1551 grafts with Luis nader !

[Tbcruz]

It’s definitely gotten thicker .. seems like most of the grafts grew .. are u satisfied with the results so far ? Is the redness in the recipient area still there ?

 

Their are still a lot of hairs that’s are short some thin some thicker. Based on what I see and what is still yet to come I am happy but I can’t say I’m 100% satisfied right now but when everything grows out and thickens up I’m sure I will be . I guess I’m a slow grower but idc as long as I get to the finish line you know.

[fortuneplant]

Hi Tbcruz. We're actually almost the same number of grafts but I did FUT. How's your recipient? Is it normal looking? (i.e Redness? Patchy?)

[Tbcruz]

Hi Tbcruz. We're actually almost the same number of grafts but I did FUT. How's your recipient? Is it normal looking? (i.e Redness? Patchy?)

 

Hey fortuneplant, nice how’s your ht going? How far along are you?

 

My recipient area is okay not perfect, I can leave the house with my hair styled and no one will notice anything but I personally can see some redness still in the area. Overall i am happy with how everything is. Every month it looks better and the redness is fading.

[fortuneplant]

Am on my sixth month. So I guess real growth starts now.

[Tbcruz]

Buzzed my head down yesterday these are my results !

[wilkinte]

I'm liking it man!

[Tbcruz]

Hey what’s up wilkinte,

 

Haven’t heard from you in awhile.. when are you posting some pictures up ?

 

Thanks man .. I’m not 100% satisfied but I’m getting there. Hopefully by 10 -12 months it’s thickens up some more up . Fingers crossed.

[wilkinte]

I'll do a one year update in a week or two. I'm happy, but I now understand why guys get 2 or 3 HTs. The HT gave me structure, but I want rich, thick, John Stamos hair! I may see thickening up down the road. I haven't provided any pics to Nader for his opinion lately. Will do that before I post.

[Squidward]

update?

[Recedinggenes]

Hairs looking great! Were you still losing hair when you went in to get it done or did it stabilize?  

[Legend007]

Hey Cruz .. ur hair is better than before .. but yeah the density is not there .. what are ur plans now ? Was it worth it ? 

[Arminius]

I think the number of grafts you received for your area is not even close to what’s required. You should have had 2,700+ for that area, especially considering this is your hairline.

[DconlonGutz]

Looking good. How long has it been since your procedure with Dr. Nader? 

[Legend007]

Hey Cruz, most definitely u need more grafts . But at least u have more coverage now .. u better off than before .. n the hairs that grown ,, it does seem it will get thicker  n stronger ,, especially since u light skinned it doesn’t look see through .. good luck n keep us updated .. thanks 

[Tbcruz]

I will be doing 1 year update guys soon. Results did improve. Aug 4th I will update (1 year)

[Squidward]

cant wait to see!

[Tbcruz]

I’m one day away from 1 year post op these are my results it’s a big difference from where I started just not as dense as I would like.

[pedromanchaca]

On 7/7/2018 at 8:14 PM, Arminius said:

I think the number of grafts you received for your area is not even close to what’s required. You should have had 2,700+ for that area, especially considering this is your hairline.

Nader's stock is dropping. I was impressed with Tom Forester's results, but his experience is a needle in a haystack of Nader results I've seen.

Edited August 27, 2018 by pedromanchaca

[Castillo]

Whats the price of Nader? 

[JayLDD]

On 8/27/2018 at 11:14 AM, pedromanchaca said:

Nader's stock is dropping. I was impressed with Tom Forester's results, but his experience is a needle in a haystack of Nader results I've seen.

 

Thanks for agreeing with what I told you like two months ago that you denied because of that single result (without seeming to realise it was two surgeries).

I genuinely appreciate it.

[pedromanchaca]

3 hours ago, JeanLDD said:

 

Thanks for agreeing with what I told you like two months ago that you denied because of that single result (without seeming to realise it was two surgeries).

I genuinely appreciate it.

Should we dedicate a thread to work through some of your emotional wounding issues?

I missed the part where I specifically said it was the result of a single procedure. You may want to give rereading that thread a shot and then you can decide if your error in judgment was a product of cognitive bias or dyslexia.

Your cognitive bias and subsequent digression into anecdotal evidence was the principal reason I wasn't inclined to trust your judgment.

[JayLDD]

48 minutes ago, pedromanchaca said:

Should we dedicate a thread to work through some of your emotional wounding issues?

I missed the part where I specifically said it was the result of a single procedure. You may want to give rereading that thread a shot and then you can decide if your error in judgment was a product of cognitive bias or dyslexia.

Your cognitive bias and subsequent digression into anecdotal evidence was the principal reason I wasn't inclined to trust your judgment.

The salt is real.

Hilarious example of someone who is lacks any psychological self-awareness, you spent a whole thread page going on about ONE result of Nader's and how great it was (despite it being two surgeries which you didn't realise) as an argument as to why Nader produces good work. You also threw in an ad-hominem insulting my transplant as a means of arguing for Nader for good measure.  I haven't digressed into anecdotal evidence a single time in discussion with you, yet you pin on me the biggest issue with your own poor arguments. Projection at its worst.

You know you've won an argument when an idiot retorts that you're emotionally wounded for advocating being logically consistent and accurate. You blatantly admitted in the above post you were arguing something which was inaccurate and that I was right to begin with, so clearly had done no broader research than minute anecdotal on the question.

Must be a sad life when every time you're wrong (I'm sure its a lot in your case) the only retort you have is that the person correcting you (you even admitted I was right) is emotionally wounded. Hilarious.

Don't think you know what cognitive bias means either. In fact I know you don't or you'd be able to make arguments without resorting to strawmans, ad-hominems and invalid positions which are just plain inaccurate.

Edited September 2, 2018 by JeanLDD

[pedromanchaca]

12 minutes ago, JeanLDD said:

The salt is real.

Hilarious example of someone who is lacks any psychological self-awareness, you spent a whole thread page going on about ONE result of Nader's and how great it was (despite it being two surgeries which you didn't realise) as an argument as to why Nader produces good work. You also threw in an ad-hominem insulting my transplant as a means of arguing for Nader for good measure.  I haven't digressed into anecdotal evidence a single time in discussion with you, yet you pin on me the biggest issue with your own poor arguments. Projection at its worst.

You know you've won an argument when an idiot retorts that you're emotionally wounded for advocating being logically consistent and accurate. You blatantly admitted in the above post you were arguing something which was inaccurate and that I was right to begin with, so clearly had done no broader research than minute anecdotal on the question.

Must be a sad life when every time you're wrong (I'm sure its a lot in your case) the only retort you have is that the person correcting you (you even admitted I was right) is emotionally wounded. Hilarious.

Don't think you know what cognitive bias means either. In fact I know you don't or you'd be able to make arguments without resorting to strawmans, ad-hominems and invalid positions which are just plain inaccurate.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Your original post. "Despite being 10 times less patient posted results of Nader, I'd peg 40%ish as being poor results or below average in comparison to many top surgeons represented here, for the others mentioned at around 10% or less."

"I'd peg..." That's anecdotal language. To help you further understand that its anecdotal, a good test would be: Did you cite actual statistics/examples? Answer: No. Hence, "digression into anecdotal evidence".

Glad I could help clear that up.

As I mentioned in the other thread, you're far too easy to jack with which makes watching this circus of steam pouring out of your ears all the more entertaining, especially the aspect of your emotional woundedness/need being such that it drove you to show up in a different thread in an effort to vindicate yourself that you might palliate your emotional wound(s).

 

 

 

 

 

[LonelyGraft]

Let’s not derail OPs thread in a flame war with two guys trying to one up each other by using big words

[JayLDD]

14 minutes ago, pedromanchaca said:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Your original post. "Despite being 10 times less patient posted results of Nader, I'd peg 40%ish as being poor results or below average in comparison to many top surgeons represented here, for the others mentioned at around 10% or less."

"I'd peg..." That's anecdotal language. To help you further understand that its anecdotal, a good test would be: Did you cite actual statistics/examples? Answer: No. Hence, "digression into anecdotal evidence".

Glad I could help clear that up.

As I mentioned in the other thread, you're far too easy to jack with which makes watching this circus of steam pouring out of your ears all the more entertaining, especially the aspect of your emotional woundedness/need being such that it drove you to show up in a different thread in an effort to vindicate yourself that you might palliate your emotional wound(s).

 

 

"I'd peg..." That's anecdotal language. To help you further understand that its anecdotal, a good test would be: Did you cite actual statistics/examples? Answer: No. Hence, "digression into anecdotal evidence".

Do you need a lesson on what an anecdote is now?

Anecdotal "language" isn't a thing, secondly my point WAS based on statistics, yours was based on a SINGLE case. What scientific, peer reviewed statistical data is there on patient posted Nader results? It's absurd to pretend that sort of thing exists, if basing an argument on the entire collection of patient posted Nader results online is "anecdotal", then virtually nothing argued on this entire forum would be valid, and certainly your posts would not be. The fact that I made a rough generalisation doesn't change the fact that I made a point based on a statistic (not anecdotal), your pro-Nader argument was based SOLELY on Tom's result, and you threw in an ad-hominem against my transplant for good measure.

By the way, I truly feel sorry for you in that when you're embarrassing yourself to the point you genuinely sound mentally handicapped or well below basic adult level intelligence, and completely lacking in in psychological self-awareness, that you think you're "jacking" with me.  Making yourself look like an idiot (and you do it really, really well) isn't "jacking" with me.  The sad part is I know you probably sat there feeling smug at how great your retort was. Unfortunately it was an embarrassment and shows a lack of basic reading comprehension or understanding of the English language.

Edited September 2, 2018 by JeanLDD