and even if it were, the endless waves of migrant invaders from Africa and Arabia are 1000X bigger issues.
With Haircloning Available - Could You Reach A Unlimited Density With Multiply Hairtransplants?
- Thread starter randolf_faust
- Start date
and even if it were, the endless waves of migrant invaders from Africa and Arabia are 1000X bigger issues.
Thermometers don't have political biases. Deal.
As for Erdogan vs Rassman - try spelling out to Erdogan than the question is about multiple sessions and is setting aside donor supply concerns.
After that, well . . . skilled experts can disagree. It happens.
The situation being discussed is not that common. Most guys who start off demanding enormous transplant density, will end up backing off that intent once they get decent density implanted. The toll on the donor supply (and recovery times, and bank account . . . ) is so high.
- Reaction score
- 64
My request to Erdogan was a very small transplantation (about 300 grafts), to add a little bit density to the previous transplants I've already had. Surely Erdogan understands this is multiple sessions. I'll just repeat what's been posted earlier:
"According to the professional evaluation, Dr. Koray Erdogan does not believe a hair transplantation surgery can make you achieve the density you seek for. There are few main reasons behind this:"
Reason 2: "It should also be kept in mind that you can never achieve the native hair density (60-90 follicles/cm2) by hair transplantation and the aim of hair restoration is not letting you have the same density you would have originally. It only is to create an illusion of the coverage with ca 46-50 grafts/cm2 and techniques. Because, transplanting more than 50 grafts/cm2 would decrease the regrwoth rate and the results would be the same with transplanting 46-50 grafts."
Reason 3: "Lastly, if a hair transplantation surgery was conducted, your existing grafts would be damaged resulting in stimulated hair loss and this is the reason that you are not recommended to undergo this minor hair transplantation surgery."
Erdogan is wrong, or Rassmann is. I don't see how it's possible to reconcile these two opinions.
- Reaction score
- 17
Global Warming is a problem. But this is a hair-loss forum. Of course we're going to focus and fixiate on getting our hair back.
Unless you're a doomer that got caught up in the sudden wave of '2 YEARS LEFT/12 YEARS LEFT', in every case, Global warming is 1) A issue that will bother the next century and more down the millennium, far past our lifetimes. Sure, the tropics and subtropics will turn to desert, the geopolitical situation will be destroyed, and mankind will be different in 3019, but A) they'll still be around to deal with it and B) We won't.
2) It is also an issue that corporations and developing countries contribute more to than the average person in the first world; so trying to guilt-shame the average person about their 'waste' is literally crying in the rain or pissing in the wind. Go over to China and India and start up Green parties over there; or get the meat and automative industries to clean up shop. These things, you will note, are far beyond the scope or care of most the posters here.
well I don't see why would erdogan won't accept more $$$$ from people unless he genuinely believes what he's saying, on the other hand rassmaan keeps the possibility of bringing in more customers by telling them that they can achieve all the density they could ever want to (with enough donor)
not that I imply rassmann is lying, but 1 is insisting on not taking more of your money saying it will not work while the other isn't. so idk.
have you tried just asking more hair specialists with good name to them for their take on it?
you could also take the risk and go for that 300 gratfs transplant with rassmaan and be the guinea pig
- Reaction score
- 64
Erdogan probably has his door lined up with infinitely many patients. In fact, both doctors are so well established that they can choose their patients. I haven't asked anyone else, but it oughta be someone who has written very much like Rassman. Suggestions?
What I'd like someone to do is to schedule a personal consultation with Erdogan and quote Rassman. (I lack the time.)
- Reaction score
- 11
I don't think they contradict each other. Because their statement apply to different situations:
Erdogan: If your hair density is already low, and you want to achieve the original density by hair transplant. No, because blablabla.
Rassman: Hair transplant can achieve natural density, or even > 100% density: immoral doctor who told normal men (> 95% density ) they they needed hair transplants (for him to make money).
For normal man, their follicles are healthy, which means they are not so affected by shock lost, and also most of them have hair so the doctor could avoid inserting new follicles to existing follicles.
Each hair transplant could gain some increase of density, but the marginal benefit is decreasing (in terms of change of density; with the same amount of grafts and same acceptance area), and ~45-50 graft/cm2 may be the point of starting diminishing benefit based on the current technology and skills.
- Reaction score
- 64
They do contradict each other; Erdogan knows my density from the pictures he's been sent. He, like many other doctors, were essentially trying to convince me that I have too much density, and that's the reason why they won't do it.
Rassman in unequivocal that "more hair can always be added", and states that it's "nothing but good judgment" which "would require a reasonable replacement density in the recipient area of a balding man of about 50% of the original recipient area", as "more grafts means more donor site depletion." He never mentions a diminishing benefit. Erdogan, on the contrary, says there is no benefit, as "transplanting more than 50 grafts/cm2 would decrease the regrwoth rate and the results would be the same with transplanting 46-50 grafts".
- Reaction score
- 11
They still don't contradict each other.
Dr Erdogan is answering your question from a practitioner's point of view. A second hair transplant doesn't benefit you in terms of visual effect (you can have higher density, but survival rate is much lower, and the improvement of visual effect is not so notifiable). His answer would also try to save your donor grafts for future use. In short, he doesn't recommend a second hair transplant (even if you want higher density), just like what a moral doctor would not recommend a hair transplant to a normal person, which doesn't mean more hair cannot be added.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 288
50 hair/cm^2 beats the hell out of being slick bald.
- Reaction score
- 64
I find it peculiar that Dr. Rassman, in his numerous writings quoted here, never mentions a diminishing benefit in terms of grafts survival.
- Reaction score
- 11
He may not know about this term as it is from economics. But you can ask him if this description is correct.