thanatopsis_awry

55, that thought came to my mind, as well, though I assume it's still just a slip of the tongue, or a mild exagerration while being fiery and defending himself. Nonetheless, if he *is* now performing multiple ops in a given day it would be good to know for sure. Then again, and I just noticed this, he actually does specifically state above "513 for the year 2007", so....?

Ya know, I don't believe that anyone should be crucified -- i.e., Dr. Epstein -- but I don't believe he has been. The vast majority of comments and concerns, if not all of them, have been pretty straightforward, inquisitive questions into the given cases, which are indeed startling given Dr. Epsteins "reputation" -- NG2GB's post above, included. Sure, none of the people are fully *matured* (which is different from growth, and I'm not saying they are *fully* grown, either), and this should be taken into account as it is part of the whole picture; just like the fact that there are numerous cases of poor growth/results that have been presented, which should be taken into account. Any sort of conclusive judgement should, of course, be weighted against a ~12month result. At this point in time, I see a grouping of troubling cases, and some questions regarding the prevalence of "X factors", patient information, and graft growth n' quotes.

OMFG. Just put all of the pieces together, and re-read your initial post NG2GB....shower-ROOMS aside, this is the funniest thing/concept I've ever seen on any internet forum......wow, keep re-watching the video and filtering it through the lens of the "subtext".....

I'd research some places in Mexico ahead of time and try to find one that won't end up giving you a lobotomy; and/or, like what air1 has said, see if Rahal can recommend a specific tool or tecnique that you can have someone else use.

Tough to express a "winning smile" and procure a "supportive partner" when your afflicted with a physical abnormality as your countenance and image is torn follicle by follicle from you as each minute passes....

I'm not sure I would consider this thread a "travesty" or a...."witch hunt"....or that the people supporting....the patient....should be condescendingly asked to...."educate themselves".... .....

Lookin' good, man -- and thanks for the very honest pictures!

Just got back from the bank, in an attempt to seduce the woman assigned to me with my nanogen-laden locks, and get her to give me a good rate on a loan for my Nanogen Salon.... Flyby -- initially, I was a toppik user, which I used in conjunction with dermmatch....I just didn't feel it worked well enough alone, given the state of my hair loss. I gave nano a whirl after doing a lot of research into it, and was blown away by the results immediately. But ya, hopefully we will both be free from the concealer in due time! Hairbank -- good question....def no issues in bright lighting....I've had one experience with glaring, flourescent indoor lighting, and I asked my friend if he saw anything peculiar ("I think I got all this hair wax still visible in my hair, ya see anything...?") and he said "no"...however, in full disclosure, I happened to use very little nano that go around, as I was dermmatched up. I did have a problem though with toppik -- results aside -- with flourescent/bright lighting! NN -- I had a similiar problem to you when I used toppik...it was difficult to tell when to stop "dumping it"...with the nano, however, it latches onto the hair shafts so well, I get a great sense for how much I need to use. I would guess I use 8 shakes....next time I apply I'm going to count though, but I think 8 is a good number. I'd also mention that one of my good friends is....*incredibly* blunt.....and loves to get a rise out of people, jokingly ridicule, etc....if he knew I was putting "makeup" or anything like that into my hair he would be all over me like white on rice, no joke. Jupiter -- thx...it is a pretty startling difference...the nano really works best for thinned hair, not baldspots...at the same time, you can see how ruthlessly thinned my frontal 1/3rd is, yet I can still achieve impressive-looking density....considering it works best on the crown/vertex, I'm fairly hopefull that I'll be able to conquer MPB when it affects those regions, and get by until I get another HT and it grows in! Btw, your friend use nano also??? Repo -- hmmm....I would definitely say to give nano a try...I really have found it be a superior product to toppik...for sure, toppik works great for some, but it just didn't work that well for me....it could be that your hair isn't long enough too...I would try the following: apply the dermmatch, and make sure to not wet the applicator (not sure if you're doing this or not).....apply moresoe to the hairs themselves, and only lightly graze your scalp....direct your hairs, centering them a bit, and going forward...then sprinkle on some nanogen....2 shakes at a time, and re-evaluating. Looking at your HT pics, I think there is way for you to pull it off.... Also, I'd highly recommend using the "hairline optimizer", which toppik sells, and I think def helps achieve a natural-looking hairline. Bottomline though, concealers are a mixed bag -- in terms of how they can look, but also dependency...I look so radically different w/ and w/o that I virtually cannot be seen by so many different people w/o them.....I made a somewhat-joking, but truthful post a while back about my experiences being a man bound to the concealer...... An imperfect solution, but I think it is very sound for people really struggling with hairloss, and either can't yet get a HT, and/or are trying to bridge the gaps in time between getting one and having it grow in....

Most abdominal work -- like crunches. I also stayed away from exercises where I'd be pushing my donor into a bench, or something like that...so instead of a bench press, I used one of the machines where I'm sitting upright, e.g.

Interesting...I've never heard/seen of a Rahal FUE of such a size.... Anyways, I was just saying that results *are* more important than the ethics of a "too bold a hairline" variety; and you should be more concerned with consistency of results, growth being a primary tenent. But ya, I also do believe that Rahal's results AND ethics are generally better than Armani's. Armani had lots of impressive strip work, and the only real dig into him was that he was hyper-aggressive in working on very young patients, with limited balding, and giving very dense, bold hairlines; he also had some dubious claims. But, his results were quite transparent and you could go to him and know what you were getting (into...ethics included). Since abandoning strip in favor of the more marketable -- and expensive -- FUE, his results....marketing...and general transparency have gone down in quality, while complaints and questioning have risen (regarding growth, bizarre quoting w/ regard to his past strip quotes, e.g.).

Ethics (regarding densepacking and aggressiveness) would be the least of my concerns if I were you; I would be more concerned with who is the most candid, and thus proven, and can virtually guarantee you a world-class result....grafts actually growing included...Results > Ethics ------ Rahal > Armani. IMO, of course.

Your best bet for such short hair would be dermmatch, imo. I can't say for sure how well nano will work on a guard 2/3; it wouldn't surprise me if it did work, however.

Air, I use "medium brown" color. Just2, it def withstands wind blow, particularly after I spray some of the "holding mist" after application. I sweat a tremendous amount when I exercise, and I almost always have concealer in my mop, and it doesn't run or anything like that. The dermmatch is virtually waterproof; the nano I ran some personal tests on to see how it holds up in "conditions of duress"....I soaked my scalp and it looked fine....I then took a white towel and vigorously rubbed my scalp....at this point, remnants of the nanogen did appear on the towel, but my mop *still* looked solid. My "master plan", fwiw, is to end up utilizing the nano where it actually works *best* -- the vertex/crown. I'm strongly considering frontloading my grafts, and going for strategic coverage in my crown, utilizing the nano in that area. One, it works even better there than the frontal 1/3rd, let alone the hairline....two, it is much easier to apply (though it only takes me ~2minutes right now, including touchups)....three, one would not really have to ever worry about someone massaging their fingers through their hairline, especially if it was damp, and some of the fibers rubbing off onto their hands. (In such a scenario I would prolly' offer up some reasoning to the extent of "Oh ya, I use a very non-permanent hair product that serves as a type of hair dye....sometimes it can rub off"....one very good thing about concealers is that they are cloaked in a great deal of secrecy, and the general pop just has no clue.)

Without thy ol' faithful Nanogen I am but a miserly balding bozo, seeping through the cracked pavement of life in a state of hermetic angst. With the Nanogen -- let alone Nano + Dermmatch -- it is like snorting a bowling lane worth of coke, from what people tell me....

Use dermmatch prior to toppik (I'd recommend Nanogen>Toppik, fwiw); then use the "holding mist/spray" you can buy to really bind the concealers to your scalp.

its752 -- Nanogen is basically a keratin fiber(s)....the explanation that I use, which may or may not be totally accurate, is that by latching onto your hair shafts, it is as if you are exponentially increasing your hair count. As for the best way to thicken hair 8months post-op, a 1-2 punch of dermmatch followed by nanogen is by far the best, IMO. Repo -- the recipient area as to be longer for the nano, than for say dermmatch, as far as I am concerned. With stubble dermmatch would be your best bet; however, your hair doesn't have to be that long for nano to work....say ~1 inch, I'd guesstimate.

Here are some pre-concealer pics (in addition to those in my weblog): **I will post all 4, though only 2 really show the true flavor of my losses; the others might give some additional perspective, though.

Time, I think you are acting in a very commendable way under such circumstances. Between the sound advice/support offered, and what we can only hope -- and assume -- to be a sympathetic and willing reaction by Dr. Epstein, I'd try to find solace in knowing you are moving forward with a vast array of (powerful) options. Also, you never know -- in the next ~3months you might make some appreciable headway, which can only help. As for docs in Central Florida -- I am pretty inept at geography, but Dr. Charles, perhaps? Don't worry about things getting out of control; you have sincere support and a good head on yer shoulders.

Richie, your pictures are among the best -- you are def a maestro of the HT-pic!

I definitely sympathize with both you guys (Kev and Time). To get to 6+ months, let alone 9 months, and have such ostensibly non-existent growth would be *extremely* *extremely* troubling to me. I agree with PleaseGrowPlease's analysis w/ regard to "standing by the work". Also, I don't think NG2GB was insinuating that ~2500 is so low of a number that you shouldn't be shocked to have such minimal effect; rather, that just in general, even with "full" growth, the ~2500 still might leave you in a clear need in your particular case.

I like "repair", "hairloss heroes", and "emotional issues" concepts. The lattermost would get the most play in terms of discussion topics and posts; the other two would be valuable to have for categorizing two issues that no doubt would interest people (especially prospective members/HT researchers). All three could be assets in my opinion.

Nice ruffles on the panties, Jessica.

Here are some pics of some recently applied nanogen; the results are completely typical, and, in fact, I didn't even really tweak the application like I normally do for touch-ups. I also did not use any dermmatch prior, which can be utilized for maximum thickness and ability to style. I will post some "pre-ops", as well, as brutal as they may be, but I'm going out tonight, so alas I must venture out nano'ed up. But, can check out some my pre-HT pics on my weblog until I get around to posting some mug shots w/o concealer.

To alleviate the woes of the balding bozos, you must regale them with stories of skanky strippers w/ pictorial attachments representing the night's conquests!

Do a consult (online or live) with each of them; then compare their prognoses, and determine which agrees with you the most. Run searches for their work on various forums (here, HairLossHelp, e.g.); the most candid work you will find will most likely be that which is presented to the online world. "I am also concerned about people posting about these doctors located in Vancouver or Minnestoa. I mean wouldn't you think good doctors will be located in larger metropolitan areas like NY or San Fransisco" No. If anything, the worst doctors are located in such places.