Permanent vs Temporary (Tricopigmentation) SMP

[Delphi]

It's a head tattoo. How is this even a debate in 2016? It is so obvious that hairhairhair456 works for one of the permanent tattoo places, but even so, anyone who thinks that tattooing your scalp permanently with dots is a smart idea should really try to see people who are five years out from their first permanent head tattoo. I'm sure that would change their minds. Some of the pictures online are horrendous. I also find it hard to respect any hair transplant doctors who would offer this as an option in their clinics. It's not a medically sound option, it's just a money grab.

[hairhairhair456]

It's a head tattoo. How is this even a debate in 2016? It is so obvious that hairhairhair456 works for one of the permanent tattoo places, but even so, anyone who thinks that tattooing your scalp permanently with dots is a smart idea should really try to see people who are five years out from their first permanent head tattoo. I'm sure that would change their minds. Some of the pictures online are horrendous. I also find it hard to respect any hair transplant doctors who would offer this as an option in their clinics. It's not a medically sound option, it's just a money grab.

Delphi, you are wrong on both counts. I dont work for an SMP company, and SMP has long ago been proven a viable treatment.

This thread is not about the viability of SMP, though, so if you want to discuss that, feel free to start another thread. I would be happy to provide reports from people that have had SMP for 5 years, but i'm not going to get into that here.

[Delphi]

Delphi, you are wrong on both counts. I dont work for an SMP company, and SMP has long ago been proven a viable treatment.

This thread is not about the viability of SMP, though, so if you want to discuss that, feel free to start another thread. I would be happy to provide reports from people that have had SMP for 5 years, but i'm not going to get into that here.

How can it be considered a proven treatment for hair loss? How does it actually treat hair loss? It's a head tattoo! With all due respect, this is a discussion forum, and while you may not want this thread to be about the viability of SMP, it is. I am 100% of the opinion that you work in the head tattoo industry, there is no other reason for you to be so defensive or to try to take Joe Tillman to task if you had no skin in the game.

[hairhairhair456]

How can it be considered a proven treatment for hair loss? How does it actually treat hair loss? It's a head tattoo! With all due respect, this is a discussion forum, and while you may not want this thread to be about the viability of SMP, it is. I am 100% of the opinion that you work in the head tattoo industry, there is no other reason for you to be so defensive or to try to take Joe Tillman to task if you had no skin in the game.

Delphi, you are 100% wrong. Someone doesn't have to be tied to an industry to criticize another persons claims about an industry, especially if they feel they aren't accurate. I dont know anything about you, but i'm assuming that you are a proponent of hair transplant surgery. If you saw someone trashing hair surgery and making misleading/questionable claims about it, might you feel compelled to speak up, even if you dont work in the industry? That's all i am doing here.

But how about this, if it makes you feel better, you can assume i am the CEO of a permanent SMP clinic. It's essentially irrelevant who i am, because the criticisms i have raised are either valid, or they aren't.

I would be more than happy to discuss the viability of SMP with you, but not in this thread. This thread is about Joe's portrayal of the permanent side of the industry.

If you look at the forum rules, you will find these two entries:

• Stay on topic
• No highjacking of other users threads

This is the second time i have politely asked you to not take this thread off topic. Please do not make another post about the viability of SMP. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss it.

[Delphi]

Delphi, you are 100% wrong. Someone doesn't have to be tied to an industry to criticize another persons claims about an industry, especially if they feel they aren't accurate. I dont know anything about you, but i'm assuming that you are a proponent of hair transplant surgery. If you saw someone trashing hair surgery and making misleading/questionable claims about it, might you feel compelled to speak up, even if you dont work in the industry? That's all i am doing here.

But how about this, if it makes you feel better, you can assume i am the CEO of a permanent SMP clinic. It's essentially irrelevant who i am, because the criticisms i have raised are either valid, or they aren't.

I would be more than happy to discuss the viability of SMP with you, but not in this thread. This thread is about Joe's portrayal of the permanent side of the industry.

If you look at the forum rules, you will find these two entries:



This is the second time i have politely asked you to not take this thread off topic. Please do not make another post about the viability of SMP. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss it.

I’m actually a proponent of the medical management of hair loss since this is what I’ve have done for myself, but I do think hair transplants have their place. I have not taken this thread off topic or highjacked it , I have actually stayed on topic so please to not tell me how to conduct myself on a forum I have been a member of of for 7 years.

[hairhairhair456]

I’m actually a proponent of the medical management of hair loss since this is what I’ve have done for myself, but I do think hair transplants have their place. I have not taken this thread off topic or highjacked it , I have actually stayed on topic so please to not tell me how to conduct myself on a forum I have been a member of of for 7 years.

Perhaps i misinterpreted what you were saying. When you said "it's a head tattoo", i thought you were criticizing both temporary and permanent SMP, since they are both technically tattoos. Re-reading it, it seems you might have only been directing your criticism towards permanent specifically. If so, apologies.

In regards to that, it's pretty much established now that permanent SMP, from a reputable company, is a viable treatment for hairloss. There are mountains of feedback online that confirm this. When i say 'treatment', it's meant in the same way as concealer or hair systems are referred to as 'treatments'. Perhaps 'solution' is a better term, but the point is that it has been proven to improve the lives of people suffering from hair loss.

This notion that permanent SMP from a reputable clinic will merge together, or degrade in some horrible manner, in four to five years is nothing more than a myth. This isn't 2009 anymore, where we have no meaningfull feedback to look at... there are hundreds of reports of people who have had treatments for multiple years, and multiple touchups, who dont report these issues. Even 5+ years. Keep in mind that what Joe says about treatments degrading over time is anecdotal, at least as far as i have seen. His trico colleagues experienced in SMP aren't making such broad claims about permanent (again, as far as i have seen), and more importantly, it is essentially nowhere to be found when you research the feedback online.

I take recommending (as well as dismissing) either type of SMP very seriously, and i have actively tried to find proof/confirmation, of the issues/differences Joe speaks of. If i had found evidence to back up his assertions, i would have been right there with him warning people to avoid it. But not only have i not found support for what he claims, i've often found the exact opposite. I'll speak more about that later.

I understand your position, though, as you might not be very involved in the SMP industry. The same thing is seen on SMP forums, where people who had terrible hair transplants 10 or 15 years ago, or who might have googled 'bad hair transplants', will come online and proclaim that all hair transplant surgeries are recipes for disaster, and that they are in no way a viable option. The truth is that the hair transplant industry has made significant advances over the years, and it produces satisfied clients regularly... you just have to know where to look.

So if you aren't very involved in the SMP community, you might have seen some abomonations from substandrd clinics, and think that permanent is nothing more than a snake oil money grab. You might have even seen a bad treatment from a good company now and then, because as im sure you are aware, even the best surgeons/clinics dont have 100% success rates. But if you spend even a little time researching feedback from reputable clinics, it is quickly apparent that it is a viable option. The positive feedback far outweighs any of the negatives, you just have to know where to look.

[Delphi]

Perhaps i misinterpreted what you were saying. When you said "it's a head tattoo", i thought you were criticizing both temporary and permanent SMP, since they are both technically tattoos. Re-reading it, it seems you might have only been directing your criticism towards permanent specifically. If so, apologies.

In regards to that, it's pretty much established now that permanent SMP, from a reputable company, is a viable treatment for hairloss. There are mountains of feedback online that confirm this. When i say 'treatment', it's meant in the same way as concealer or hair systems are referred to as 'treatments'. Perhaps 'solution' is a better term, but the point is that it has been proven to improve the lives of people suffering from hair loss.

This notion that permanent SMP from a reputable clinic will merge together, or degrade in some horrible manner, in four to five years is nothing more than a myth. This isn't 2009 anymore, where we have no meaningfull feedback to look at... there are hundreds of reports of people who have had treatments for multiple years, and multiple touchups, who dont report these issues. Even 5+ years. Keep in mind that what Joe says about treatments degrading over time is anecdotal, at least as far as i have seen. His trico colleagues experienced in SMP aren't making such broad claims about permanent (again, as far as i have seen), and more importantly, it is essentially nowhere to be found when you research the feedback online.

I take recommending (as well as dismissing) either type of SMP very seriously, and i have actively tried to find proof/confirmation, of the issues/differences Joe speaks of. If i had found evidence to back up his assertions, i would have been right there with him warning people to avoid it. But not only have i not found support for what he claims, i've often found the exact opposite. I'll speak more about that later.

I understand your position, though, as you might not be very involved in the SMP industry. The same thing is seen on SMP forums, where people who had terrible hair transplants 10 or 15 years ago, or who might have googled 'bad hair transplants', will come online and proclaim that all hair transplant surgeries are recipes for disaster, and that they are in no way a viable option. The truth is that the hair transplant industry has made significant advances over the years, and it produces satisfied clients regularly... you just have to know where to look.

So if you aren't very involved in the SMP community, you might have seen some abomonations from substandrd clinics, and think that permanent is nothing more than a snake oil money grab. You might have even seen a bad treatment from a good company now and then, because as im sure you are aware, even the best surgeons/clinics dont have 100% success rates. But if you spend even a little time researching feedback from reputable clinics, it is quickly apparent that it is a viable option. The positive feedback far outweighs any of the negatives, you just have to know where to look.

It's so transparent that you have skin in the game. Sell all the hair tattoos you want, I'm not buying any and I don't think too many well educated hair loss sufferers on the forums are either. Good luck!