Fue - fit- cit

[mwinston]

» » CIT,
» »
» » Good morning. This is a nice debate. I will humour the continued
» » deflections and denials of my unanswered questions by a point by point
» » quoting of you. Then I will emphatically prove that you are trying to
» » divert attention to other issues that were never asked of you.
» »
» » 1. You said, “I am unsure that you are satisfied with your previous
» hair
» » transplants and frankly I wish you the best.”
» » Thank you but my inquiries to you have nothing to do with me. This is a
» » diversion tactic in my opinion.
» »
» » 2. You said, “You should definitely continue with your questions about
» the
» » specifics of our procedure. I do think that being a HT therapist is a
» » costly occupation.”
» » I have continued asking the same questions and you do not answer one of
» » them. The second sentence makes no sense. Probably a posting diversion
» » style in the realm of “say anything to confuse them.”
» »
» » 3. You said, “You may also have the option to choose CIT if your donor
» » area hasn’t been over-harvested. Also, Strip may not be in your best
» » interests in the next 5+ years.”
» » Again, I asked you questions and again this is not about my personal
» » transplants. In my opinion this is deflection posting.
» »
» » 4. You said, “Today, we had another patient turned down for surgery,
» but
» » maybe you would like to know if you can have more surgery. With many
» » unknowns about your present state, it is difficult to know whether or
» not
» » you may obtain an actual CIT result to post.”
» » I never asked questions concerning your turning people down. Again I
» asked
» » simple questions related to your services which have have never been
» » answered. Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure is the law in the united
» » states, yes? How is the reality of your larger tools of 1.0mm, 1.1mm,
» » 1.2mm,1.3mm a disclosure of trade secrets? The size of your large tools
» » does not show us a picture of your tool or a method of how to extract a
» » graft. We all know that FUE and all of its derivitives equate to using
» a
» » circular punch of an (X) milimeter diameter. Not answering a simple
» » question is the crux of why you see a repeat of history when people
» become
» » curious about large tools. On one hand you have 99% of FUE clinics that
» use
» » micro-punch (0.75mm-1.0mm) technology. Then there is a clinic that will
» not
» » say what they use for punch size. On the flip side, if your record 2
» » million grafts extracted was equal to 2 million number of grafts
» growing,
» » then even my inquiries would subside. But this is not the case for your
» » clinic or any clinic for that matter. No clinic can claim as you have to
» be
» » the best of the best. And especially when there are so many
» inconsistencies
» » in this thread alone.
» »
» » 5. You said, “I note that you have already sent an official invite to
» » physicians on this forum to denounce previously stated fact and have
» » recieved only silence in return. You are more than welcome to find out
» more
» » info about this clinic by scheduling an in-person consultation.”
» » This is completely a tactic of twisting the words. And I feel ashamed
» to
» » have to show the public what you are doing here. YOU said, “Any
» physician
» » can confirm the previous statements.” This was the pinnicle statement
» that
» » invited any physician to engage in confirming the alleged 0.75mm punch
» » discovery by your clinic. My invitation was to agree that it would be
» » important of an outside clinic or physician to please confirm to us
» what
» » you say. And here it is important to say that CLEARLY you are quick to
» » “spit” out the punch size of 0.75mm but nothing else. Why?
» »
» » 6. I have only one other point to say which may in fact be difficult
» for
» » you to argue. And I am sure you will agree since this quote is within
» this
» » very thread and comes from your own patient. nthmainneighbor said today,
»
» »
» » "… my first three surgeries, so for my last I mentioned the punch
» size
» » controversey and that I thought it was B.S. I gave my consent to use a
» » large punch on my legs to grab some of the “threes”. I don’t know if
» the
» » doctor needed to but there aren’t any visible scars 8 months down the
» » road.
» »
» » So it is even more compelling that your own patient admits giving
» consent
» » to you to use a large punch. So can you (with all due respect) PLEASE
» » answer the questions asked of you and no other deflections, links,
» » diversions, twists of words.
» »
» » Also read my story on here and you will see i`m extremely happy with my
» » last HT.
» »
» » Thank you

Bigmac

Let me first begin by saying you will not get specific information on our
trade secrets. I myself can’t legally disclose this secret information.
It would be in your best interests to prove your specific information
regarding our devices rather than assuming you have any knowledge of our
methods of extraction. You do know what happens when you assume, right?

Surely a clinic can claim to be the best but there can only be one. This
fact is debatable and everyone does have an opinon. We just happen to have
the best track record and largest population of satified patients. I have
shown you the repairs, I have explained the inability to disclose trade
secrets, and our patients have no clue of what tools or what tool size we
use. We are a few steps ahead of the patients and employee knowledge as we
create systems that only licensees can understand.

Our Medical director, Dr.Cole, has now published more hair transplant results in this forum than any other U.S. hair transplant doctor.

I will now offer you a complimentary consultation and you may ask your
questions directly to Dr. Cole himself rather than assume you have
substantiated information. At that time,You may want a procedure
accompished by Dr. Cole after hearing it from the horse’s mouth.

We are in the business of helping patients. Below, is true testimony of a patient who recieved CIT and repair. The case is one of the very few repair/FUE cases. Here are our patient’s words:
“I believe in Dr Cole’s commitment to really taking this new hair surgery as far as it can go. His commitment to staying open to new ideas and actually trying and exploring them. To putting Gho’s, Woods and his own work together are vital to having the best surgery in the world. If anyone can do it … Cole can. This Dr Cole is a human being compared to most doctors in general, because he listens and he cares. As his work develops, and the CIT hair work he has done grows out, he will be proven as one of the best in the world at FUE/CIT… The other types of hair surgeries, from the past, are already obsolete so why risk them at this point, when we have a new surgery, an alternative that is less invasive, one where you can get a thousand CIT’s in a day, and even more when they come out easily. Why risk the old type of brutal, invasive surgeries. There are circumstances where you may want to get a strip or scar revision, but they are brutal and risky, and invasive. These are the fasts. If you have the facts then your choice is an informed choice. Do what is best for you.”

[bigmac]

CIT/DR Cole,

Your last post which was very predictable speaks volumes to the readers, potential transplant recipients, your peers, patients and myself of course. You did not answer a single question. In the end, instead you attempted (without success might I add) tactics of deflections, links to your website, diversions, twists of words, hiding behind a “secret trade formula” and now undertones of irritability.

If you want to know the truth of what I know it is this.

1. ALL FUE CLINICS use a circular punch. These punches are of an (x) diameter. I have read for 2 years now that there are a plethora of physicians using the 0.75mm -1.0mm punch with success. You stated emphatically on your in-house biased punch study and here on hairsite that the smallest punch which is a standard for micro-punch technology, 0.75mm punch, was a marketing tactic. Then you go on to say that you first introduced the 0.75mm and that it did not work in your hands. When I asked you for clarifications of the any punch statistics and especially of your large 1.1, 1.2, 1.3mm punches, you told me not to worry about such things. (Red flag IMO).

Why does the semantics of punch sizes bother many people including myself. Well there was a time when plug transplants were introduced to the public. The lay public did not have the resources to ask for proof that it worked (The internet). No one had a place to discuss the standard plug extraction punch of 1.4mm. It took 10 to 15 years for the public to realize that that size punch can leave a pluggy mess. (You certainly brag about repairing these patients.) In my opinion your 1.1mm - 1.3mm punch is too close to the old days of plug punch diameters. So my concern was knowing that.
A. You speak about the 0.75mm punch like it is useless; that everyone that uses it is a marketeer.
B Deny that its use has been successful in so many physicians skilled hands, i.e. Dr. Bisanga, HDC, GHI, Dr. Poswal, Dr. Iltler, and others.
C. Deny to the public any confirmation of statistics about any punch you have used. Yet the only diameter you mention is a 0.75mm punch.
D. Last week you had 1 million extractions, this week 2 million extractions.
E. No one physician will speak about your claims here or anywhere.
F. Research that has not been repeated outside of your clinic, for instance the “less is more” theory.

2. My questions are too difficult for you to answer. But in my opinion The days of “letting” the doctor do as he wishes without questioning are gone. There are too many clinics that show there best results and nothing else. There are too many clinics that have unanswered questions. In your case I do not understand why there are so many many unclear inconsistencies and conflicts.

Then I arrive at an epiphany when reading your last post. And I quote:

"… our patients have no clue of what tools or what tool size we use. We are a few steps ahead of the patients.

That really says it all.

Thanks

Bigmac.

[mwinston]

» CIT/DR Cole,
»
» Your last post which was very predictable speaks volumes to the readers,
» potential transplant recipients, your peers, patients and myself of course.
» You did not answer a single question. In the end, instead you attempted
» (without success might I add) tactics of deflections, links to your
» website, diversions, twists of words, hiding behind a “secret trade
» formula” and now undertones of irritability.
»
» If you want to know the truth of what I know it is this.
»
» 1. ALL FUE CLINICS use a circular punch. These punches are of an (x)
» diameter. I have read for 2 years now that there are a plethora of
» physicians using the 0.75mm -1.0mm punch with success. You stated
» emphatically on your in-house biased punch study and here on hairsite that
» the smallest punch which is a standard for micro-punch technology, 0.75mm
» punch, was a marketing tactic. Then you go on to say that you first
» introduced the 0.75mm and that it did not work in your hands. When I asked
» you for clarifications of the any punch statistics and especially of your
» large 1.1, 1.2, 1.3mm punches, you told me not to worry about such things.
» (Red flag IMO).
»
» Why does the semantics of punch sizes bother many people including myself.
» Well there was a time when plug transplants were introduced to the public.
» The lay public did not have the resources to ask for proof that it worked
» (The internet). No one had a place to discuss the standard plug extraction
» punch of 1.4mm. It took 10 to 15 years for the public to realize that that
» size punch can leave a pluggy mess. (You certainly brag about repairing
» these patients.) In my opinion your 1.1mm - 1.3mm punch is too close to the
» old days of plug punch diameters. So my concern was knowing that.
» A. You speak about the 0.75mm punch like it is useless; that everyone that
» uses it is a marketeer.
» B Deny that its use has been successful in so many physicians skilled
» hands, i.e. Dr. Bisanga, HDC, GHI, Dr. Poswal, Dr. Iltler, and others.
» C. Deny to the public any confirmation of statistics about any punch you
» have used. Yet the only diameter you mention is a 0.75mm punch.
» D. Last week you had 1 million extractions, this week 2 million
» extractions.
» E. No one physician will speak about your claims here or anywhere.
» F. Research that has not been repeated outside of your clinic, for
» instance the “less is more” theory.
»
» 2. My questions are too difficult for you to answer. But in my opinion The
» days of “letting” the doctor do as he wishes without questioning are gone.
» There are too many clinics that show there best results and nothing else.
» There are too many clinics that have unanswered questions. In your case I
» do not understand why there are so many many unclear inconsistencies and
» conflicts.
»
» Then I arrive at an epiphany when reading your last post. And I quote:
»
» "… our patients have no clue of what tools or what tool size we use. We
» are a few steps ahead of the patients.
»
» That really says it all.
»
»
» Thanks
»
» Bigmac.

Top of the morning Bigmac,

No, most instruments can be applicable in specific instances. For the fourth and last time, I simply said that Dr. Cole first introduced the small instrument to the hair transplant community. Yes, our number of extractions is well over 1 million and very near to 2,000,000 so I wouldn’t be too concerned about our hair transplant experience. I purposely started the thread to give each individual or physician the opportunity to make his or her claim. As you can see, we have no takers as of yet. Hmmm……

I even gave you the time to provide evidence of CIT unsatisfied patients but you declined or wasn’t successful. The remainder of your conversation regarding the “less if more” really doesn’t equate to a debate.

Bigmac, your questions are oh so very simple and direct. What more can an ethical clinic show other than the befores and after results while including the results on the donor area(s)? Once again which clinic will rival our results and include donor area results at 1 year post-op?

I am glad that you finally understand nothing about our procedure.

Yours truly,

CIT

[nwone]

» » CIT/DR Cole,
» »
» » Your last post which was very predictable speaks volumes to the
» readers,
» » potential transplant recipients, your peers, patients and myself of
» course.
» » You did not answer a single question. In the end, instead you attempted
» » (without success might I add) tactics of deflections, links to your
» » website, diversions, twists of words, hiding behind a “secret trade
» » formula” and now undertones of irritability.
» »
» » If you want to know the truth of what I know it is this.
» »
» » 1. ALL FUE CLINICS use a circular punch. These punches are of an (x)
» » diameter. I have read for 2 years now that there are a plethora of
» » physicians using the 0.75mm -1.0mm punch with success. You stated
» » emphatically on your in-house biased punch study and here on hairsite
» that
» » the smallest punch which is a standard for micro-punch technology,
» 0.75mm
» » punch, was a marketing tactic. Then you go on to say that you first
» » introduced the 0.75mm and that it did not work in your hands. When I
» asked
» » you for clarifications of the any punch statistics and especially of
» your
» » large 1.1, 1.2, 1.3mm punches, you told me not to worry about such
» things.
» » (Red flag IMO).
» »
» » Why does the semantics of punch sizes bother many people including
» myself.
» » Well there was a time when plug transplants were introduced to the
» public.
» » The lay public did not have the resources to ask for proof that it
» worked
» » (The internet). No one had a place to discuss the standard plug
» extraction
» » punch of 1.4mm. It took 10 to 15 years for the public to realize that
» that
» » size punch can leave a pluggy mess. (You certainly brag about repairing
» » these patients.) In my opinion your 1.1mm - 1.3mm punch is too close to
» the
» » old days of plug punch diameters. So my concern was knowing that.
» » A. You speak about the 0.75mm punch like it is useless; that everyone
» that
» » uses it is a marketeer.
» » B Deny that its use has been successful in so many physicians skilled
» » hands, i.e. Dr. Bisanga, HDC, GHI, Dr. Poswal, Dr. Iltler, and others.
» » C. Deny to the public any confirmation of statistics about any punch
» you
» » have used. Yet the only diameter you mention is a 0.75mm punch.
» » D. Last week you had 1 million extractions, this week 2 million
» » extractions.
» » E. No one physician will speak about your claims here or anywhere.
» » F. Research that has not been repeated outside of your clinic, for
» » instance the “less is more” theory.
» »
» » 2. My questions are too difficult for you to answer. But in my opinion
» The
» » days of “letting” the doctor do as he wishes without questioning are
» gone.
» » There are too many clinics that show there best results and nothing
» else.
» » There are too many clinics that have unanswered questions. In your case
» I
» » do not understand why there are so many many unclear inconsistencies
» and
» » conflicts.
» »
» » Then I arrive at an epiphany when reading your last post. And I quote:
» »
» » "… our patients have no clue of what tools or what tool size we use.
» We
» » are a few steps ahead of the patients.
» »
» » That really says it all.
» »
» »
» » Thanks
» »
» » Bigmac.
»
» Top of the morning Bigmac,
»
» No, most instruments can be applicable in specific instances. For the
» fourth and last time, I simply said that Dr. Cole first introduced the
» small instrument to the hair transplant community. Yes, our number of
» extractions is well over 1 million and very near to 2,000,000 so I wouldn’t
» be too concerned about our hair transplant experience. I purposely started
» the thread to give each individual or physician the opportunity to make his
» or her claim. As you can see, we have no takers as of yet. Hmmm……
»
» I even gave you the time to provide evidence of CIT unsatisfied patients
» but you declined or wasn’t successful. The remainder of your conversation
» regarding the “less if more” really doesn’t equate to a debate.
»
» Bigmac, your questions are oh so very simple and direct. What more can an
» ethical clinic show other than the befores and after results while
» including the results on the donor area(s)? Once again which clinic will
» rival our results and include donor area results at 1 year post-op?
»
» I am glad that you finally understand nothing about our procedure.
»
» Yours truly,
»
» CIT
»

»

How many CIT can be performed on a patient in one day? Lovin it, results speak!

[bigmac]

CIT,

Good morning fellow debator.

The picture here proves my point and personal view (and others) of this entire thread. Your initial post was the catalyst that led to my innate actions to ponder, analyze and ask questions that are still unanswered. Let’s review your very first post by focusing on the underlined words.

This post encompasses so many unproved theories, in-house biased formulas, aversion to the primary individuals that co-founded FIT (Dr Rose and Dr Mwamba), shows ideation s of grandeur, dis-respect to those who try to further FUE… let alone those who worked so hard to embrace small punch technology (0.75mm-1.0mm), and enable the reality of what FUE was created for. The reality of what FUE was created for was to leave the old punch sizes of 1.4mm-1.7mm, provide an alternative to a linear and punch graft looking scar, thusly definining the term FOLLICULAR UNIT EXTRACTION.

‘Follicular unit’ being the key word here. do you see my point? A follicular unit does not require your 1.1mm,1.2mm,1.3mm punch. This has been proven. Shame on you for this public extortion if you will of the lay person who only sees a single post of,I am great. I am the best. there is no other. We are the world.

Thanks again
Bigmac

[AqueousSoln]

» The reality of what FUE was created for was to leave the old punch
» sizes of 1.4mm-1.7mm, provide an alternative to a linear and punch graft
» looking scar, thusly definining the term FOLLICULAR UNIT EXTRACTION.
»
» ‘Follicular unit’ being the key word here. do you see my point? A
» follicular unit does not require your 1.1mm,1.2mm,1.3mm punch. This has
» been proven.
»
» Thanks again
» Bigmac

The old punch grafts were 4mm and up, not 1.4mm. The idea of FUE was to leave behind the old sizes of several millimeters and adopt a method that extracts only one FU at a time - Follicular Unit Extraction.

Here is a graphic that Philb of Dr. Bisanga’s clinic BHR posted on a previous thread http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-23351.html

Now imagine a 4mm punch wound - it would almost take up the entire picture. It kind of puts things in perspective.

[nthmainneighbor]

I live very close to Dr. Cole’s office and stop by every month or so to purchase their Hair Cycle products. I know most of the people who work at his office, including the full time Ph.D engineer Dr. Cole keeps on staff. I have seen several specialized tools Dr. Cole has invented. As someone with a mechanical background, I can tell you these devices are both elegant and reflect creative genius. Dr. Cole only talks about these inventions in general terms, but I have a pretty good idea of how they work. These tools offer advantages to both patients and doctors that are not available at most other clinics. I believe that some of the tools he invented are available to other doctors. Patrick Mwamba uses them for instance in Belgium (his technician stated this in a thread). That’s all you are going to get out of me.

[bigmac]

whatever

[mwinston]

» whatever

Bigmac,

Whatever, whatever. I understand that you are somewhat new to this forum but you don’t understand the FUE procedure. It was meant to produce better results in the donor. I would love to see your results and talk to you by telephone. Please remember that you can always give me a call on Monday so we can get on a more personal level of communication. I challenge you in this pointless debate. For every insult, I will show you a life changing result. The evidence is here and that’s the bottom line. Check this out as if you were a prospective patient and not a strip patient with a failed FUE procedure

Always remember and never forget, there is CIT and not quite CIT
Check this out then let me know when you will be able to get the hair cut that you most desire:More proven results on the recipient and donor areas- Pay attention!

An actual patient give clear testimony of a fact but he get zero credit. One who has suffered the pains of the out-of-date procedures. There is nothing to say but look at the positive progress he has made.
Dr. Cole’s actual patient “themainneighbor”

Above, you may see an actual 4 mm punch. Stick with what you know!

[bigmac]

No insults from me CIT just asking open questions and still waiting for YOU,not patients to answer them.
I`m pleased your patient has achieved a great result as this is what its all about but i dont understand why you are prepared to answer my questions over the phone and not on here.

[bigmac]

CIT/Dr Cole,

Here is the perfect example of mis-leading the public. Look at your own picture that you have just posted

1. The scale at the top that states 1mm = 1 inch is extremely flawed. One inch equals 25.4mm and 1mm equals 0.03937007874015748 of an inch. Don’t try to say this was someone else’s picture. You posted it so you enabled the flaw to its fullest.

2. Look at the 0.75mm punch example. Now look at your large punch of 1.1mm. Do you see how the 0.75mm can easily fit (no pun intended don’t want to pay a license fee) around each follicular unit. Furthermore do you see how your 1.1mm punch is extracting extraneous tissue. Now imagine your 1.2mm and your 1.3mm.

3. Yes you are correct about in that the large old punches were sometimes as big as 4.0mm but some of the more conservative clinics started close to your size around 1.4mm.

Thanks

Bigmac.

[mwinston]

» CIT/Dr Cole,
»
» Here is the perfect example of mis-leading the public. Look at your own
» picture that you have just posted
»
» 1. The scale at the top that states 1mm = 1 inch is extremely flawed. One
» inch equals 25.4mm and 1mm equals 0.03937007874015748 of an inch. Don’t try
» to say this was someone else’s picture. You posted it so you enabled the
» flaw to its fullest.
»
» 2. Look at the 0.75mm punch example. Now look at your large punch of
» 1.1mm. Do you see how the 0.75mm can easily fit (no pun intended don’t want
» to pay a license fee) around each follicular unit. Furthermore do you see
» how your 1.1mm punch is extracting extraneous tissue. Now imagine your
» 1.2mm and your 1.3mm.
»
» 3. Yes you are correct about in that the large old punches were sometimes
» as big as 4.0mm but some of the more conservative clinics started close to
» your size around 1.4mm.
»
» Thanks
»
» Bigmac.

Sorry Bigmac,

I am unaware of any scaled photos produce by my clinic. You may want to re-check your sources. There is no benefit of using solely larger tools and no benefit of just using smaller tools. The fact is that many patients can have multiple characteristics in their donors.

Of course I could rather speak about you think you know about CIT. Your lack of knowledge is highly visible by the mentioning of unsubstantiated facts and the actual supporting evidence.

We produce top notch result on both donor and recipient areas due to our study and willingness to further our procedure. There is no time frame on when our tools will become more advanced/ tailored to accommodate the numerous characteristics and demands in our patients’ donor areas.
We can write all day about your specifics of what size devices we us but the debate would only end in the written summary of a patient’s case with the results to follow.
Give us a call or we could treat you like a patient to make you more aware of our procedure(s). That would more than likely end this debate and would benefit you to talk to someone who knows more about our current operations. I have offered you but if you aren’t ready for the truth then I can only post more results.

[marco]

» Sorry Bigmac,
»
» I am unaware of any scaled photos produce by my clinic. You may want to
» re-check your sources.

Here is one for a start

forhair . com / Articles/Punch_Size_Comparison_Study_in_Hair_Transplant_Surgery . htm

» Of course I could rather speak about you think you know about CIT. Your
» lack of knowledge is highly visible by the mentioning of unsubstantiated
» facts and the actual supporting evidence.

Bigmac seems to know quite a bit about CIT

we have seen several results of Coles that showed marked white dots. Personally I don’t care about this and other clinics had the same issues until moving to better tools. You may have moved to better tools but since you think it is so clever to hide the facts then we can’t know whether to believe you or not.

»
» We produce top notch result on both donor and recipient areas due to our
» study and willingness to further our procedure. There is no time frame on
» when our tools will become more advanced/ tailored to accommodate the
» numerous characteristics and demands in our patients’ donor areas.

Oh, Cole told us only a couple of months ago that he was about to revolutionise his procedure with a robot???

» We can write all day about your specifics of what size devices we us but
» the debate would only end in the written summary of a patient’s case with
» the results to follow.

You haven’t written one specific, all you have done is posted results and slagged of all other procedures!!!

CIT, learn this and learn it fast. Slagging off all other clinics (“there is CIT and not quite CIT” ) will just alienate you since we have seen good work, yes as good as CIT from many others. This board is full of such results.

[mwinston]

» » Sorry Bigmac,
» »
» » I am unaware of any scaled photos produce by my clinic. You may want
» to
» » re-check your sources.
»
» Here is one for a start
»
»
»
»
»
» » Of course I could rather speak about you think you know about CIT.
» Your
» » lack of knowledge is highly visible by the mentioning of
» unsubstantiated
» » facts and the actual supporting evidence.
»
» Bigmac seems to know quite a bit about CIT
»
» we have seen several results of Coles that showed marked white dots.
» Personally I don’t care about this and other clinics had the same issues
» until moving to better tools. You may have moved to better tools but since
» you think it is so clever to hide the facts then we can’t know whether to
» believe you or not.
»
» »
» » We produce top notch result on both donor and recipient areas due to
» our
» » study and willingness to further our procedure. There is no time frame
» on
» » when our tools will become more advanced/ tailored to accommodate the
» » numerous characteristics and demands in our patients’ donor areas.
»
»
» Oh, Cole told us only a couple of months ago that he was about to
» revolutionise his procedure with a robot???
»
» » We can write all day about your specifics of what size devices we us
» but
» » the debate would only end in the written summary of a patient’s case
» with
» » the results to follow.
»
»
» You haven’t written one specific, all you have done is posted results and
» slagged of all other procedures!!!
»
» CIT, learn this and learn it fast. Slagging off all other clinics (“there
» is CIT and not quite CIT” ) will just alienate you since we have seen good
» work, yes as good as CIT from many others. This board is full of such
» results.

Marco,

The reference you just submitted is not scaled. Stating there is CIT and not quite CIT is simply saying that there are countless differences from CIT and other forms of FUE. Remember your words, "all you have done is posted results” Let’s focus on how to further FUE and get even better results in donor areas. There are my surgeons who practice FUE and in the end, some are better than others. Let us be alienated by having the most quality consistent results. Another one: forhair . com / component/option,com_videogallerys/Itemid,226/catid,2/

Yours Truly,

CIT

[DaveOne]

In the punch comparison study link that posted earlier, your clinic states that the larger punches heal better than the smaller punches. This seems like a really interesting surprise, and you claim it’s backed up by your data? Has this “study” been peer-reviewed and published following the typical protocol for a medical study?

Here’s the quote:

“In this study we compared our 0.75 mm punch with a punch significantly larger. The results of this study showed there was no statistically different appearance in the donor area. In fact the larger punch healed better, but the difference was not statistically significant.”

Edit: Added quote.

[mwinston]

» In the punch comparison study link that posted earlier, your clinic states
» that the larger punches heal better than the smaller punches. This seems
» like a really interesting surprise, and you claim it’s backed up by your
» data? Has this “study” been peer-reviewed and published following the
» typical protocol for a medical study?
»
» Here’s the quote:
»
» “In this study we compared our 0.75 mm punch with a punch significantly
» larger. The results of this study showed there was no statistically
» different appearance in the donor area. In fact the larger punch healed
» better, but the difference was not statistically significant.”
»
» Edit: Added quote.

Hi Daveone and other forum viewers,

I have actual evidence supporting the fact that there were little differences in sizes of our older larger and smaller instruments. One area of the donor was harvested while another area was harvested by a larger instrument. Before our new devices were in operation, we studied a patient’s donor to see the difference in actual donor healing after 9+ months.

The following patinent had two different size instruments used in the donor area to show what differences would be noticeable to the naked eye. As you can see in the photos, no viewer was able to determine any significant difference.

This Norwood 6 patient came to our clinic in the summer of 2007 and received an in-person consultation. The donor density of this patient measured below average at 150 hairs per square centimeter with 180 being about the average. Dr. Cole’s treatment plan was to transfer 1200 - 1300 CIT grafts from this patient’s donor area to form the frontal scalp and hair line. The patient recently came by the office for us to recheck his hair densities on the front and crown after 8 months. The donor hair is very plentiful as you can see that the patient wears a very short hair style.

Carefully analyze the overall appearance of the donor area when observing these photos, particularly in the mastoid photos located at the bottom. Do you notice any difference in the photos from the left side and right side? You are the judge and the jury. Please give an effort and choose one of the following answers listed below:

A. There is no difference between photos A and B. No surgery was performed.

B. The donor was harvested with a variety of instruments.

C. The donor density is lower in photos C & D only

D. The area was only tested with 50 CIT grafts to determine the patient’s healing ability and reveals that the patient heals extremely well.

E. The hair lays naturally sparse in all photos and overall density is the same.

[AqueousSoln]

» There is no benefit of using solely larger tools
» and no benefit of just using smaller tools. The fact is that many patients
» can have multiple characteristics in their donors.

I’ll second that. The only thing that matters in the end is the results. One of the keys to consistent results is options - if you limit yourself, how can you actively adapt to the needs of the patient? Every patient is unique. The variations from patient to patient, and indeed hair to hair, are endless. It is far more advantageous to have an arsenal of customizeable tools and cutting edge techniques at the doctor’s disposal. Combine that with high quality training and an endless stream of innovative advancements, and you have quite a mighty force with which to fight your hair loss.

[bigmac]

As long as the tools are 1mm or less to minimise scarring and larger than 1mm only used for old plug extraction.

[mwinston]

Absolutely. The surgeon must make the call. BTW, the answer to this quiz was “B” the donor was harvested with two different size instruments to be exact.

[bigmac]

CIT,

You always show the same few pictures of donor areas to try justify to the public why your large punches should be used. And out of your claims of 2 million grafts extracted (an effective McDonalds Corporation slogan by the way), you only have these very few pictures to show every time. So answer these two questions. One based on Marco’s previous post and the other on your last post.

1. Marco said," We have seen several results of Coles that showed marked white dots." Given this fact how can you deny that your 1.1mm, 1.2mm, 1.3mm:
   A. Increases the scarring potential exponentially.
   B. Can, does, and will continue to produce a “white dotting” effect in a greater percentage of patients than you led on.

2. In your last post you said that there were two punch sizes used in that particular patient. What were the sizes? a 1.1mm, 1.2mm, or 1.3mm?

Thank you.

Bigmac