Jump to content
Upshall

Top 5 hair transplant surgeons.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

This is completely nonsense.

It is a scientific fact for example that (East-)Asian in average (!) have thicker hair diameter, but a lower # of FU/cm2. Also they have often straight hair. Africans have in average (!) the lowest # of graft/cm2 but often curly grafts which makes FUE more challenging. 

The same data average data exists for blond (highest FU/cm2), dark and red hair (lowest) for Caucasians.

There is also difference in height between people from different places in the world or different amount of beard hair. Of course there are outlayers (like me having poor beard hair^^) but the average data is still true. I am one of the most sensitive users here in case of racism (just ask the mods that In complained about several users), but this are facts and there is nth bad about it. 

I think you'll find it is you who is talking nonsense.

Science has long disregarded antiquated concepts such as race. Race is a political and social construct. Where does one race end and another begin? What about in different cultural settings where race is much more prolific than in others? For example, South America has tens of different ethnic groups that Europeans and Americans would all class as black. Thus, you could live in Brazil, think your ethnicity is X, move to England, and discover that your ethnicity is now Y. Such concepts have no grounding in science.

Then you have the conflation of identity, politics, history, nationalism. Arabs think they are ethnically distinct from Iranians, despite the fact that Iran has had a dynamic border that has at times included many current day Arab territories - someone born in Basra in 2010 would undoubtedly identify as Arab, someone born in Basra in 500 ACE would undoubtedly identify as Persian. Has the indigenous ethnicity changed - or has the fact that what we perceive ethnicity to be is entirely determined by the current political and associated cultural context? 

This is exposed by what you yourself are saying. You aren't able to generalise amongst all caucasians; instead you jump from describing the qualities of blond hair and brown hair to arguing that therefore these attributes are for caucasians. 

 

Sorry to the mods for going completely off topic, I won't be replying again about this. 

Edited by gettingfue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one denies that there borders between all ethnical backgrounds are grey and that there is even more mixture in the future. No one is also denying that there is a big variety between the same ethnical background or that there are maybe a lot more of backgrounds than most people now. No one is denying either that a lot pf people like to play the race card or absurd reasons.

But this is a forum about hair not about world politics. And it is a fact that there are difference between the average hair characteristics of people from different origins and that statistics can consider the uncertainties and still give a reliable value.

So thanks for you "lesson", but unfortunately it has nth to do with the topic … 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

No one denies that there borders between all ethnical backgrounds are grey and that there is even more mixture in the future. No one is also denying that there is a big variety between the same ethnical background or that there are maybe a lot more of backgrounds than most people now. No one is denying either that a lot pf people like to play the race card or absurd reasons.

But this is a forum about hair not about world politics. And it is a fact that there are difference between the average hair characteristics of people from different origins and that statistics can consider the uncertainties and still give a reliable value.

So thanks for you "lesson", but unfortunately it has nth to do with the topic … 

 

Well you responded in the same vein, so thanks for your (factually incorrect) lesson, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gettingfue said:

I think you'll find it is you who is talking nonsense.

Science has long disregarded antiquated concepts such as race. Race is a political and social construct. Where does one race end and another begin? What about in different cultural settings where race is much more prolific than in others? For example, South America has tens of different ethnic groups that Europeans and Americans would all class as black. Thus, you could live in Brazil, think your ethnicity is X, move to England, and discover that your ethnicity is now Y. Such concepts have no grounding in science.

Then you have the conflation of identity, politics, history, nationalism. Arabs think they are ethnically distinct from Iranians, despite the fact that Iran has had a dynamic border that has at times included many current day Arab territories - someone born in Basra in 2010 would undoubtedly identify as Arab, someone born in Basra in 500 ACE would undoubtedly identify as Persian. Has the indigenous ethnicity changed - or has the fact that what we perceive ethnicity to be is entirely determined by the current political and associated cultural context? 

This is exposed by what you yourself are saying. You aren't able to generalise amongst all caucasians; instead you jump from describing the qualities of blond hair and brown hair to arguing that therefore these attributes are for caucasians. 

 

Sorry to the mods for going completely off topic, I won't be replying again about this. 

This type of extremist rhetoric tends to push moderates further to the right because of how evidently ludicrous it is with even just a bit of common sense. When PC moves to a point where you deny basic statistical facts on the basis of people getting offended, you ultimately help elect people like Trump and Bolsonaro. You're also overcomplicating a problem that isn't complicated; on the hair colour hair issue, how many Sudanese people for example are born with red hair for example?

https://www.worlddata.info/average-penissize.php

Out of interest I assume you consider the above data a result of culture and not biology then? 

To be honest the issue isn't completely off topic either, its a relevant consideration to who are the top surgeons when judging results. There's a certain surgeon in India for example who typically achieves good cosmetic results on Indian patients however is packing at significantly lower density than other well known surgeons, and it shows visually from the work he does on white patients. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gettingfue said:

Well you responded in the same vein, so thanks for your (factually incorrect) lesson, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the topic...

If you try to look to smart, sometimes you end up looking stupid. Even clinics from all over the world and led by surgeons from all heritage use the ethnicity to describe a certain hairtype in the patient report. Just look it up. It is a simplification of course, but it matches the law of averages. But I guess all clinics here are supporters of "victorian science" as well and you are the only real scientist in here. 

P.S. I knew the penis length would come up^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, JayLDD said:

This type of extremist rhetoric tends to push moderates further to the right because of how evidently ludicrous it is with even just a bit of common sense. When PC moves to a point where you deny basic statistical facts on the basis of people getting offended, you ultimately help elect people like Trump and Bolsonaro. You're also overcomplicating a problem that isn't complicated; on the hair colour hair issue, how many Sudanese people for example are born with red hair for example?

https://www.worlddata.info/average-penissize.php

Out of interest I assume you consider the above data a result of culture and not biology then? 

To be honest the issue isn't completely off topic either, its a relevant consideration to who are the top surgeons when judging results. There's a certain surgeon in India for example who typically achieves good cosmetic results on Indian patients however is packing at significantly lower density than other well known surgeons, and it shows visually from the work he does on white patients. 

 

 

You make far too many assumptions with absolutely no basis. You have made no attempt to ask me what my motives are; you're guessing in the dark when you say I'm motivated by being PC. Yet again, you're another poster who is making the most rudimentary of errors by conflating race with nationality. 

Edited by gettingfue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

If you try to look to smart, sometimes you end up looking stupid. Even clinics from all over the world and led by surgeons from all heritage use the ethnicity to describe a certain hairtype in the patient report. Just look it up. It is a simplification of course, but it matches the law of averages. But I guess all clinics here are supporters of "victorian science" as well and you are the only real scientist in here. 

P.S. I knew the penis length would come up^^

I'm not interested with trying to look smart, I'm simply interested in dealing with reality rather than things that exist as figments of people's imagination. Concepts of ethnicity change historically and cross culturally. This is a fact.  You've made no attempt to engage with my prior points and as a result you're basically shoving your fingers in your ears and regurgitating your same argument. I'm not going to repeat myself - if you want to discuss this further pick up the points I raise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gettingfue said:

I'm not interested with trying to look smart, I'm simply interested in dealing with reality rather than things that exist as figments of people's imagination. Concepts of ethnicity change historically and cross culturally. This is a fact.  You've made no attempt to engage with my prior points and as a result you're basically shoving your fingers in your ears and regurgitating your same argument. I'm not going to repeat myself - if you want to discuss this further pick up the points I raise. 

Projection. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gettingfue said:

 Concepts of ethnicity change historically and cross culturally. This is a fact.

My last comment on this: No one is denying this in a cultural, historical and political context. But it has no meaning in here as this is about hair not politics.

Are you seriously telling me, that the average person from East-Asia e. g. Japan (I know this is a nationality not a race, but as it is an island and there is historically less mixture with foreigners it serves as a nice example) doesn't have dark, straight hair? Especially compared to the hair colour of Caucasian (which has a wider range including red and blond) or the curly hair of many people from African heritage. Please tell me how many (natural) blond Japanese you have seen or Japanese with an (natural) "afro"! 

And of course it is not only the colour it is also the density and the diameter of the hair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a study comparing hair characteristics among 2249 people from 24 different ethnic groups on five continents.  It compares growth, diameter, color, and shape.  Its from L'Oreal.  They make hair dye and they care about this sort of thing. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with who the top 5 hair surgeons are, but what the hell, the thread is shot anyway.  Maybe someone finds it useful.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1684/ejd.2015.2726.pdf

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Spaceman said:

Here is a study comparing hair characteristics among 2249 people from 24 different ethnic groups on five continents.  It compares growth, diameter, color, and shape.  Its from L'Oreal.  They make hair dye and they care about this sort of thing. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with who the top 5 hair surgeons are, but what the hell, the thread is shot anyway.  Maybe someone finds it useful.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1684/ejd.2015.2726.pdf

 

 

 

I'm inclined to think this study vindicates gettingFUE with the very idea that there are 24 ethnic groups!

I agree there is a lot of pseudo-science when it comes to categorising the (one) human race up into lots of little sub categories. I mean, really, 24 races?! Science is itself often influenced and/or motivated by politics of the day - there are many examples were science has been used to justify something that later proved to be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, options said:

I'm inclined to think this study vindicates gettingFUE with the very idea that there are 24 ethnic groups!

I agree there is a lot of pseudo-science when it comes to categorising the (one) human race up into lots of little sub categories. I mean, really, 24 races?! Science is itself often influenced and/or motivated by politics of the day - there are many examples were science has been used to justify something that later proved to be wrong. 

I wouldn’t call the classification pseudoscience. There is a documented methodology behind it. It may not be perfect, but it is still useful in this context.


“The ethnic origins of subjects assessed here attempted to follow most criteria adopted by ethnologists. The latter combine, for such difficult tasks, the common origin of a given subject with his/her two preceding generations (par- ents and grandparents) together with a common language, all acknowledging that both criteria are less imprecise than genetic standards with regard the vast diversity in DNA polymorphism, worldwide. Interestingly, using language as a discriminant criterion confers to ethnic origin an intrinsic cultural component, thereby considering that humans and their origins cannot be restricted to mere (and complex) biological entities. Accordingly, it comes clear that terms such as “Danish” or “Thai” embraced in the present paper should be solely viewed as arbitrary shortcuts. They, in addition, concern subjects living in cities that may not perfectly reflect the ethnic profile of their respective countries.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spaceman said:

I wouldn’t call the classification pseudoscience. There is a documented methodology behind it. It may not be perfect, but it is still useful in this context.


“The ethnic origins of subjects assessed here attempted to follow most criteria adopted by ethnologists. The latter combine, for such difficult tasks, the common origin of a given subject with his/her two preceding generations (par- ents and grandparents) together with a common language, all acknowledging that both criteria are less imprecise than genetic standards with regard the vast diversity in DNA polymorphism, worldwide. Interestingly, using language as a discriminant criterion confers to ethnic origin an intrinsic cultural component, thereby considering that humans and their origins cannot be restricted to mere (and complex) biological entities. Accordingly, it comes clear that terms such as “Danish” or “Thai” embraced in the present paper should be solely viewed as arbitrary shortcuts. They, in addition, concern subjects living in cities that may not perfectly reflect the ethnic profile of their respective countries.”

Isn't this all supporting the idea that race is cultural not biological?

Language (therefore culture) as a signifier of race.

Nationality (political man-made artefacts) as a signifier of race e.g. Thai, Danish.

The abundant diversity of DNA, presumably within races and between them (meaning that there is essentially just this one human race that is heterogenous, rather than all these distinct sub categories). 

Seems to me, despite being rubbished, GettingFue was edging in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

28 minutes ago, options said:

The abundant diversity of DNA, presumably within races and between them (meaning that there is essentially just this one human race that is heterogenous, rather than all these distinct sub categories). 

I agree with that. At the same time, in order to maximize sales and better serve local populations, a company like L’Oreal needs to figure out which hair products to market in Thailand, say, vs Denmark, rather then selling the exact same portfolio of products globally. They need some way to account for regional differences, even if it’s imperfect. 

Edited by Spaceman
Format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 6:49 AM, gettingfue said:

How am I making it so someone is not heard? I'm merely engaging with what someone said. You yourself identified the problem in his post, in that he is confusing nationality with ethnicity. Although I would be keen to hear what ethnicity you think Spanish people have, although I know that is going off topic.

My point is though, I remain unconvinced. Within any ethnicity there is as much variation as there is between ethnicity. So take a race, say caucasian people. Some of these people will have amazing hairy characteristics, whereas others will have poor hair characteristics. I'm sure this sentiment is replicated for every ethnic group. To say 'ethnicity X have great hair characteristics' is reminiscent of Victorian science (which justified racism with it's notion of biological determinism) and yes, I maintain, is completely stupid. 

You've completely highjacked this post with your pseudo-intellectual dribble. 

You first called a completely innocuous, and generally accepted notion "one of the stupidest things you have read on this forum", then continued to drone on about completely irrelevant aspects to OPs queries.

Literally none of your assertions have any scientific backing, and instead guess that certain characteristics are seen amongst all ethnic groups because 'reasons'. 

Saying ethnicity X has great hair characteristics is nothing close to VS, as it's a widely accepted phenotype of certain localities. Clearly you're of an anthropological bend, as your points are social-science conjecture.

This is easy to spot as you consistently try to devolve the discussion into a battle of semantics, i.e. conflating X with Y, when it's utterly irrelevant as we are discussing the tendency for people of a certain background to bare similar traits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great list, mate.

I'd be super happy to go with all of these.

I'd also ass Hasson and Wong, as mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Bhatti (FUE)

Dr. Erdogan (FUE)

Dr. Lorenzo (FUE)

Dr. Bisanga (FUE)

Dr. Wong (STRIP)


Plug removal + Strip scar revision - Dr. Ali Karadeniz (AEK)- May 23, 2015

Plug removal + 250 FUE temple points- Dr. Hakan Doganay (AHD)- July 3, 2013

Scar Tricopigmentation- Dr. Koray Erdogan (ASMED)- May 3, 2013

2500 FUT (Hairline Repair)- Dr. Rahal- July 26, 2011

 

My Hair Treatments:

1- Alpecin Double Effect Shampoo (Daily)

2- Regaine Solution Minoxidil 5% (2 ml once a day)

3- GNC Ultra NourishHair™ (Once a day)

4- GNC Herbal Plus Standardized Saw Palmetto (Once a day)

 

My Rahal HT thread http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/164456-2500-fut-dr-rahal-hairline-repair.html[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×