Fue - fit- cit

mwinston · June 5, 2008, 11:50pm

» » » » » »
» » » » » » It is personal choice. Either you want the product or you go
» » » » elsewhere.
» » » » »
» » » » » » IMO, There is too much mellow drama here!
» » » » »
» » » » » Well i dont agree with your statement,how can someone make an
» » » informed
» » » » » decision when all the facts are not disclosed.
» » » » » Would you take out a loan if they never told you how much
» interest
» » » you
» » » » » would pay.Would you cross a busy road blindfolded.
» » » » »
» » » » » These forums are for the patients benefit “NOT” the doctors and
» all
» » » » » information should be freely available so that a prosspective
» » patient
» » » » knows
» » » » » all the facts and then can decide who to go to.
» » » »
»
»
» How much does Dr coles clinic charge for consults in Atlanta? I hear
» Armani’s fee is 250$!
» » » There
» » 7.50 each graft if memory serves
» » » » is a slight difference in asking how something is done versus
» asking
» » » what
» » » » is used to perform the act (surgery). You should talk to the
» » patients
» » » an
» » » » surgeon in-person then make an informed decision at that point.

We don’t charge for any consults as a service to our patients. We inform our patients of the advantages and disadvantages to each method of hair transplant performed at our clinic. We will be opening the clinic for Saturday consultation session in the next week or so.

In years to come, we will see that the “less is more” concept is absolutely true. This is why you won’t find many 5000 graft+ cases from our clinic. Hair loss can progress and in the event of further loss, the appearence of the hair transplant needs be appear naturally.

mwinston · June 15, 2008, 7:41am

» Getting a straight forward answer from this guy is like getting blood out
» of a stone.
» Pleeeeeeeeease what size punches do you use and i`ve given up on my other
» questions on my other posts as you have no reputable/logical answer.
»
» :crying:

bigmac,

It would be inaccurate to disclose data that we even use what most clinics refer to as punches. Our instruments can accomodate any patients’ needs as no one donor area is the same. As it was stated over several years ago, we did introduce the .75 to the hair transplant industry. If you meet our patients and talk to our staff then you could very well get more information about what is done at our clinic.

bigmac · June 18, 2008, 10:36pm

»
» bigmac,
»
» It would be inaccurate to disclose data that we even use what most clinics
» refer to as punches. Our instruments can accomodate any patients’ needs as
» no one donor area is the same. As it was stated over several years ago, we
» did introduce the .75 to the hair transplant industry. If you meet our
» patients and talk to our staff then you could very well get more
» information about what is done at our clinic.

CIT,

I am so intrigued by your claim to have introduced the 0.75mm punch several years ago. So let me ask a few questions based on this claim, and ask about patient rights in the US.

What is the size range of your punches? We now know the lower end size of your punch size. Apparently since you introduced the 0.75mm punch (allegedly) and you are quick to admit this publically, then what would be the largest size punch you have used in the past and or present to accommodate ANY follicular unit. You are always saying that your tools are customized to the ever so dynamic donor characteristics of follicular unit sizes of individual patients. So in other words, what is the max punch size. You have now admitted the lower size, so it is only fair that I ask this question so I can be educated in what it takes to extract the largest follicular unit you have ever encountered while performing FIT/CIT/C2G (only).
Do US patients have the right to full disclosure of the procedures performed as well as the tools used in each and every clinical application on humans in US medicine.
This question is the most important one. Recently MYWHTC a poster here on hairsite admitted on a thread that the punch sizes of THAT clinic do indeed reach and may go over 1.0mm as need be in their procedure of FIT(FOLLICULAR ISOLATION TECHNIQUE). Does this mean your FIT and CIT and C2G all may include the same specifications of punch sizes to accommodate all punch sizes.I have to assume this is the case if you were the source of FIT development and teaching this technique to the clinic of MYWHTC.

I trust that you will answer questions 1, 2, and 3 for me and not leave out any question. I ask these questions based on the postings that you have posted and other posters. Thank you in advance.

Thanks bigmac

mwinston · June 19, 2008, 2:17am

» »
» » bigmac,
» »
» » It would be inaccurate to disclose data that we even use what most
» clinics
» » refer to as punches. Our instruments can accomodate any patients’ needs
» as
» » no one donor area is the same. As it was stated over several years ago,
» we
» » did introduce the .75 to the hair transplant industry. If you meet our
» » patients and talk to our staff then you could very well get more
» » information about what is done at our clinic.
»
» CIT,
»
» I am so intrigued by your claim to have introduced the 0.75mm punch
» several years ago. So let me ask a few questions based on this claim, and
» ask about patient rights in the US.
»
» 1. What is the size range of your punches? We now know the lower end size
» of your punch size. Apparently since you introduced the 0.75mm punch
» (allegedly) and you are quick to admit this publically, then what would be
» the largest size punch you have used in the past and or present to
» accommodate ANY follicular unit. You are always saying that your tools are
» customized to the ever so dynamic donor characteristics of follicular unit
» sizes of individual patients. So in other words, what is the max punch
» size. You have now admitted the lower size, so it is only fair that I ask
» this question so I can be educated in what it takes to extract the largest
» follicular unit you have ever encountered while performing FIT/CIT/C2G
» (only).
»
» 2. Do US patients have the right to full disclosure of the procedures
» performed as well as the tools used in each and every clinical application
» on humans in US medicine.
»
» 3. This question is the most important one. Recently MYWHTC a poster here
» on hairsite admitted on a thread that the punch sizes of THAT clinic do
» indeed reach and may go over 1.0mm as need be in their procedure of
» FIT(FOLLICULAR ISOLATION TECHNIQUE). Does this mean your FIT and CIT and
» C2G all may include the same specifications of punch sizes to accommodate
» all punch sizes.I have to assume this is the case if you were the source of
» FIT development and teaching this technique to the clinic of MYWHTC.
»
» I trust that you will answer questions 1, 2, and 3 for me and not leave
» out any question. I ask these questions based on the postings that you have
» posted and other posters. Thank you in advance.
»
» Thanks bigmac

Why are you pursuing the so-called “Cole secrets”? Today, I read that Shapiro uses a 1.0 b/c it allows for almost not transectionand keeps some tissue around the grafts which helps minimize damage while they are handled. Seriously, Ya think of doing one with him Cole? I’d try calling… It could only be fun:-)

the_B_spot · June 19, 2008, 3:59am

I fail to see how this helps educate prospective patients as to their options when patients do not know what they are buying.

At this point in time Dr. Shapiro is using a 1.0mm punch as we are currently doing FUE into scar tissue for repair. As mwinston has pointed out it helps to minimize transection AND helps retain a decent amount of tissue surrounding the graft.

However, our mission is to trend downward in punch size and move toward the .8-.9mm punches and reserve the 1.0 only when needed/for scar repair.

Dr. Shapiro recently spent time with Dr. Ilter and watched him work with a .75 in an effort to see this punch in operation at a high rate of extraction. We will be using the same punches as Dr. Ilter for the time being as they are fairly common and easy to use.

It is ignorant to assume that 1 punch size will accomodate all patients, certain patients simply have larger grafts, others smaller.

Additionally, some patients may seek to maximize every graft extracted by choosing a doctor who uses larger punches, b/c like strip patients they will never shave down past a certain point.

However, once identified as a patient who requires a larger punch, choices should be given to the patient before proceeding.

It should be the patients choice, with full disclosure, otherwise you will never have informed consent.

Take Care,
Jason

bigmac · June 19, 2008, 10:50am

Why are you pursuing the so-called “Cole secrets”? Today, I read that Shapiro uses a 1.0 b/c it allows for almost not transectionand keeps some tissue around the grafts which helps minimize damage while they are handled. Seriously, Ya think of doing one with him Cole? I’d try calling… It could only be fun

Thank you for your comments however please allow CIT to answer my questions directed to him specifically on this open public forum as we are having a debate and his input is appreciated.No pursuing involved.

Yes you are correct about Dr Shapiro, however this question is directed to CIT. Thanks again.

craig · June 19, 2008, 7:13pm

» I fail to see how this helps educate prospective patients as to their
» options when patients do not know what they are buying.
»
» At this point in time Dr. Shapiro is using a 1.0mm punch as we are
» currently doing FUE into scar tissue for repair. As mwinston has pointed
» out it helps to minimize transection AND helps retain a decent amount of
» tissue surrounding the graft.
»
» However, our mission is to trend downward in punch size and move toward
» the .8-.9mm punches and reserve the 1.0 only when needed/for scar repair.
»
» Dr. Shapiro recently spent time with Dr. Ilter and watched him work with a
» .75 in an effort to see this punch in operation at a high rate of
» extraction. We will be using the same punches as Dr. Ilter for the time
» being as they are fairly common and easy to use.
»
» It is ignorant to assume that 1 punch size will accomodate all patients,
» certain patients simply have larger grafts, others smaller.
»
» Additionally, some patients may seek to maximize every graft extracted by
» choosing a doctor who uses larger punches, b/c like strip patients they
» will never shave down past a certain point.
»
» However, once identified as a patient who requires a larger punch, choices
» should be given to the patient before proceeding.
»
» It should be the patients choice, with full disclosure, otherwise you will
» never have informed consent.
»
» Take Care,
» Jason

Jason do you work for Dr. Shapiro? How much does he charge for fue? Website?

the_B_spot · June 19, 2008, 9:10pm

» » I fail to see how this helps educate prospective patients as to their
» » options when patients do not know what they are buying.
» »
» » At this point in time Dr. Shapiro is using a 1.0mm punch as we are
» » currently doing FUE into scar tissue for repair. As mwinston has
» pointed
» » out it helps to minimize transection AND helps retain a decent amount
» of
» » tissue surrounding the graft.
» »
» » However, our mission is to trend downward in punch size and move toward
» » the .8-.9mm punches and reserve the 1.0 only when needed/for scar
» repair.
» »
» » Dr. Shapiro recently spent time with Dr. Ilter and watched him work with
» a
» » .75 in an effort to see this punch in operation at a high rate of
» » extraction. We will be using the same punches as Dr. Ilter for the time
» » being as they are fairly common and easy to use.
» »
» » It is ignorant to assume that 1 punch size will accomodate all
» patients,
» » certain patients simply have larger grafts, others smaller.
» »
» » Additionally, some patients may seek to maximize every graft extracted
» by
» » choosing a doctor who uses larger punches, b/c like strip patients they
» » will never shave down past a certain point.
» »
» » However, once identified as a patient who requires a larger punch,
» choices
» » should be given to the patient before proceeding.
» »
» » It should be the patients choice, with full disclosure, otherwise you
» will
» » never have informed consent.
» »
» » Take Care,
» » Jason
»
» Jason do you work for Dr. Shapiro? How much does he charge for fue?
» Website?

Yes I do Craig-- I don’t see my signature coming through so I’ll amend it show my association.

Right now we are doing scar repairs at 5.00 per graft, and scar repair will never cost more than 1500.00, even if we resection some of the existing scar before doing FUE.

There are a select # of patients who have expressed an interest in temple points/hairline work, but we are not offering this portion publicly yet.

I expect to have some immed post-op pics soon, and some grown out results in the months to come-- this is just being offered by Dr. Shapiro and we are trying to very upfront about our methods and thought processes. I expect they will change as time goes on as we implement smaller tools.

Take Care,
Jason

mwinston · June 20, 2008, 2:46am

fact » Why are you pursuing the so-called “Cole secrets”? Today, I read that
» Shapiro uses a 1.0 b/c it allows for almost not transectionand keeps some
» tissue around the grafts which helps minimize damage while they are
» handled. Seriously, Ya think of doing one with him Cole? I’d try calling…
» It could only be fun
»
» Thank you for your comments however please allow CIT to answer my
» questions directed to him specifically on this open public forum as we are
» having a debate and his input is appreciated.No pursuing involved.
»
» Yes you are correct about Dr Shapiro, however this question is directed to
» CIT. Thanks again.

Big Mac,

All aspects of Dr. Cole’s CIT and FIT procedure are patented, patent pending, or a closely guarded trade secret. No employee, former employee, or licensee is allowed to discuss or demonstrate any aspect of his procedure. His procedure today is a culmination of many technical advances over a very costly 6 year developmental process. With regard to punch size, it is a fact that Dr. Cole was the first to introduce the 0.75 mm punch in February 2003. He was the first to use one and he was the first to discuss it’s use in a public forum. CIT is a far more advanced procedure than a discussion about punch size. As you do your homework, you will find that only those with poor results try to sell their skills and work by scarring consumers about punches and punch size.

Physicians who wish to learn the CIT procedure may do so by purchasing a license agreement from Dr. Cole. Unlawful disclosures of Dr. Cole’s procedures, methods, or instruments will be met with legal action. Dr. Cole wishes to advance the field of hair transplant surgery, but he can only do so through continued investment by physicians who legally obtain license rights to his techniques and instruments. He is currently working on a much more advanced method of donor hair harvesting that will help to establish FUE as the dominant method of donor harvesting. Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should not concern yourself with his methods. Once you purchase the license, you will not be allowed to disclose. Dr. Cole has a proven technique with over 1250 results to date and over 2 million grafts harvested. Very few FUE physicians have similar grafts or results by FUE. Dr. Cole, FIT, and CIT are synonymous with quality and proven results.

therapy · June 20, 2008, 3:58am

» I fail to see how this helps educate prospective patients as to their
» options when patients do not know what they are buying.
»
» At this point in time Dr. Shapiro is using a 1.0mm punch as we are
» currently doing FUE into scar tissue for repair. As mwinston has pointed
» out it helps to minimize transection AND helps retain a decent amount of
» tissue surrounding the graft.
»
» However, our mission is to trend downward in punch size and move toward
» the .8-.9mm punches and reserve the 1.0 only when needed/for scar repair.
»
» Dr. Shapiro recently spent time with Dr. Ilter and watched him work with a
» .75 in an effort to see this punch in operation at a high rate of
» extraction. We will be using the same punches as Dr. Ilter for the time
» being as they are fairly common and easy to use.
»
» It is ignorant to assume that 1 punch size will accomodate all patients,
» certain patients simply have larger grafts, others smaller.
»
» Additionally, some patients may seek to maximize every graft extracted by
» choosing a doctor who uses larger punches, b/c like strip patients they
» will never shave down past a certain point.
»
» However, once identified as a patient who requires a larger punch, choices
» should be given to the patient before proceeding.

That is so true. I can’t stand people (Hairtech and sometimes Bverotti :)) who constantly breath down your neck saying that smaller punch is always better, that’s a load of crap; not everyone has the same calibre hair and hair diameter !

bigmac · June 20, 2008, 10:37am

CIT

Your statement that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch confuses me. By your own accounts, you did not learn FUE from the other doctors who embraced the technique before you. Rather, you invented your own surgery called CIT. If you did not learn from other docs, how would you even have known that you were the first to use the .75 mm. Furthermore, if it is your policy to hide your secret surgery from your peers and patients, it seems to me that you could not possibly have “introduced” the .75mm, or any other tool for that matter. Would you agree.

It is also worth noting that, in the past, your clinic was openly critical of the doctors who routinely use the .75 mm. You asserted that you tried the punch, observed that it did not work as well as your own larger tools, and then determined that the other clinics “touting” the .75 were/are “marketeers.” Can you clarify why you keep stating – online – over and over - that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch when, in your own estimation, it is not even a good tool for FUE or CIT? (It is sort of like saying that you invented the airplane that did not fly… or the light bulb that did not shine.) Also can you clarify why you cannot disclose the punch sizes that seem to work better. Seems like the logic is backward in that regard.

Finally, if you are only comfortable discussing .75 mm punches versus the larger punches that you seem to favor, can you disclose your actual experience using the .75 mm. Of the million + grafts that you and your staff claim to have extracted, how many were extracted with a .75mm. How many with the 1.0mm? The 1.1mm? The 1.2mm.

You said.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should not concern yourself with his methods…”OK. Let’s not worry about methods. In reality, there is CIT and not quite CIT. They call this inferior procedure FUE.” Wait now I am worried about methods again! Your entire marketing campaign seems to be based on the very idea that, in your estimation, your method is greater than all other methods. Yet when you are asked to back up your claims you tell the public they mustn’t concern themselves with such issues. If you cannot even discuss what actually makes your method greater, you should consider just posting your results and letting readers decide what is superior.

Thanks again.

mwinston · June 21, 2008, 2:20am

» CIT
»
» Your statement that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch confuses me. By
» your own accounts, you did not learn FUE from the other doctors who
» embraced the technique before you. Rather, you invented your own surgery
» called CIT. If you did not learn from other docs, how would you even have
» known that you were the first to use the .75 mm. Furthermore, if it is your
» policy to hide your secret surgery from your peers and patients, it seems
» to me that you could not possibly have “introduced” the .75mm, or any other
» tool for that matter. Would you agree.
»
» It is also worth noting that, in the past, your clinic was openly
» critical of the doctors who routinely use the .75 mm. You asserted that you
» tried the punch, observed that it did not work as well as your own larger
» tools, and then determined that the other clinics “touting” the .75
» were/are “marketeers.” Can you clarify why you keep stating – online – over
» and over - that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch when, in your own
» estimation, it is not even a good tool for FUE or CIT? (It is sort of like
» saying that you invented the airplane that did not fly… or the light bulb
» that did not shine.) Also can you clarify why you cannot disclose the punch
» sizes that seem to work better. Seems like the logic is backward in that
» regard.
»
» Finally, if you are only comfortable discussing .75 mm punches versus the
» larger punches that you seem to favor, can you disclose your actual
» experience using the .75 mm. Of the million + grafts that you and your
» staff claim to have extracted, how many were extracted with a .75mm. How
» many with the 1.0mm? The 1.1mm? The 1.2mm.
»
» You said.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should not
» concern yourself with his methods…”OK. Let’s not worry about methods. In
» reality, there is CIT and not quite CIT. They call this inferior procedure
» FUE.” Wait now I am worried about methods again! Your entire marketing
» campaign seems to be based on the very idea that, in your estimation, your
» method is greater than all other methods. Yet when you are asked to back up
» your claims you tell the public they mustn’t concern themselves with such
» issues. If you cannot even discuss what actually makes your method greater,
» you should consider just posting your results and letting readers decide
» what is superior.
»
» Thanks again.

BIGMAC,

Results come from technique and surgeons’ insight. Marketing of a tool is very different from promoting a procedure that is based on quality. The difference is in the results. Let the results speak for the patient, clinic, and surgeon. WHAT CLINIC HAS MORE QUALITY “FUE” RESULTS THAN THIS CLINIC? The proof is listed on www.forhair.com. Pictures are worth one thousand words but video is virtually priceless. Improvements to CIT are occurring on a daily basis as we conduct operations to improve our innovative tools. These tools improve the results in the donor area and recipient area to deliver the best finished product/investment (hair transplant). We would rather invest in science than marketing as most of our patients already know. We are improving the patients’ quality of life by introducing our later instruments and have moved ahead. While we are constantly tasked to perform corrective surgeries from well known clinics, we still have to put in the extra effort to make their situation better.
FUE is the basic concept of removing single FUs with tools that may produce quality results. CIT is studied and perfected by our on-staff devices to ensure we deliver the most consistent quality results. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent to research and development of this procedure.
There are too many differences between the two to qualify them both as equal. The first difference is quality and the second is the number of satisfied patients. CIT is a branded product that is a proven mark of quality. Any time you see “CIT”, you will see quality.

bigmac · June 21, 2008, 12:55pm

I have read through my last post(last paragraph) and it did not make sense.This is how it should be,
You wrote.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should not concern yourself with his methods. OK,Let’s not worry about methods. But at the top of the thread you wrote, "In reality, there is CIT and not quite CIT. They call this inferior procedure FUE. Wait. Now I am worried about methods again! Your entire marketing campaign seems to be based on the very idea that, in your estimation, your method is greater than all other methods. Yet when you are asked to back up your claims you tell the public they mustn’t concern themselves with such issues. If you cannot even discuss what actually makes your method greater, you should consider just posting your results and letting readers decide what is superior.

I would like to see these inferior results from other top clinics you have repaired/refined as i will be able to search and find unhappy patient results from you as well.

mwinston · June 21, 2008, 9:19pm

» I have read through my last post(last paragraph) and it did not make
» sense.This is how it should be,
» You wrote.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should not
» concern yourself with his methods. OK,Let’s not worry about methods. But at
» the top of the thread you wrote, "In reality, there is CIT and not quite
» CIT. They call this inferior procedure FUE. Wait. Now I am worried about
» methods again! Your entire marketing campaign seems to be based on the very
» idea that, in your estimation, your method is greater than all other
» methods. Yet when you are asked to back up your claims you tell the public
» they mustn’t concern themselves with such issues. If you cannot even
» discuss what actually makes your method greater, you should consider just
» posting your results and letting readers decide what is superior.
»
» I would like to see these inferior results from other top clinics you have
» repaired/refined as i will be able to search and find unhappy patient
» results from you as well.

Results are included:

Hi forum views and bigmac,

Here are the some results of patients who came to us from well-know clinics. There are many photos and a couple videos showing rebuilt hair lines or naturally balding heads. When we perform repair cases, we like to ask our patients whether their goal is to have more hair or to be naturally bald. Of course there are numerous degrees of coverage that may be achieved.

When a patient wants to have hair and be natural, the best way to transform them is to add hair without taking out hair. Once the new grafts have grown in, we can selectively remove grafts that are very unnatural or we can try adding a little more. Taking hair out is a little risky because the patient usually never gets a 100% return on the removal process. If you take out 50 hairs, you might get only 30 back. We encourage all of our repair patients to brainstorm on the subject before making any decision.

When an individual looks like they underwent a hair transplant procedure, they are willing to try just about anything to look natural. Once they look natural, they often change their goals and sometimes want to have more hair, as well. This is one of the risks associated with just taking out grafts and I’ve seen it happen before. We’ve had patients who wanted to be naturally bald. Once we go through the extensive process of hair removal and making them look naturally bald, we have seen patients come back and suddenly have a desire to have more hair that looks natural. Therefore, we strongly encourage patients to decide their ultimate goals before we begin. If patients want to add more hair and want it to appear natural, it is usually better to add first and take out later if required because you will usually find that you do not need to remove much hair. It is very important that the younger patinets consider the long term consequences of trying to have more hair. The must all seriously consider the financial commitment involved because it can exceed the budget of many younger patients. I have attached some repairs accomplished via CIT, please observe the intricate details involved.

Patient 1

Patient 2

Patient 3

Patient 4

Patient 5

Patient 6

craig · June 21, 2008, 11:19pm

» » CIT
» »
» » Your statement that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch confuses me. By
» » your own accounts, you did not learn FUE from the other doctors who
» » embraced the technique before you. Rather, you invented your own
» surgery
» » called CIT. If you did not learn from other docs, how would you even
» have
» » known that you were the first to use the .75 mm. Furthermore, if it is
» your
» » policy to hide your secret surgery from your peers and patients, it
» seems
» » to me that you could not possibly have “introduced” the .75mm, or any
» other
» » tool for that matter. Would you agree.
» »
» » It is also worth noting that, in the past, your clinic was openly
» » critical of the doctors who routinely use the .75 mm. You asserted that
» you
» » tried the punch, observed that it did not work as well as your own
» larger
» » tools, and then determined that the other clinics “touting” the .75
» » were/are “marketeers.” Can you clarify why you keep stating – online –
» over
» » and over - that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch when, in your own
» » estimation, it is not even a good tool for FUE or CIT? (It is sort of
» like
» » saying that you invented the airplane that did not fly… or the light
» bulb
» » that did not shine.) Also can you clarify why you cannot disclose the
» punch
» » sizes that seem to work better. Seems like the logic is backward in
» that
» » regard.
» »
» » Finally, if you are only comfortable discussing .75 mm punches versus
» the
» » larger punches that you seem to favor, can you disclose your actual
» » experience using the .75 mm. Of the million + grafts that you and your
» » staff claim to have extracted, how many were extracted with a .75mm.
» How
» » many with the 1.0mm? The 1.1mm? The 1.2mm.
» »
» » You said.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should
» not
» » concern yourself with his methods…”OK. Let’s not worry about methods.
» In
» » reality, there is CIT and not quite CIT. They call this inferior
» procedure
» » FUE.” Wait now I am worried about methods again! Your entire marketing
» » campaign seems to be based on the very idea that, in your estimation,
» your
» » method is greater than all other methods. Yet when you are asked to back
» up
» » your claims you tell the public they mustn’t concern themselves with
» such
» » issues. If you cannot even discuss what actually makes your method
» greater,
» » you should consider just posting your results and letting readers
» decide
» » what is superior.
» »
» » Thanks again.
»
» BIGMAC,
»
» Results come from technique and surgeons’ insight. Marketing of a tool is
» very different from promoting a procedure that is based on quality. The
» difference is in the results. Let the results speak for the patient,
» clinic, and surgeon. WHAT CLINIC HAS MORE QUALITY “FUE” RESULTS THAN THIS
» CLINIC? The proof is listed on www.forhair.com. Pictures are worth one
» thousand words but video is virtually priceless. Improvements to CIT are
» occurring on a daily basis as we conduct operations to improve our
» innovative tools. These tools improve the results in the donor area and
» recipient area to deliver the best finished product/investment (hair
» transplant). We would rather invest in science than marketing as most of
» our patients already know. We are improving the patients’ quality of life
» by introducing our later instruments and have moved ahead. While we are
» constantly tasked to perform corrective surgeries from well known clinics,
» we still have to put in the extra effort to make their situation better.
» FUE is the basic concept of removing single FUs with tools that may
» produce quality results. CIT is studied and perfected by our on-staff
» devices to ensure we deliver the most consistent quality results. Hundreds
» of thousands of dollars have been spent to research and development of this
» procedure.
» There are too many differences between the two to qualify them both as
» equal. The first difference is quality and the second is the number of
» satisfied patients. CIT is a branded product that is a proven mark of
» quality. Any time you see “CIT”, you will see quality.

Bigmac is right, this post sounds like a sales pitch more than anything else.

mwinston · June 22, 2008, 1:41am

» » » CIT
» » »
» » » Your statement that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch confuses me.
» By
» » » your own accounts, you did not learn FUE from the other doctors who
» » » embraced the technique before you. Rather, you invented your own
» » surgery
» » » called CIT. If you did not learn from other docs, how would you even
» » have
» » » known that you were the first to use the .75 mm. Furthermore, if it
» is
» » your
» » » policy to hide your secret surgery from your peers and patients, it
» » seems
» » » to me that you could not possibly have “introduced” the .75mm, or any
» » other
» » » tool for that matter. Would you agree.
» » »
» » » It is also worth noting that, in the past, your clinic was openly
» » » critical of the doctors who routinely use the .75 mm. You asserted
» that
» » you
» » » tried the punch, observed that it did not work as well as your own
» » larger
» » » tools, and then determined that the other clinics “touting” the .75
» » » were/are “marketeers.” Can you clarify why you keep stating – online
» –
» » over
» » » and over - that you “introduced” the .75 mm punch when, in your own
» » » estimation, it is not even a good tool for FUE or CIT? (It is sort of
» » like
» » » saying that you invented the airplane that did not fly… or the light
» » bulb
» » » that did not shine.) Also can you clarify why you cannot disclose the
» » punch
» » » sizes that seem to work better. Seems like the logic is backward in
» » that
» » » regard.
» » »
» » » Finally, if you are only comfortable discussing .75 mm punches
» versus
» » the
» » » larger punches that you seem to favor, can you disclose your actual
» » » experience using the .75 mm. Of the million + grafts that you and
» your
» » » staff claim to have extracted, how many were extracted with a .75mm.
» » How
» » » many with the 1.0mm? The 1.1mm? The 1.2mm.
» » »
» » » You said.Therefore, unless you wish to purchase a license, you should
» » not
» » » concern yourself with his methods…”OK. Let’s not worry about
» methods.
» » In
» » » reality, there is CIT and not quite CIT. They call this inferior
» » procedure
» » » FUE.” Wait now I am worried about methods again! Your entire
» marketing
» » » campaign seems to be based on the very idea that, in your estimation,
» » your
» » » method is greater than all other methods. Yet when you are asked to
» back
» » up
» » » your claims you tell the public they mustn’t concern themselves with
» » such
» » » issues. If you cannot even discuss what actually makes your method
» » greater,
» » » you should consider just posting your results and letting readers
» » decide
» » » what is superior.
» » »
» » » Thanks again.
» »
» » BIGMAC,
» »
» » Results come from technique and surgeons’ insight. Marketing of a tool
» is
» » very different from promoting a procedure that is based on quality.
» The
» » difference is in the results. Let the results speak for the patient,
» » clinic, and surgeon. WHAT CLINIC HAS MORE QUALITY “FUE” RESULTS THAN
» THIS
» » CLINIC? The proof is listed on www.forhair.com. Pictures are worth one
» » thousand words but video is virtually priceless. Improvements to CIT
» are
» » occurring on a daily basis as we conduct operations to improve our
» » innovative tools. These tools improve the results in the donor area
» and
» » recipient area to deliver the best finished product/investment (hair
» » transplant). We would rather invest in science than marketing as most
» of
» » our patients already know. We are improving the patients’ quality of
» life
» » by introducing our later instruments and have moved ahead. While we
» are
» » constantly tasked to perform corrective surgeries from well known
» clinics,
» » we still have to put in the extra effort to make their situation better.
»
» » FUE is the basic concept of removing single FUs with tools that may
» » produce quality results. CIT is studied and perfected by our on-staff
» » devices to ensure we deliver the most consistent quality results.
» Hundreds
» » of thousands of dollars have been spent to research and development of
» this
» » procedure.
» » There are too many differences between the two to qualify them both as
» » equal. The first difference is quality and the second is the number of
» » satisfied patients. CIT is a branded product that is a proven mark of
» » quality. Any time you see “CIT”, you will see quality.
»
» Bigmac is right, this post sounds like a sales pitch more than anything
» else.

Any physician can confirm the previous statements. We turn down over one hundred patients who wish to do surgery but we don’t suggest for surgery. We get numerous patients in their early 20s who didn’t know that they even had a linear scar. Don’t tell me that it “sounds” like at sales pitch when the statements are factual.

mwinston · June 22, 2008, 5:09pm

» Hi forum viewers and bigmac,
»
» Here are the some results of patients who came to us from well-know
» clinics. There are many photos and a couple videos showing rebuilt hair
» lines or naturally balding heads. When we perform repair cases, we like to
» ask our patients whether their goal is to have more hair or to be naturally
» bald. Of course there are numerous degrees of coverage that may be
» achieved.
»
» When a patient wants to have hair and be natural, the best way to
» transform them is to add hair without taking out hair. Once the new grafts
» have grown in, we can selectively remove grafts that are very unnatural or
» we can try adding a little more. Taking hair out is a little risky because
» the patient usually never gets a 100% return on the removal process. If you
» take out 50 hairs, you might get only 30 back. We encourage all of our
» repair patients to brainstorm on the subject before making any decision.
»
» When an individual looks like they underwent a hair transplant procedure,
» they are willing to try just about anything to look natural. Once they look
» natural, they often change their goals and sometimes want to have more
» hair, as well. This is one of the risks associated with just taking out
» grafts and I’ve seen it happen before. We’ve had patients who wanted to be
» naturally bald. Once we go through the extensive process of hair removal
» and making them look naturally bald, we have seen patients come back and
» suddenly have a desire to have more hair that looks natural. Therefore, we
» strongly encourage patients to decide their ultimate goals before we begin.
» If patients want to add more hair and want it to appear natural, it is
» usually better to add first and take out later if required because you will
» usually find that you do not need to remove much hair. It is very important
» that the younger patinets consider the long term consequences of trying to
» have more hair. The must all seriously consider the financial commitment
» involved because it can exceed the budget of many younger patients. I have
» attached some repairs accomplished via CIT, please observe the intricate
» details involved.
»
»
» Patient 1
»

» Patient 2
»
»
»
» Patient 3
»
»
» Patient 4
»
»
» Patient 5
»
»
» Patient 6
»

»

»
» Video
»
»
» Video
» of Patient 7
»
»
» [link=http://www.forhair.com/index.php?option=com_videogallerys&Itemid=226&task=view&id=13
» ]Video of patient 8[/link]
»
» [link=http://www.forhair.com/index.php?option=com_videogallerys&Itemid=226&task=view&id=17
» ]Video of Patient 9[/link]
»
» Video
» of Patient 10

CIT,

I am not concerned with you getting the good results that I have seen for many years. What I am concerned with is how well you would care for me as a patient and the experience of you entire staff to help make me happy. Other than that, I don’t really doubt that I would have similar result of the treatments performed on your patients. I do think that it would have been a sales pitch had the photos/videos not being true supporting evidence.

Look at bosley, we all know the truth about that clinic. I wake-up see the infomercial, at pizzarias, and in the airport. I see perfection when and honesty at Cole’s then unquestionable information with the results of Bosley.

All clinic are pitching here online, TV, or Newspaper. Follow me?

bigmac · June 23, 2008, 5:00pm

Quote
Any physician can confirm the previous statements. We turn down over one hundred patients who wish to do surgery but we don’t suggest for surgery. We get numerous patients in their early 20s who didn’t know that they even had a linear scar. Don’t tell me that it “sounds” like at sales pitch when the statements are factual

CIT,
You said that any physician can confirm your previous statements. If that is so, I believe is it important,no i think it is essential that a physician, any physician not associated with your clinic corroborates your story. In particular i would greatly appreciate hearing about your “introduction” of the .75mm punch from an objective third-party. The reason for my interest in this matter is that I have yet to hear any doctor in person or online ever state that you introduced the .75 or any punch for that matter. What is more i believe that many doctors have expressed concerns that you use a large punch technology (that is punches greater than 1mm in diameter). So again i humbly request that a doctor (outside of your group) support your story. FUE doctors who post on this site include: Dr Woods the inventor of FUE, Dr Umar the chief surgeon of an all only FUE clinic in the US (no strip), Dr Jones the first doctor to offer FUE
surgery in the North America, Dr Bisanga a surgeon who has produced some of the finest .75mm FUE results to ever grace this website, Dr Poswal, Dr. Feller, and numerous others.

Your responses in this thread have been clever but in my opinion salesy. You appear to be avoiding very concrete and easy to answer questions. This sort of behavior, as I am sure you can understand might lead the public to believe that you are hiding something. For example, I asked you about your experience if any with the .75mm punch. I then asked how often you use your 1.0mm, your 1.1mm, and your 1.2mm punches. You replied with photos. Photos are not an answer. They appear to be an attempt to divert attention from some crucial questions. I stated that your marketing campaign seems to be based on very optimistic in-houses data, flattering self-appraisal, and glaring omission. You responded that your marketing campaign is not a marketing campaign. You diverted attention even farther when you stated that you turn away young patients and poor candidates. Two things came to mind when I read that. First, if your marketing campaign is not a marketing
campaign, what is it.I am open to the idea that it is something else but I can’t image that might be. Second why is it relevant to this discussion that you turn away young patient and poor candidates? This is distracting, unrelated information in my humble opinion. It almost seems like you want a pat on the back for not doing the wrong thing. You are a doctor so I hope and trust that you would not take advantage of young and desperate people. Regardless, you do not deserve a medal of honor for not behaving like a monster. Honesty and proper patient care are baseline expectations of a physician. You should provide your patients with the basic care we would expect from all doctors. You should do this without requesting adoration for it. Perhaps you did not see proper or ethical behavior when you worked as a strip surgeon for Medical Hair Restoration (MHR), for example, but that is a pitifully low standard. I believe you are held to a higher one and
I think you would agree.

Now, back to the issues at hand. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could substantiate your claims that your procedure, CIT, is superior to all other FUE procedures. I could understand it if you felt your surgery was good, or something like that. But I would like to know why it is superior to all other FUE procedures. I would also like to know how you know this, particularly since you are not monitoring surgeries at other clinics. Finally, I would like to know whether or not you believe that your statements are really objective.

If you could also answer some of the crucial questions from my previous posts, I would appreciate that too. Thank you very much for your input. I hope that there is a doctor, any doctor at all (outside of your group) that can support your stories. Have a good day.

Bigmac

mwinston · June 23, 2008, 11:40pm

» Quote
» Any physician can confirm the previous statements. We turn down over one
» hundred patients who wish to do surgery but we don’t suggest for surgery.
» We get numerous patients in their early 20s who didn’t know that they even
» had a linear scar. Don’t tell me that it “sounds” like at sales pitch when
» the statements are factual
»
» CIT,
» You said that any physician can confirm your previous statements. If that
» is so, I believe is it important,no i think it is essential that a
» physician, any physician not associated with your clinic corroborates your
» story. In particular i would greatly appreciate hearing about your
» “introduction” of the .75mm punch from an objective third-party. The reason
» for my interest in this matter is that I have yet to hear any doctor in
» person or online ever state that you introduced the .75 or any punch for
» that matter. What is more i believe that many doctors have expressed
» concerns that you use a large punch technology (that is punches greater
» than 1mm in diameter). So again i humbly request that a doctor (outside of
» your group) support your story. FUE doctors who post on this site include:
» Dr Woods the inventor of FUE, Dr Umar the chief surgeon of an all only FUE
» clinic in the US (no strip), Dr Jones the first doctor to offer FUE
» surgery in the North America, Dr Bisanga a surgeon who has produced some
» of the finest .75mm FUE results to ever grace this website, Dr Poswal, Dr.
» Feller, and numerous others.
»
» Your responses in this thread have been clever but in my opinion salesy.
» You appear to be avoiding very concrete and easy to answer questions. This
» sort of behavior, as I am sure you can understand might lead the public to
» believe that you are hiding something.

Good Evening Bigmac,

As I have said it once, I shall say it again. Our clinic doesn’t market our service as the majority of clinics do. What seperates our procedure from the rest is the simple fact that it provides the most consistent quality results in the industry. They remain consistent and undetectable while adding more coverage with fewer grafts.
If you do some research on FUE, you will find that FUE clinics don’t quite produce the quantity or quality that CIT procedure produce. Furthermore,
CIT incorperates instrumentation that is tailored to each specific patient’s needs with a full-time engineer on-staff. You will also note that the discussion of the smaller instruments introduced by Dr. Cole have yet to be contested by only zero physicians on this hair loss forum.

Your initial statement was "I would like to see these inferior results from other top clinics you have repaired/refined as i will be able to search and find unhappy patient results from you as well. " I charge you with finding CIT cases in need of repair. Many, if not all of these repair patients want help to organize the madness that they have endured.

My fellow forum viewer,

All you can do is research online facts in regard to CIT and critique the results that have been produced. You may or may not be truley interested in the positive outcome of these cases (video & photos) and perhaps you may or may not have your own agenda.

Your question in regard to the introduction of the aformentioned smaller instrument may be researched by youself or other inqiring minds on the front page of our website. Here’s the link for your convenience: forhair . com / Articles / Punch_Size_Comparison_Study_in_Hair_Transplant_Surgery . htm

Our approach is “more is less” as we encourage our patients to consider any future loss. There is no marketing but there is factual information. Like, Dr. Cole has practiced FUE/BHT longer that any other surgeon in the U.S.A. Your invitation to other doctors of the forum is greatly appreciated.

Regarding the following statement, "I would sincerely appreciate it if you could substantiate your claims that your procedure, CIT, is superior to all other FUE procedures. I could understand it if you felt your surgery was good, or something like that. But I would like to know why it is superior to all other FUE procedures. I would also like to know how you know this, particularly since you are not monitoring surgeries at other clinics. Finally, I would like to know whether or not you believe that your statements are really objective. Yes, they are objective and here’s the evidence:

Entire database of hair transplant patient stats - There is nothing else more to say

_file4.wmv

My advice is not medical advice

bigmac · June 24, 2008, 7:09am

Hi CIT

I appreciate your attention however there are even more questions that need answers in addition to the ones that you are skirting based on the post above.

First of all you state,

As I have said it once, I shall say it again. Our clinic doesn’t market our service as the majority of clinics do.

I have to disagree with this blanket statement as well as provide evidence that you might be incorrect. You have to agree that at any given time your clinic has 5 to 10 threads going at any given time on this website. As of my posting today, you have nine threads that are:

Promoting your services FIT, CIT, C2G and the strip excision.
Stating that your services are superior to ALL others.
Stating that anyone else besides your clinic performing FIT is not doing it properly (Despite Dr Paul Rose and Dr Mwamba performing FIT without complaint).
Stating that other physicians can substantiate your introduction of a 0.75mm punch. No one has ever come forward to confirm this and I with a high degree of certainty doubt that a physician would.
Showing repeat results over and over re-packaged in video and picture formats. (good results only)

Of the private practices out there and definitely on this particular site, you have to agree that you are at least among the most aggressive and clever marketeers in the industry. What is clear in this thread alone is the following.

The denial of using your large punch technologies such as the 1.1mm, 1.2mm, 1.3mm and so on and so forth.
Diversion from clear and simple inquiries such as the one about the poster MyWHTC who recently stated that there are times when that clinic does use punches that are over 1.0mm whilst performing FIT which was taught by your clinic to that clinic.
You are attempting to use my questions as a way to provide links to studies, pictures and videos in lieu of answers which i find to be most troubling. In my opinion this is an attempted marketing strategy to NOT answer questions and at the same time sending people to your website. It seems somewhat condescending to me and my honest and fair questions on this public forum.
Stating that you have now performed over 2 million extractions when last week you stated over 1 million extractions performed. I don’t understand that out of the 1 or 2 million extractions performed why you cannot simply tell me the statistics of your 1.0mm, 1.1mm, 1.2mm in that which ones are you using the most.
Your theory of ‘less is more’ which has zero research to confirm this approach (again an in-house optimism in my opinion). This statement alone can be construed as ensuring there will be a second surgery guaranteed and who would want to switch clinics if they started with one clinic. I could be wrong but there is absolutely no one that has this approach.
You state, 'There is no marketing but there is factual information. Like Dr Cole has practiced FUE/BHT longer that any other surgeon in the U.S.A.'
No, this is incorrect information. There are other physicians that have been doing FUE as long as you (Dr Paul Rose who co-invented the follicular isolation technique with you) in the USA and a couple that started before you (such as Dr Jones). As far as body hair transplants go, Dr Umar has surpassed your clinic with posting decent results of BHT patients (Dr Umar does not use the less is more approach however). But yes you have probably performed BHT on patients longer than Dr Umar.
And finally you state that you are objective in your statements posted here. Well again I have to disagree because you have never shown objectiveness to several physicians that use micro punch technology such as Dr Umar, Dr Woods, Dr Harris, Dr Poswal, Dr Jones, Dr Iltler, DrBisanga and Dr Rose. All of the aforementioned physicians use punches within a range of 0.75mm to 1.0mm. They all have posted good results using micro-punch technology. Some more than others. But the point here is that you have stated emphatically that those who use a 0.75mm punch do so as a marketing gimic.

Point by point anyone can see that there are all sorts of inconsistencies, blanket statements and salesy answers to direct questions. No dis-respect to you or your services. Can you please simply answer every question that I have asked. No diversions, links, pictures or studies that are not repeated in other clinics. Just answers. Thank you again.

Bigmac