Why NOT to get an FUE- Interview with Dr. Willaim Reed- by Dr. Feller and Bloxham

[Mick50]

The best decision you can make is to have an FUT procedure.

 

FUE is a blind procedure that rips the graft from the scalp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has always been my understanding of the FUE procedure but as you can read Dr Cooley's clinic clearly state this isn't the case.

[tofur]

The best decision you can make is to have an FUT procedure.

 

FUE is a blind procedure that rips the graft from the scalp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has always been my understanding of the FUE procedure but as you can read Dr Cooley's clinic clearly state this isn't the case.

 

I think Dr. Feller's point was that you can't see through the skin from the surface no matter what magnification you have. Cooley didn't really refute that in that quote. If he punches a 2 follicle graft out and it turns out to be a 4 he could very well have damaged the 2 hidden ones by using too small a punch.

[Mick50]

 

I think Dr. Feller's point was that you can't see through the skin from the surface no matter what magnification you have. Cooley didn't really refute that in that quote. If he punches a 2 follicle graft out and it turns out to be a 4 he could very well have damaged the 2 hidden ones by using too small a punch.

 

Well exactly, that is the point, no matter how strong the magnification you can't see under the skin to cherry pick the grafts . Also it's not Dr Cooley responding it's a a clinic rep . In the sequence of responses the rep didn't refute anything, he's just stating that you can cherry pick FUE grafts as well as you can in FUT .

 

It still wasn't wasn't properly explained to me in the reps responses how you can cherry pick grafts using the FUE method in his final response he seemed to be mixing up the two methods together.,

Edited August 14, 2017 by Mick50

[Mick50]

 

Well exactly, that is the point, no matter how strong the magnification you can't see under the skin to cherry pick the grafts . Also it's not Dr Cooley responding it's a a clinic rep . In the sequence of responses the rep didn't refute anything, he's just stating that you can cherry pick FUE grafts as well as you can in FUT .

 

I

[Schiller]

This thread has been very helpful and has changed my thinking and approach. However, it also has reduced my hope in future options. I know what the doctors will say: FUE is still viable if you can't use FUT. One must just choose a reputable surgeon. But this video goes a bit too far in disparaging the only other option to FUT. After watching this, it's hard to be enthused for FUE, whatever surgeon one might go to.

[cybersam]

Interesting thread. Maybebi read this a bit late, but i have already been through a FUE process on Aug 10th.

I have decided to post a day by day update on the recovery and hair growth post the process.

Do check it here

https://hubpages.com/style/My-Daily-Experience-post-FUE-Hair-Transplant

[Dr. Alan Feller]

That quote from Cooley has nothing to do with "cherry picking" FUE grafts.

 

It's just saying that he uses magnification to help him extract the grafts as they are, and then uses microscopes to determine how many follicles those extracted grafts actually have in them AFTER they have been removed and are on the dissecting table.

 

The reason he is doing this is precisely because he can't cherry pick. You applied the word and the concept of cherry picking, Cooley (or whoever wrote that quote) did not. There is nothing about it in the quote.

 

The reason he looks at the grafts after they have been removed is because he doesn't know how many follicles are actually in it. There may have been one hair coming out of the skin before the extraction and yet there might be one or two more follicles in the graft in different phases of growth where the hairs could not be seen. There is no way for him to know before he targets it. That's what makes FUE is a blind procedure. It is also why so many FUE hairlines have multiple hairs coming out of a graft instead of just being pure singles.

 

Also, he may target a three hair graft, but one or two of the follicles and/or their bulbs may be torn off during the extraction process. The only way to know is to look under a microscope after the fact. We've been doing this since we started doing FUE 17 years ago. Problem is MOST FUE clinics do not inspect their grafts under a microscope- or at all. If the target graft had three hairs coming out of it yet two are torn away leaving just one possibly functioning follicle it is still counted as a three hair graft. If you want to know how they justify this, just ask me.

 

There is no cherry picking in FUE. It is a totally blind procedure.

 

[BaldingBogger]

Piven has a gnarly scar, I don't know who did his procedure but closures were not his specialty.

 

Agreed. This is it. Although you would expect he went to a leading Dr?

[mikeyhwk]

In Dr Fellers/Bloxhams response video they make some statements

 

At 3:30ish in the vid...Fut grafts 98% survival rate...fue grafts at best 85%, more like 50%.

 

So lets go ahead and average that... tho if you apply Dr Fellers tone then it should be closer to the 50% than the middle but for the sake of simplicity, average..., Round up the half point, 68%...so we're on average getting 30% more growth from from fut over fue for the same number of grafts used...so we're essentially saying 3k fue grafts = 2100 fut grafts.

 

at 4:43 Dr Bloxham emphatically nods, no real point in mentioning this but they did on the video so I felt I should as well

 

At 8:18 the docs say among a couple other things hair shafts will not grow as well and hairlines will not look as good using fue

 

so we're at this stage getting 30% less grafts and the ones that do grow are weaker which means weaker hairlines and I assume just coverage period...So if we're to go by this then 3k fue grafts wouldn't even equal 2100 fut grafts, Lets just super low ball it and say that of the survivors the fut grafts are just 5% better which Im sure the drs would say isn't the case its much higher but for the sake of the math, so now it takes 3150 fue grafts to equal 2100 fut grafts.

 

So just an informal poll among the members, when you see the likes of Lorenzo, Erdogan, Feriduni, Bisanga, Lupanzula, Diep all docs either approved here or known for excellence, given the same hair characteristics, over the same general area...are you guys seeing the top fut doctors being able to accomplish with 2k grafts what these guys do with 3 k grafts? Knowing full well you'll never have an exact same situation but I think we've seen enough similar type situations that we can extrapolate to form an opinion on this.

 

I'm not disputing anything the docs are saying in regards to fut being the better yielding procedure, nor am I questioning the points they made about the potential damage to fue grafts, gold standard talk but visually I am having trouble reconciling the numbers they lay out to the results I am seeing when it comes to clinics most of us would use. I am just curious to see what other members are seeing, are the numbers passing the eye test?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Mikey,

You definitely get the participation award. I think few watched the video as intently as you did, though they certainly should. Doctors, too. Just received a phone call from an HT doctor who viewed it said BRAVO to the video.

 

Unfortunately your observations and analysis are not on point. Not because you are not intelligent or

not dedicated to figuring things out, but because you don't live in the HT world as a profession- nor perform the procedures yourself. You only see it from the outside lay view which is a completely different view. The extent of your HT field of view is this forum. But imagine if you were a doctor who saw thousands of hair transplant patients every year. Don't you think your perspective might change just a little bit ?

 

Apparently I can't convince you, and many others, about the truth of FUE. All I can do is convey the facts and hope they take root before too many more patients become FUE victims.

 

We have been getting great feedback from patients who have read these posts and viewed our videos and were thankful to be given the realities of both procedures. In the end they almost always choose FUT.

 

Please keep viewing our videos and commenting. Thanks !

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

I think Dr. Feller's point was that you can't see through the skin from the surface no matter what magnification you have. Cooley didn't really refute that in that quote. If he punches a 2 follicle graft out and it turns out to be a 4 he could very well have damaged the 2 hidden ones by using too small a punch.

 

Correct !

 

http://www.fellermedical.com

Edited August 14, 2017 by Dr. Alan Feller

[Dr. Alan Feller]

This thread has been very helpful and has changed my thinking and approach. However, it also has reduced my hope in future options. I know what the doctors will say: FUE is still viable if you can't use FUT. One must just choose a reputable surgeon. But this video goes a bit too far in disparaging the only other option to FUT. After watching this, it's hard to be enthused for FUE, whatever surgeon one might go to.

 

 

The video can't be going a bit too far if it is telling the truth. The truth is simply the truth.

 

Notice no FUE practitioners have come on to debate these statements ? They never do.

 

There is a simple reason for it...they can't.

 

FUE is the option if you can't do strip, but the overwhelming percentage of the population can do FUT.

 

It is unethical to only offer FUE to a patient who is a candidate for FUT because these two procedures are NOT equivalents any more than ice cream and diet ice cream are equivalents.

 

http://www.fellermedical.com

[Gasthoerer]

Dr. Feller, Dr. Bloxham, (bverotti),

mikeyhwk made a point which I also addressed before.

I really liked the content from “the letter video” as it summed up most of the points which were discussed before in these long discussions. You even added one point (transection during strip) which was, as far as I know, only briefly discussed in the mFUE thread between Dr. Bloxham and myself.

But actually, I am not 100 % sure how serious the post was, which you were reading. If I am right and bverotti made some absurd statements just to make use of Dr. Fellers words and twist them around: I think this is really borderline in ethics, as he acts as a clinic representive (and some users could see his post as a fact). This is not a drama class with points for creative writing; it is a serious topic for many people here.

On the other hand: Dr. Feller/Bloxham, you are calling a lot of other clinics unethical for using FUE. You are also not speaking here as forum users, but as experts and even consider your opinion as facts. In this case other rules than to normal forum user have to be applied for you as well. Put this into perspective, it is unethical to me to (using our own words):

1) Post random (=always changing) growth rates of FUE (and FUT)

2) Not answering with clarification after being questioned about this numbers several times

3) Not backing them up with facts or not answering the serious questions to the few poor data which were

given

4) Answer in another thread with an offensive video and title after finally another clinic had joined the discussion (who raised similar questions).

5) Post “results” of a hollywood actor, who never admitted to have surgery, to promote FUT. You cannot know if he had FUE or FUT and on top he is probably using concealers/topic/partial wig etc. on this picture as it is from the Oscars event.

6) Not answering serious questions about negative aspects of FUT at all (like thinning in the donor) or even giving misleading answers.

7) Connect “damaged grafts” with existence of FUE clinics in the US

By the way: In one of your “strip scars” videos the strip can be easily recognized from far distance, just by the color contrast and hair directions. No need to comb though. This is exactly the reason, why many people are afraid of FUT. Most of us know that strip is superior to FUE in growth. But we (or at least I) want to make our own mind, based on facts and to weight “growth vs. stigma”.

I know, what now is going to happen: Dr. Feller is going to claim, that I am a laymen (just like he did with mikeyhwk and all other before that) and we cannot understand it or that he doesn't want to debate with us. But instead Dr. Feller/Dr. Bloxham, why don’t you just answer the questions? It is notthing personal, but we can understand the math without running a clinic ourselves. And we want to decide for ourselves if X-percent better growth in average is worth a strip scar or not.

[Gasthoerer]

 

The video can't be going a bit too far if it is telling the truth. The truth is simply the truth.

 

Notice no FUE practitioners have come on to debate these statements ? They never do.

 

There is a simple reason for it...they can't.

 

 

That is not true: Two FUE clinics came. How many FUT clinics joined the discussion?

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

So just an informal poll among the members, when you see the likes of Lorenzo, Erdogan, Feriduni, Bisanga, Lupanzula, Diep all docs either approved here or known for excellence, given the same hair characteristics, over the same general area...are you guys seeing the top fut doctors being able to accomplish with 2k grafts what these guys do with 3 k grafts? Knowing full well you'll never have an exact same situation but I think we've seen enough similar type situations that we can extrapolate to form an opinion on this.

 

Mikey,

 

Interesting proposition. But think about it another way:

 

Some of the things FUE clinics do to make up for these lower yields and less dense results from FUE megasessions include:

 

-Bringing patients back in multiple times over a short period and only posting the "before" and the final "after" as the result while minimizing the number of procedures.

 

-Over-estimating graft count, over-harvesting the donor, and over-packing the recipient site area to the point where a patient may experience a real problem like necrosis.

 

Have any members seen this?

[mikeyhwk]

 

Unfortunately your observations and analysis are not on point. Not because you are not intelligent or

not dedicated to figuring things out, but because you don't live in the HT world as a profession- nor perform the procedures yourself. You only see it from the outside lay view which is a completely different view. The extent of your HT field of view is this forum. But imagine if you were a doctor who saw thousands of hair transplant patients every year. Don't you think your perspective might change just a little bit ?

 

Apparently I can't convince you, and many others, about the truth of FUE. All I can do is convey the facts and hope they take root before too many more patients become FUE victims.

 

We have been getting great feedback from patients who have read these posts and viewed our videos and were thankful to be given the realities of both procedures. In the end they almost always choose FUT.

 

Please keep viewing our videos and commenting. Thanks !

 

Quite the contrary you've convinced me towards the reality of fue and I thank you for that, you've taught me much and I fully accept the reality of fut being the gold standard so it is not that I'm not getting the message, I'm just discussing the degree to which that is the case which I think is fair to do. I would love for the doctors to come on here and answer if they think that 3k fue grafts is = to 2k fut grafts, I just didn't think they would come on and answer so I left it to the members to discuss. In an ideal world, I'd love to see it put to the test, 2 patients similar needs, characteristics, 2k fut from Dr Bloxham/Feller and 3k fue from Dr Lupanzula who has argued for the merits of fue, lets put the numbers to the test but I understand too many variables and nobody is signing up for that but it'd be a fun little experiment.

 

I accept my that my lay view is limited but we've been presented with docs who also felt that the discrepancy between the 2 procedures isn't to the level you're stating, one is well known fut clinic Hasson and Wong...I respect your expertise but on what basis should I not accept there's as they too have thousands of operations under their belts. So I've got experts on both sides and I'm just trying to get to the truth in there and it helps to see it yourself ...I am trying to see what you're saying in terms of numbers in the results we're presented with, patient experiences come up all the time, these aren't hand picked best of clinic works I'm looking at.. At some point if the numbers are that one sided, the results and the numbers should meet even over a smaller sample size. I can see a difference, but 35% better on the low end better...I'm just not seeing it so far/yet.

 

I still thank you for all you've taught me and don't think it hasn't registered but even when you were educating, I still looked into every thing you said and concluded for myself if I believed it. That is the same process I am going thru now. I won't just accept every thing I'm told at face value, and neither would you.

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Gas,

 

I don't think these questions have ever been dodged. But just in case ...

1) Post random (=always changing) growth rates of FUE (and FUT)

 

We have posted the studies from Dr. Beehner (two different ones) and Wesley multiple times. These numbers are slightly different, but they still show around the same: 70-75% growth yield on average for FUE. Industry accepted standard for FUT growth after multiple, multiple studies is 95-98%.

 

2) Not answering with clarification after being questioned about this numbers several times

 

See above. Just because people don't like the data, doesn't mean they get to outright dismiss it or claim we aren't posting it. Studies in this field are light compared to others in general. Dr. Beehner and Wesley have studied in a controlled and respectable fashion and published the data.

 

3) Not backing them up with facts or not answering the serious questions to the few poor data which were given.

 

If you have better data supporting your perspective, please post it. I don't have control over the number of studies that have been done on this subject. When I present my own, it's called subjective or biased. So all I can present are the objective studies done by others. If you have conflicting data, it's on you to present it.

 

4) Answer in another thread with an offensive video and title after finally another clinic had joined the discussion (who raised similar questions).

 

You probably missed the first time this happened in the exact manner, but the clinic in question really didn't "join" the debate. They came in, admitted that detrimental forces on grafts exist, claimed they had overcome them but refused to clarify how -- even after a moderator asked for clarification, and then made some silly comments about people coming to train at their clinic, argued over whether something happened 15 or 17 years before, and then used a 12 year old post to try and end the argument before running from the debate. There was no evidence provided, nor was there any "entry" made.

 

5) Post “results” of a hollywood actor, who never admitted to have surgery, to promote FUT. You cannot know if he had FUE or FUT and on top he is probably using concealers/topic/partial wig etc. on this picture as it is from the Oscars event.

 

I don't know who posted pictures of a hollywood actor to promote FUT, but I assure you it wasn't my clinic.

6) Not answering serious questions about negative aspects of FUT at all (like thinning in the donor) or even giving misleading answers.

 

Again, this was answered; you simply didn't like the answer. There is a difference. Please refer to Dr. Feller's post.

7) Connect “damaged grafts” with existence of FUE clinics in the US

 

Incorrect. No one ever stated that the poorer yields with FUE is not why you don't see FUE-only clinics in the USA. We stated, correctly so, that the practice of FUE tech mills is illegal (or certainly very, very risky) in the US (see case law in Florida and Virginia) and that is why you only see it in certain areas of the globe.

 

I truly hope this answers these issues.

Dr. Blake Bloxham, NY

Feller & Bloxham Medical -- Hair Transplant Institute

NYC Hair Transplant | NY Hair Restoration | Feller & Bloxham Medical

[mikeyhwk]

Mikey,

 

Interesting proposition. But think about it another way:

 

Some of the things FUE clinics do to make up for these lower yields and less dense results from FUE megasessions include:

 

-Bringing patients back in multiple times over a short period and only posting the "before" and the final "after" as the result while minimizing the number of procedures.

 

-Over-estimating graft count, over-harvesting the donor, and over-packing the recipient site area to the point where a patient may experience a real problem like necrosis.

 

Have any members seen this?

 

I took that first point into account and tried to look only at patient experiences as they tend to be, this is my procedure from hopefully start to finish instead of looking at what the clinics present which could be susceptible to that kind of manipulation.

 

What do you mean by over-estimating the graft count, do you mean in terms of telling people that they have more available grafts than they should (ie venturing outside the safe zone) ?

 

I would also be interested to hear if members did see times that the top fue clinics were in their opinion over-packing recipient sites and over-harvesting donor supplies and better yet if they can link to that case, it'd be interesting to find out. I off the top of my head can't think of examples I've seen of either from those clinics tho I will take a look. I tend to think over-harvesting and over-packing the recipient to the point of possible necrosis would be inexperienced or unscrupulous clinics/mills vs the type of docs I talked about but I am prepared to stand corrected.

[mav23100gunther]

Notice no FUE practitioners have come on to debate these statements ? They never do.

 

There is a simple reason for it...they can't.

 

NYC Hair Transplant | NY Hair Restoration | Feller & Bloxham Medical

 

Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you

2) When Dr Lupanzula recently did so on this very thread, you then proceeded to take copy-write protected video of the said Dr performing a procedure from another source, purposefully hide the JT logo, and then completely tear the thing apart when in my opinion was unfair and uncalled for. The backlash was so bad that you even took down the video.

 

FUE practioners do not not come on to debate these statements not because they can't, but because they don't want to be subjected to similar unprofesional treatment dished out to Dr Lupanzula. It's disappointing they don't join the debate, but I don't blame them for not wanting to engage in something that potentially ends up the same way the last one did.

[wazaam]

"Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you"

 

AGREE.

 

LETS NOT FORGET DR. JIM HARRIS AS WELL WHO LATER RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT AFTER MANY FOLKS HAD ALREADY A CHANCE TO VIEW HIS OBJECTIVE OPINION.

 

DR MICHAEL VORIES ALSO HAS JOINED THE DEBATE AND HAS DISAGREED WITH BOTH DR. FELLER AND BLAKE ON MANY ACCOUNTS.

 

SO THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR WELL RESPECTED SURGEONS WHO HAVE DISAGREED, AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANOTHER FUT/FUE HT SURGEON TO JOIN THE DR. FELLER CRUSADE OTHER THAN BLAKE.........

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Incorrect on all accounts. Seriously.

 

All of the aforementioned doctors came in swinging but left before any real debate could take place. And all left many questions unanswered.

 

What's more, not a single one ever said they left or removed comments because they felt people were being "mean" or "unprofessional." If they felt this way, they likely would have said so.

[tofur]

"Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you"

 

AGREE.

 

LETS NOT FORGET DR. JIM HARRIS AS WELL WHO LATER RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT AFTER MANY FOLKS HAD ALREADY A CHANCE TO VIEW HIS OBJECTIVE OPINION.

 

DR MICHAEL VORIES ALSO HAS JOINED THE DEBATE AND HAS DISAGREED WITH BOTH DR. FELLER AND BLAKE ON MANY ACCOUNTS.

 

SO THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR WELL RESPECTED SURGEONS WHO HAVE DISAGREED, AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANOTHER FUT/FUE HT SURGEON TO JOIN THE DR. FELLER CRUSADE OTHER THAN BLAKE.........

 

As far as I can tell Dr. Bloxham is right, how those three detrimental forces have been overcome was never explained, and frankly I can't even begin to imagine how they would be without violating the laws of physics but I'm not a surgeon so my knowledge on the subject is obviously limited. There are cases of great FUE results that appear to match FUT so obviously it's possible to move a couple thousand grafts and have them survive the ordeal well enough to grow in healthy, or maybe those patients just had ideal physical characteristics for the procedure which combined with the great surgeons doing the work is what minimized the forces on the grafts as they were extracted. More studies need to be done obviously.

 

There's no question it's a procedure that requires a lot of experience and skill to pull off consistently well. This makes all the FUE tech mills popping up very concerning, so many guys are getting burned by misleading marketing about how it's this new great procedure that's scarless and supersedes strip in every way. The over harvested/damaged/halo'd/moth eaten looking donor is becoming the new version of the old-school bigass strip scar.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Quite the contrary you've convinced me towards the reality of fue and I thank you for that, you've taught me much and I fully accept the reality of fut being the gold standard so it is not that I'm not getting the message, I'm just discussing the degree to which that is the case which I think is fair to do. I would love for the doctors to come on here and answer if they think that 3k fue grafts is = to 2k fut grafts, I just didn't think they would come on and answer so I left it to the members to discuss. In an ideal world, I'd love to see it put to the test, 2 patients similar needs, characteristics, 2k fut from Dr Bloxham/Feller and 3k fue from Dr Lupanzula who has argued for the merits of fue, lets put the numbers to the test but I understand too many variables and nobody is signing up for that but it'd be a fun little experiment.

 

I accept my that my lay view is limited but we've been presented with docs who also felt that the discrepancy between the 2 procedures isn't to the level you're stating, one is well known fut clinic Hasson and Wong...I respect your expertise but on what basis should I not accept there's as they too have thousands of operations under their belts. So I've got experts on both sides and I'm just trying to get to the truth in there and it helps to see it yourself ...I am trying to see what you're saying in terms of numbers in the results we're presented with, patient experiences come up all the time, these aren't hand picked best of clinic works I'm looking at.. At some point if the numbers are that one sided, the results and the numbers should meet even over a smaller sample size. I can see a difference, but 35% better on the low end better...I'm just not seeing it so far/yet.

 

I still thank you for all you've taught me and don't think it hasn't registered but even when you were educating, I still looked into every thing you said and concluded for myself if I believed it. That is the same process I am going thru now. I won't just accept every thing I'm told at face value, and neither would you.

 

 

If the difference between FUE and FUT were so small then FUT would no longer be offered or performed. Doesn't that make sense ?

 

Look at the videos of surgery posted by FUE doctors themselves on this site performing the FUE procedure.Anyone can plainly see that the grafts are being handled much more harshly and aggressively than in the FUT procedure. This isn't even debatable.

 

So why would doctors knowingly perform a surgical procedure they know, or should know, causes more damage to both the grafts and the donor area ? What do you think ?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you

2) When Dr Lupanzula recently did so on this very thread, you then proceeded to take copy-write protected video of the said Dr performing a procedure from another source, purposefully hide the JT logo, and then completely tear the thing apart when in my opinion was unfair and uncalled for. The backlash was so bad that you even took down the video.

 

FUE practioners do not not come on to debate these statements not because they can't, but because they don't want to be subjected to similar unprofesional treatment dished out to Dr Lupanzula. It's disappointing they don't join the debate, but I don't blame them for not wanting to engage in something that potentially ends up the same way the last one did.

 

 

 

Lupanzula and Bhatti did not debate me, they made claims I proved were false using their own video presentations and they fled the discussion. But I know you know that.

 

Sorry, no copyright violations under Fair Use, but I have no doubt you know that. You just love to spin things and harass me for some strange reason when you are not overtly cheerleading for your doctor and trying to send patients his way. Your agenda is obvious.

 

I went through your recent posting history and you only come on to cheerlead your doctor or denigrate me. No other doctor, just me. I don't know what your problem is but i have never met you nor even spoken with you and your consistent pattern of stalking is getting out of hand. I will report this to the moderator.

 

 

By the way, didn't you apologize and promise never to come onto one of my threads again when I proved you were very mistaken about another assumption you made about me and posted online ? You should demonstrate some honor and decency by holding up your end of the bargain by not posting in my threads again like you claimed you would.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Dr. Alan Feller

[Dr. Alan Feller]

"Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you"

 

AGREE.

 

LETS NOT FORGET DR. JIM HARRIS AS WELL WHO LATER RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT AFTER MANY FOLKS HAD ALREADY A CHANCE TO VIEW HIS OBJECTIVE OPINION.

 

DR MICHAEL VORIES ALSO HAS JOINED THE DEBATE AND HAS DISAGREED WITH BOTH DR. FELLER AND BLAKE ON MANY ACCOUNTS.

 

SO THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR WELL RESPECTED SURGEONS WHO HAVE DISAGREED, AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANOTHER FUT/FUE HT SURGEON TO JOIN THE DR. FELLER CRUSADE OTHER THAN BLAKE.........

 

These doctors have shown up. That's true. And I thanked and gave credit to each one in writing for doing so when their FUE colleagues would not.

 

However, not a single one of those doctors discussed nor demonstrated that they have addressed the three detrimental forces that afflict the FUE procedure-much less reduced or eliminated them. Until they do no claims of advancement in the FUE procedure can validly be made. And no claim of parity with FUT can reasonably be made either.

 

FUT/FUE surgeons do not need to come on here. They are not the ones making the FUE claims. But if you want to "hear" from the FUT/FUE surgical crowd they tell you every day where they stand on the FUE vs. FUT issue, all you need to do is know how to listen:

 

Look at their websites- H@W, Rahal, Shapiro, T@D, Cooley, Alexander, Gabel, Konior

All show mostly FUT procedure results and virtually no FUE results. Look at the cases they themselves choose to post on this site every month. You can be sure they pick the very best result they can find for the month because they know it will be scrutinized for years and become the basis upon which they are judged professionally-these results are almost always FUT results. Why do you think that is ?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Dr. Alan Feller