Definitely I cannot see the typical FUE scarring in the photo posted. It would help though to see a couple of photos of the same area under different lighting conditions.
The gaps may be due to partial regeneration (about 81% in gc83uk's case, if I remember well) or to his particular alopecia condition; or both.
Definitely I cannot see the typical FUE scarring in the photo posted. It would help though to see a couple of photos of the same area under different lighting conditions.
The gaps may be due to partial regeneration (about 81% in gc83uk's case, if I remember well) or to his particular alopecia condition; or both.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. there is clearly visible scaring in those pictures and if this guy gets a good suntan on his head those tiny white dots will become much more apparent. the scars do seem smaller than many of the FUE examples that I've seen, but I've seen some some similar type of scaring from Dr. Cole and Dr. Bisanga , and their end results are far superior than anything coming from Gho.
You guys keep throwing around unverifiable "regeneration" numbers, but no body knows how much if anything is "regenerating", so I find it a little silly to keep putting this information out there when it can't be verified through a hair loss forum. What can be verified is the Gho seems to be doing small session FUE with limited results, but extremely good scaring and there is nothing wrong with that.
When you look at day 24 photo you can clearly see depleted area above the birthmark and to the right and you can see where untouched area starts...and GC lost only about 600 FUs in donor....
no bad for 3000 grafts BUT getting another 2000 and it will be very very hard to pull off shaved look
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. there is clearly visible scaring in those pictures and if this guy gets a good suntan on his head those tiny white dots will
Neither do I. To me it looks a little bare but its only because those are grafts, not hairs which most of them will be 2-3 hairs per graft so the photo is deceiving (in a way).
Don’t wonder, because this is normal. I mean, it is normal that they can see scarring (even there is no scarring) because every HT doc’s dog out there, can see the following every day in the clinic…
This is a normal FUE donor area result a patient posted in another forum. I tried to cover up all the clear visible white dots (it wasn’t really difficult to do this!) and counted the dots…
Indeed, the patient had around just 1000 FUE extractions in his donor area.
And now the simple question (for idiots):
Can you definitely see the same extraction pattern in gc’s after photos – even after 3000 extractions and not just 1000? The guy in the pics above has an even better hair density in his donor area (or should I say “HAD a better density”?) than gc.
So, now let’s compare and look again – gc 24 days after 1600 HST extractions (after 3000 all in all so far)…
Oh, wait – you might think “this is unfair” because HT doc’s dogs out there explain that “the white dots don't typically appear until patients are at about 3 to 4 months after surgery”.
Besides gc’s 1st HST, his 2nd and 3rd HST procedure is extremely well documented – practically even every photo he posted.
By the way, I can very often read in hair transplants hyping forums “This is a patient who came to our clinic for a 2nd or 3rd FUE or FUT procedure”.
But what I find highly comical – seems they never can’t find the digital camera in their clinic when they shave a patients head a 2nd or a 3rd time in their clinic after the patient is already having normal FUE in their clinic. And even if they can find the camera, seems they can’t find the proper place to post these photos. And all this after so many years of FUE. This behaviour is highly suspect…
By the way, I can very often read in hair transplants hyping forums “This is a patient who came to our clinic for a 2nd or 3rd FUE or FUT procedure”.
But what I find highly comical – seems they never can’t find the digital camera in their clinic when they shave a patients head a 2nd or a 3rd time in their clinic after the patient is already having normal FUE in their clinic. And even if they can find the camera, seems they can’t find the proper place to post these photos. And all this after so many years of FUE. This behaviour is highly suspect…
By the way - here is such "a" reason, why you guys very very rare can see online good high quality photos of normal FUE procedures, who show you donor areas after NORMAL FUE procedures - I'm talking about SHAVED DOWN photos, and not any fast comb-over photos/videos with longer hairs...
The patient reported THE story in another hairloss forum:
He had a FUE hair transplant and it was told him that he should get around 800 grafts to refine his hairline but "i can count at least 1300 red holes on my nape". In addition he mentioned "I could count only 700 punches at the recipient area". Furthermore, he mentioned "I'm questioning the facts: I paid for 800 grafts, but there's around 1300-1400 holes in my donor area. As you can see it on the picture it is pretty obvious."
But besides all this - can you see WHERE (in which areas) they extracted the grafts? Pfffffft....
Originally Posted by didi
Bookmarks