Count Hairs or Only Count Grafts?

[NervousNelly]

Now that I have said what I wanted to say I am chilled.

 

I'm simply not understanding why the ethical issue is coming up here. Joe said that H&W do NOT split FUs. Should we be calling him a liar just because they aren't providing detailed hair counts? ---Originally posted by Bill---HAVE YOU SEEN PATS VISIT??

 

 

Presumptuous?? I don't know if that is true especially given Pat's own findings from his visit. There may be explanations but hard to argue. We have all said what is own our minds so let potential patients make up their own minds.

[Jotronic]

Gentlemen,

 

Let me break this down. Splitting grafts is difficult as there is very little room for error and it takes more time thus it is slower so when you have very highly skilled techs making quite a good wage per hour then it adds up.

 

Secondly, and definitely more importantly you need to consider our pricing structure. 4.50 per graft up to 2000 grafts then 2.50 for each graft thereafter in the SAME session, not subsequent sessions meaning the fee structure is reset for each surgery, so if we wanted to make more money then splitting grafts is counter productive. As a side note most of the top clinics have a similar pricing structure. It would make sense to have two sessions if we were trying to dupe anyone.

 

Look at the math. Say a patient could use 5000 grafts and we know we can get it in one but we're greedy, right? Wait, unethical. So we want as much money as we can get so we take only 3000 grafts and tell the patient to come back in one year. That first 3000 grafts cost 11,500.00 and when the patient comes back for the "needed" 2000 grafts we've got him for another 9000.00. We just made 20,500.00 on one patient.

 

Now, consider the more realistic scenario. We get 5000 grafts in one session so the patient pays 16,500.00 which is a 4000.00 savings. How is this being less than honest? How is this being unethical? Are we the bad guys for saving the patient 4000.00?

 

Btw, I bet it would surprise you guys to know that Dr. Hasson personally showed Pat four hair grafts from the patient during his visit to our clinic.

 

So, please tell me how we're splitting grafts to pull the wool over patients' eyes and make more money so I can explain it to this gentleman shown below. He had roughly 5000 in ONE session then almost 3000 in his second session and I know personally that he would call his results a bargain, not just financially, but with regards to less downtime and less scarring not to mention less time to final results. THIS is what Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong have been working toward for all these years. Any other approach would take three surgeries or MORE. If there is any deception going on is it by the ones telling you, the patient, that this cannot be done without some sort of play on the numbers yet the results just keep coming. Ask your source of information why they are not doing this instead of asking us why we are.

 

[Bushy]

Ohhhhh, I've been missing all the fun here! First of all, Joe, how come when I come out to BC I end up treating to dinner and beer?!?!?! God, I'm a sucker. Now that I know your policy I'm coming back up to be treated right.

 

As for splitting grafts, Dr. Hasson posted this in no uncertain terms:

 

<span class="ev_code_RED">I am not sure as to the source of your information which leads to your question , but I must state in no uncertain terms that we are not routinely splitting our FU's into single hairs for use in the hairline or any other reason.

 

With the large megasessions that we are routinely performing we actually land up with more single hair FU's than we need.

 

The number of single hair FU's obtained in a given surgery depends entirely on the number of single hair FU's harvested in the donor strip. As a percentage of the total this number is usually greater in individuals with less dense donor hair.

 

The only time that splitting of FU's would be necessary would be in a small refinement/touch up surgery. I cannot however remember the last time that this was necessary.

 

I hope this clears up any misconception that you may have had.

 

Sincerely

 

Victor Hasson MD</span>

[NervousNelly]

JUST SHY OF 8000 GRAFTS IN 2 SESSIONS. IS THIS A RIP OFF?---- Originally posted by Jotronic.

 

If he was charged for 8000 FU but actually had 6800 with several split FU---Then Yes. It is cosmetically awesome but highly unethical and deceptive if what I say is correct. That has been our contention from day one, not whether they can complete the job in 2 versus 3 surgeries.

 

I don't think that Gorpy will mind me borrowing his statement to conclude mine---At this point it is obvious that you are not going to supply the counts. You are not going to change my mind without them, so I'll just continue with my opionion and everyone else can continue with theirs.

[Guest]

Hy guys I just wanted to chime in here & say from my observations of Bill' donor scar, dare I say scary?? It appears that he got all

3,700&1 FU's!

I haven't seen any other doctors photos that show a donor area as long as Fal'c to where the scar is all the way up to the temporal region.

I believe H&W are truly pushing the envelope compared to othere doc's. How will this work out in the future is my question?

As a man ages his hair thins out even in the DHT resistant zones. So will these scars become visable when this happens?

When I see that scar all I can say is I don't want that done to me!

I am still looking foward to seeing new patient results like Bill's. I have seen the same one's over & over, Jotronics, Bobmans & London Lad.

So in conclusion, I don't think H&W need to ramp up thier FU numbers in order to appear more impressive or to make more money.

I just think that they are pioneering new techniques with willing souls as thier guinea pigs.

[the B spot]

Folica--- I understand your concern, but a few other top quality docs are taking longer strips as well.

 

Dr. Shapiro was able to extend my strip by 3cm by taking the incision higher into the donor region.

 

Anyway, I think what is a bit infuriating is that a simple question is being turned on it's ear and tossed back.

 

There is no question of results by either Dr. Hasson or Dr. Wong. The results are tremendous and patients like Joe or Bobman are an encouragement to us all.

 

However, this is a forum that wants more than pics at this point. We want hair and graft counts from ALL Docs, not just H&W.

 

We want patients to request this info and receive it, no questions asked.

 

Due to the fact that H&W are leaders in the industry, I think some members are finding it hard to understand why H&W is not taking the lead on something so simple and easily incorporated into a session?

 

I would think that H&W, who since 2000, have pushed the envelope and consitently put themselves into the forefront of the HT industry, would relish the chance to PROVE to other Docs and patients like myself that the graft counts are REAL and not inflated.

 

That is really all there is to it.

 

There is no insidious plot to "expose" H&W, just as I feel there is no attempt by H&W to inflate graft counts for unethical gain or prestige.

 

At the end of the day--- H&W target the internet heavily, promoting themselves as technically superior, and the most advanced HT clinic, always 1-2 years ahead of the closest competition, (this is not a negative), so when a clinic can do ALL of this--- why is it so difficult to simply offer a breakdown of grafts?

 

I think that may be the issue, nothing more, nothing less.

 

My 2cents,

J

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nervous (and everyone)

 

Yes, I have read Pat's evaluation...it was indeed a very detailed and thorough one...one that pushed me over the edge to go to them for my third surgery (among the many patients before/after photos I've seen on this and other forums). Pat drew out the question of splitting FUs, but did not say conclusively one way or the other whether they did or did not - from what I recall.

 

I do see that there is conflicting "evidence" here and I would like to see it addressed. Here is a summary of what has presented so far:

 

Hasson & Wong - Evidence to support NOT splitting FUs

 

1. Dr. Hasson and Joe state that they do not routinely split FUs

2. Joe states that during Pat's visitation, that he was purposely shown a 4 hair graft

3. Indisputable results - Comparing graft to graft counts between other clinics and H&W are comparable - H&W results don't appear thinner

 

Hasson & Wong - Evidence to support splitting FUs

 

1. Pat's review states that 2 technicians said "three hair grafts are the largest size they cut"

 

Hasson & Wong - Neutral findings

 

1. Hasson & Wong won't provide detailed hair counts - I don't believe this statement proves anything for or against the above argument, though some would say it supports that they DO split FUs.

 

Ok...here's what I would like to see happen:

 

Perhaps Pat and Joe and/or Hasson and Wong could offer some feedback on the above points. I'd like to hear both Pat and Joe comment on the techs comments to Pat during his visit. Is it possible that the techs were confused and didn't understand the question? Is it possible that Pat misinterpreted what was said?

 

I think two things could solve this "problem"

 

1. H&W starts providing detailed hair counts

2. Pat and the Hasson and Wong clinic hash out what's really going on, discuss the visitation and work out any misinterpretations/confusion, etc.

 

I believe both Joe AND Pat to be honest people...so if nobody is lying, then somewhere down the pike there was some miscommunication...simple as that! So let's find the miscommunication and move forward

 

Bill

[Gorpy]

Hi guys,

Since this subject started based on my comments I just want to say that this was never meant to be an attack on H&W. It unfortunately turned into a diatribe of extraneous issues.

 

I simply came to a conclusion based on the points I mentioned above and one more which I'll include below. I think it was a very logical conclusion on my part. After drawing that conclusion, I started to point out philosophical differences in the approach of certain doctors, which had NOTHING to do with the quality of the end result. Joe tells me that my conclusion is wrong and that's where the whole thing began. To understand the context of this, you have to go back to a long thread that was started last September. After long discussions, Dr. Hasson agreed to give the detailed hair counts when he stated the following:

 

quote

"We will in the future provide patients with graft counts, hair counts, strip dimensions and anything else you would like us to measure. I am sure that there will still be those who remain unsatisfied. Fortunately our patients are intelligent individuals who have managed to sift through endless marketing and hype and still find their way to us. We do not expect this to stop anytime soon. Hopefully our patients will continue to post their photos and share their experiences with all who care to learn. In the end it will be the patients who benefit.

 

Victor Hasson MD"

endqote

 

So, I simply started asking for the detailed hair counts again.

 

Now, the one extra point that helped me draw my conclusion:

 

Back in that September thread, many questions were ask about H&W only using two stacks for trimmed grafts. I asked for information on blade sizes for the larger grafts, etc. I encourage any of you to go back and read that thread.

 

Now, in the context of that thread, which talked of H&W's use of two stacks and classifying them in terms singles and multi's, Dr. Hasson stated the following in response to my question about blade sizes:

 

quote

"In the past our FU grafts were categorized according to the number of hairs per graft. The necessity for classifying the multi-hair FU grafts was no longer important once we started placing all multi-hair grafts in the same size recipient site (in an individual patient). At the time I felt that multi-hair FU grafts of varying sizes should be mixed randomly in the area behind the hairline. My further experience has confirmed this and I will continue this practice."

endquote

 

Joe now says he was referring to 3's and 4's in that statement, but going back and looking at the context I don't see how that is possible. As I stated before, I don't think H&W are placing 2, 3 and 4 hair FU's into the same incision size (unless H&W has some kind of breakthrough way of fitting a 4 hair FU into a .8mm slot. Maybe they do).

 

So, just to reiterate, this was not any kind of attack, just a quest for information. It's as simple as what B-Spot says above.

 

Oh, and one more thing - all doctors should start providing these numbers.

[bayscholar]

As a patient of this clinic I am happy the work received knowing that cheaper options exist... is up to the client to discern between overpriced and just right. While I don't think specific numbers or hair counts is a bad thing to disclose, I don't take an issue with what H&W do record keeping wise... Focus on Surgery more then making spread sheets...I am ok with that... their results are proof of great work being done in Vancouver period. I am one who believes this debate will continue to go on, right or wrong....priced fairly vs over priced......As the consumer make an educated decision, if you desire info on hair counts go some where that provides that information...it is that simple I knew that going in...I just don't agree with insulating them by saying that they are knowingly structured to over charge people and mask that factor via hair max theories...that I don't agree with. None the less very interesting thread as always gentleman.

 

added later...I don't think any one was really insulting anyone...so I take that back...just questioning.

[MrJobi]

Hi

 

Without addressing each point here I will give my 2 cents..Upon mentioning the high graft counts of many other posts on here, my doctor ( Dr. True) brought up a relavent point. Grafts are not equal to hairs.. Dr. True openly adresses that he does not split FU's.. Other clinics do, which does not mean it's bad, good or either.. The point is if we are going to compare Apples to Apples, it is vital we have exact information to get an accurate comparison. Amazing results cannot be disputed and I agree we should focus on end results regardless. With that being said, let's try to get all the facts so uses on here can make a choice on similar data. This is key when posters scream about how high there graft counts or are not.. Let's get everyone on an even playing field.

 

Regarding Folica's comment on the scar height of Bill's procedure. I have mentioned this in prior posts and this is a good observation. One of the reason's H & W (one not all)can yield such high counts is the fact they tend to take the donor strip higher along the back of the head. This yields a longer/wider strip and thus more hair.. Other doc's such as mine ( Dr. True) will not go that high which is one of the reasons for their reputation as a more conservative practice.. Again, I'm no expert, but this is a fair topic for discussion..

[Bobman]

I want to agree with what Joe had posted before regarding my results. Not only from a price point of view, but from an "end result" point of view. I chose Hasson & Wong because of the consistent results other patients were getting. And now I'm one of them. How do you really put a price on how great it feels to have a second lease on life...you can't. I trusted Hasson & Wong with more than money. But if that were the only reason for my decision, as to if they were unethical or not...then I would have done "other" research and still found that they are. Fact is...they provide more for less...Period. They should charge more...they are worth it...I would have paid double. At the time I knew I had hired the best...so money played a very small part.

[Jotronic]

NervousNelly,

 

I think something has been overlooked, or at least assumed, and that is that we are not going to provide hair counts. I never said we wouldn't. Let me recap the chain of events.

 

One of our patients, It's Only Hair, started a thread showing his results and is obviously happy to do so. He's excited, he's anxious and he had just started posting. This is a big deal with all kinds of emotions pumping and when one of our patients posts his experience, actually any patient, I get excited right along with them because I know how it feels to be able share the excitement. Gorpy chimes in with "looks nice BUT the number is rather vague" or something to the effect. At this point I recognized a distinct pattern and quite frankly it is unfair, to Hasson & Wong and the patient. Why? Because Gorpy does not call out other clinics on this. The original proposal for hair counts came from Pat. Why? It was for conformity and education of patients from All clinics, not just one clinic in order to validate or negate what is being said by other clinics behind the scenes to justify lower graft counts. At this time few clinics offer this information and few patients are asking for it.

 

Gorpy exposed his true intent when I asked him about how he ignored the opportunity to ask for hair counts from several other patients/doctors including a result from his doc, Dr. Keene. His response...

 

"well, I have a little experience there, so I think I know the answer already."

 

What answer? How many hairs were transplanted? No, the answer as he perceived has to do with whether or not Dr. Keene splits grafts which shows that there is not an interest on his part for hair counts from just anyone, but only us. In short, it is as I said, a witch hunt. This is issue #1 with me and it appears to have been overlooked or no one really cares. Personally, I think this is really unfair.

 

Issue #2 is the value of counting hairs itself. As a patient several times over and a patient educator for almost four years I just don't understand what can be gleaned from this that helps a patient understand what he is getting. In fact, as I stated before, I see it actually contributing to MORE confusion. I have patients ask me all the time if they can get "x" number of grafts so they can have results like Patient A. Sometimes, even when I tell them that they will not look anything like another patient they say "ok" but still keep it in their mind so when they do eventually get relatively the same number of grafts I get a phone call. "Well, you got 8000 grafts, why are my results different?" If someone is armed with a hair count too then they have more ammo that to them appears to be logical when in fact hair counts have NOTHING to do with final results. NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA.

 

You made the comparison of Bobman with 7900 grafts and said it could possibly be in reality only 6800 grafts but split up. That is a difference of 1100 grafts so did we split up, say, 700 in the first then 400 in the second? I think one would have to believe that we're not exactly greedy but but rather VERY desperate to try and squeeze out 2500 bucks spread out over two years. With the extra labor and time involved, (would we keep the techs longer and the doctor as well for this?) that wouldn't exactly jive. What did we do with London_Lad with 7761 grafts in one session? Get 7000 true FU's and get the other 761 from splitting grafts? Why wouldn't we just stop at 7000 or in Bobman's case stop at 6800? Those are already huge numbers so why push it? Simply put, even if this practice was financially plausible, it is not necessary.

 

NervousNelly, I feel that I have to remind you that all clinics split some grafts as I have stated in the past which we do as well. This has to be done for specific circumstances where nature just did not provide us with what we need to get the job done. Not only is this acceptable, it is the right thing to do to insure as natural a result as possible. Is this unethical? I repeat, ALL clinics do this so if we and other "top" clinics (the good guys) do this as well as charge for this work then perhaps all clinics are unethical for getting the best possible result and you should avoid hair transplantation altoghether.

 

Gorpy,

 

"Joe now says he was referring to 3's and 4's in that statement, but going back and looking at the context I don't see how that is possible."

 

What is there not to see? You stated that my definition of an FU must be different or I don't understand what it is (which you were wrong) but I have to wonder if you know what "multi" means. It means more than one.

 

"BTW - I think you are wrong on some of your condemnation of flash photography. Flash does not soften a hairline, it sharpens it. That's what a flash does. It provides great detail and freezes any movement to eliminate softness or blurriness. I do agree with your other comments on flash. The problem is, you have scared so many people away from flash that they are taking photos without adequate lighting, which also has the effect of creating deceptive pictures. It's not easy for the average patient to take great non flash pictures with a low end camera."

 

No, I'm not wrong. I do this everyday and I know what I see. I've consulted with professional photographers to confirm my suspicions and observations. It does not have this effect on every picture because of varying factors but no matter whether this part is true or not, flash is bad, no matter how you slice it when used by clinics. Professionally done, with multiple sources of flash in multiple positions around the patient can work well as the opposing sides cancel out the negative effects but clinics don't have this setup. It is incumbent upon the clinics to present their work as honestly as possible, not the patients. They can take their photos however they want. With patients I know (or hope) there will be multiple shots without flash to compensate, like you have done in your own gallery.

 

"Let me just say that we already know about all of the other factors that go into a hair transplant."

 

If you truly do understand then you'd know that what I'm saying about what is more important is true including the issue of flash photography. I take pictures everyday, I know what I'm talking about and have been pushing this on everyone for years but no one listens, understands or cares. Hair shaft diameter, caliber, etc. Those are the things that affect the final result. Clinics that make a practice of this are unwittingly(?) deceiving everyone yet when presented with this undeniable fact you all simply look the other way and ask how many follicles are in a graft. I bet when the Ronald Reagan and James Brady were shot some of you asked what caliber of bullet was used.

 

"I have to admit, you're pretty good at what you do. You remind me of Tony Snow, or any other White House spokesman. I hope you are well paid."

 

Thank you but I'm not pretty good at what I do because I know how to type. I know what I'm talking about. I bring an honest and logical point of view based on personal experience and a desire to keep guys out of the mess I used to be in. I do this with the truth.

 

"Conclusion: In my opionion you do split grafts - at least to an extent larger than other clinics."

 

So, we're guilty because there is no evidence of actual wrong doing. Our word and results against your assumptions based on what you feel are logical observations. The holes in your cup leaketh much water.

 

Gorpy, you've had your two sessions for 3700 grafts total and you appear to be happy which is a good thing so it is obvious you are not coming to our clinic. Why are you asking just us about hair counts and not anyone else? I've looked in the forum archives and I cannot find any questions from you about hair counts being posed to other clinics. If you have a hard time believing that we routinely get 3700 grafts and more in one session then we are at an impasse where we can only continue to let the results speak for themselves.

 

Should clinics also make it standard practice to give out other details such as dystolic/systolic blood pressure readings, micrometer measurements of hair shaft diameter, exacting density placement diagrams, total volume of anesthesia used, background checks and qualifications of technicians? Or should one perform due diligence in research by talking to other patients, reading and viewing online documentation of personal accounts and meet patients in person to find a clinic that has the best track record to deliver results that are consistent with what you want in a hair transplant? I tend to believe the latter. It is always a roll of the dice when undergoing any surgical procedure but once you determine who is best for you trust has to be placed in the doctor that they know what they are doing and will do everything they can to deliver the best for your case.

 

In the end, we may very well indeed make this a standard, to give detailed hair counts, but I think the continued education of how hair characteristics play a role in final results should be improved first as it continues to be the #1 shortfall when people are learning about their options.

[Guest]

Should clinics also make it standard practice to give out other details such as dystolic/systolic blood pressure readings, micrometer measurements of hair shaft diameter, exacting density placement diagrams, total volume of anesthesia used, background checks and qualifications of technicians?

 

Yes Joe!

[Jotronic]

folica,

 

[NervousNelly]

This is certainly one of those threads that could continue for an eternity. We'll argue our point, you'll back yours. There is no winner or loser.

 

I'll be the first to admit that my suspicions might not be justified. If I am proven wrong I will personally apologize in a seperate thread for any questions of possible deceptive practices happening at H&W. I will also personally write a letter of apology to both you and H&W.

 

At this point I still have my beliefs. Right or wrong who knows but I am in the same corner as Gorpy. I challenge you to allow Pat to evaluate one of the Mega session patients (H&W work only) at some point in the future with a loop or the scalp analyser--Canfield system. I will be satisfied with his interpretation.

 

Is this whole thing a big deal--maybe not. We know that they produce top quality work, but if there are not safeguards or individuals that will call others on things, nothing will be kept in check.

 

I think it is important that we question things. As the leaders in the industry would H&W like it if several other clinics started to spout off super mega sessions of 6000+ when in reality they weren't. Every clinic needs to be scrutinized and your assessment that we (or atleast Gorpy) doesn't care about other clinics and has it out for H&W is inaccurate. A system of checks and balances always needs to be in play.

 

Once again to end this from our point of view how about at some point in the future getting the permission of a super mega session patient and have Pat analyse things. It would end the debate and you could go on never posting hair counts. Its a challenge.

 

I understand it is not as easy as it sounds but it would certainly dispell any rumors as I know that Gorpy and I are not the only ones with this belief. There are several of H&W peers that think as we do. Trust me, they make no bones about saying so.

 

I'm sure this will get a response.

[John_in_NC]

you guys have WAY too much time in your hands, and love to create a controversy, when there's no need to.

 

Does that make you feel important?I's sad if it does. Doing damage to a clinic's rep--or to anyone--for no reason is easy. Hair counts, split blah blah blah. If you are a patient, ask for them, if you aren't how is that your business if the patient himself is not complaining???

[its-only-hair]

Does someone have a list of Doctors in the coalition that count hairs? And a list of the Doctors in the coalition that don't count hairs? If someone does, I think it is a good time to produce it.

 

This way for future patients that decide to get a hair transplant, they can choose between Doctors. And then they can decide which is more important to them. Number of hairs per fu, quality of work/art, scar closure, price, size of session, number of hair transplants needed, photos and stories of actual previous clients.

 

I understand 100% where the guys are coming from that want numbers. It's like stats in baseball or football, some people just want the numbers. And there is nothing wrong with that. People like my self don't care about the stats, I just want the results. And after seeing Bobman, Bushy's, NicNitro, London_lad, Jotronics, Hairbanks and others I think the results speak for themselves.

 

So could someone(GORPY ) please make up a list of Doctors in the Coalition that give hair counts? And a list of Doctors that don't?

[NervousNelly]

Thanks John NC. Not quite sure how to respond to your comment as I realize it is directed to me.

 

I am a potential patient and someone that likes to know the truth. I'll leave it at that so as to not start another ugly thread.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Well guys,

 

Personally, I think we ought to let this thread die soon if not now. Points have been made clearly on all accounts and now one must look at what was presented and take it at face value. I think most agree that hair counts would be beneficial and helpful - but some have turned it into a question of ethics if a clinic does not meet the demand - that they must be secretly splitting FUs and not telling anyone. The readers here will have to decide it that's fair or not. As for me, my opinion is the same, concluded below.

 

Bottom line from my POV: It would be nice to see ALL clinics provide hair counts so that patients know exactly what they are receiving in terms of hairs since technically, it is the number of hairs that determine the results moreso than the number of grafts. Yet, if a clinic does not provide detailed hair counts, I do not believe that they should be banished from the coalition nor questioned on ethics. Giving detailed hair counts was never a part of determining coalition membership or ethics in the past. Since the demand or request for detailed hair counts is a new concept (and I might mention that it appears that only a few clinics have answered the call at this point), perhaps we need to give clinics time to respond to this. I believe even Joe said that he did NOT say that they wouldn't provide hair counts. They just haven't done it yet. Not providing hair counts does not PROVE or DISPROVE anything.

 

I just feel that the standards we create for one clinic, we must hold all clinics to. Should we question things? Absolutely! But at what point are we satisfied? Just because we don't get everything we ask for, does that mean a clinic is up to no good or unethical? I believe it was Mrjb (sorry if I'm wrong on who) in this thread that said he asked Dr. True if he split FUs and Dr. True said he didn't...and he was satisfied. Now we've heard both from Joe and Dr. Hasson that they don't split FUs - this satisfies some and not others. Is it possible (and I'm only asking - you don't have to answer it here...just be honest with yourself) that we are taking some doctor's word at face value and not H&W at theirs?

 

As Its-only-hair asked "Does someone have a list of doctors in the coalition that count hairs?" Perhaps Pat does...but I sure don't know. There are a few that jump out in my mind that do, but not many that I have heard...but I certainly don't know everything.

 

Bill

 

P.S. My brothers...Let's ask all the questions we want but let's not fight among each other - for that is my hope.

[MrJobi]

Good discussion

 

At the end of the day who the hell cares as long as I am getting excellent results and the doctors are not ripping me off. That's all that is important to me. if they need to cut the FU due to a high 3 &4 count, so be it.. Just make sure it doesn't compromise the result

[Jotronic]

See, now this is what I'm talking about. Agree to disagree and move on. I don't want anyone to think that there is a fight going on, I just debate strongly when I believe in something and I am sure some of you do as well. I see this hair transplant stuff from all sides and I guess that gives me a unique perspective on things.

 

While some of you will not agree with me because of my professional affiliation I still consider myself to be one of you guys because this is where I got my start as a patient. As a matter of fact it was five years ago (??????) this month, asking the very same questions you are (but not about hairs, lol).

 

NervousNelly,

 

While I do not confess to know everything I do know what doctors say about us behind the scenes AND I know which doctors are saying it too. They can say what they want because I don't really care. What matters to me is what you get in the end, the best result possible for your case.

[pushing 40]

Again, I just want to end up looking super hot and with a bigger weewee. Can't we make this happen?

[Jotronic]

pushing40,

 

Talk to your doctor and ask for a prescription for a cinder block, some strong rope and a whiskey shot of courage.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jotronic:

pushing40,

 

Talk to your doctor and ask for a prescription for a cinder block, some strong rope and a whiskey shot of courage.

 

The End!

[Gorpy]

Sorry, I would love to let this die, but since you are now attacking me, I have to respond to this:

 

Jotronic says:

 

QUOTE

"Gorpy exposed his true intent when I asked him about how he ignored the opportunity to ask for hair counts from several other patients/doctors including a result from his doc, Dr. Keene. His response...

 

"well, I have a little experience there, so I think I know the answer already."

 

What answer? How many hairs were transplanted? No, the answer as he perceived has to do with whether or not Dr. Keene splits grafts which shows that there is not an interest on his part for hair counts from just anyone, but only us. In short, it is as I said, a witch hunt."

ENDQUOTE

 

What? I have no perceived interest in knowing how many hairs were transplanted by Dr. Keene!!!? Have you seen my signature? I just haven't updated it with my latest procedure. That's what I meant by "...I already know the answer". DUH! Plus I can see the 3 and 4 hair grafts post op with a magnifying glass. Jesus, you come up with some strange stuff Joe.

 

Anyway, I agree that this thread should die. To the detriment of future patients, I agree not to discuss philosophical and technical differences among the various doctors any more. Many of us are professionals, engineers (like myself), etc. who are very detail oriented. Maybe our nature causes us to be that way. We should all take a step back, become less technically oriented and strive to be more results oriented. How's that?