something I don't know. Also I'm not sure Blake necessarily said anything to profit from his association with Feller, so even though there may have been a conflict of interest at some point, I don't think Blake has acted on it in bad faith.

[lileli]

This thread has lost its purpose. At this point, if no new information is added it might as well be closed or allowed to die a slow death. If you want a good fue go to an fue doctor and the sane for strip. Have a good day everyone.

[PupDaddy]

Personally, I’d still very much like to know the bases for Dr. Bhatti’s assertion that “speed is the singlemost essential factor which gives FUE in general and FUE megasessions in particular a higher yield almost comparable to FUT.” (Post #825, p. 83 of this thread.) Dr. Bhatti made that assertion in response to questions and concerns raised about the original version of the video he posted showing his FUE technique.

 

When I questioned that assertion, which to me seemed counterintuitive (post #831, p. 83), Dr. Bhatti sent me an unsolicited message assuring me that he would publicly answer those questions in detail. That was on August 17th.

 

The only reason I could think of for scoring (with a motorized punch) and extracting thousands of grafts at the breakneck speed demonstrated in Dr. Bhatti’s original, unedited video, would be to allow the clinic to churn out multiple FUE cases per day. Good for the clinic’s bottom line. Not so good, it would seem, for maximizing each patient’s yield.

 

If preventing desiccation of the grafts were the objective of the speed approach demonstrated, it seems that this could be achieved with other strategies that would allow for a more measured pace of scoring, extraction, and implantation and a more careful and gentle handling of delicate FUE grafts. For example, grafts could be scored, extracted, and implanted in batches of, say, 600. In other words, carefully score and carefully extract 600 grafts (depositing them into an appropriate holding solution as they are extracted), sort them, implant them, then repeat this process with additional batches of 600 grafts until the total target number for the restoration had been extracted and implanted.

 

If necessary, extreme megasession FUE cases could be executed over consecutive days or perhaps with an intervening day between surgical days to give the patient’s donor a day of rest between “assault” days. The “batch” approach to scoring, extraction, and implantation (described above) could still be employed, perhaps with somewhat larger batch numbers but which still would allow for more measured, careful, and gentle scoring, extraction, and implantation of these delicate, stripped down FUE grafts.

 

Of course, these protocols likely would decrease the number of patients that could be worked on or completed per day, particularly if the “batch” approach were employed, which would require the surgeon to be present and participating during much or all of the surgery. But if the goal is to maximize FUE yield for each patient . . . . .

 

Am I missing something? Dr. Bhatti?

 

Again, I pose these questions in the interest of education, my own and that of other members interested in the science, art, and technique of hair restoration. I am neither pro nor anti FUE nor pro or anti FUT (or mFUE). I am pro exceptional hair restoration.