MEGA session - 5000 ARTAS FUE- ONE DAY Surgery - More grafts than STRIP

Hair Transplant
61

It doesn’t matter what this industry says about a doctor like Dr. Woods, this is an industry with little to no credibility to begin with. The hair transplant industry was founded on deception, sending men home with rows of 5 mm plugs and telling them they looked great. Techniques have changed but the tactics have not. This industry tries hard to whitewash its past. It should come as no surprise they will try and bury Dr. Woods, they’ve been trying to do that for years.

They will only end up making him a martyr.

62

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Wylie[/postedby]
This industry tries hard to whitewash its past. It should come as no surprise they will try and bury Dr. Woods, they’ve been trying to do that for years.
[/quote]

I think in this case, there must be some kind of “professional” (using that word in the loosest sense possible) conflict between Woods and Arvind that caused the initial outlandish claim to be made on this thread in the first place.

I’m not the biggest fan of Woods (for a few reasons that are not really relevant to this thread), but history is history, and when it comes to FUE, credit must be given where it is due.

63

there are many tiny details they do not mention when promoting the Robot. One is the missed graft rate. “They don’t think doctors care enough about this” That’s the message i got second hand from someone who asked Artas. My assumption is that Artas did not want anyone to know about this problem because it is huge. Second, they don’t tell you just how slow the device is. Finally, there is no full disclosure about the full wound and transection rates.

64

Over the years, many doctors have said and claimed all sorts of things.

I only challenge and debate when I think it is in the public interest, or when the claims I believe to be deliberately misleading.

I have publicly challenged many doctors, their assertions, and their claims.

And equally, I am open to any scrutiny and criticism.

Without that, a forum is nothing more than an advertising magazine propagating the views of whoever pays the most.

Dr Arvind has claimed certain things which I thought were incorrect. I challenged publicly, we debated, readers gave their opinions, and therin is the lifeblood of a forum. I also locked horns with other doctors and sometimes it got lively.
But the real winner is the reader. Apart from the occasional personal slurs, there is information to benefit the meticulous reader.

What any reader must know is that we are all globally competitive. We are in the HT Business, and absolutely everyone in this business will tell you they are the best in the world or a “pioneer” or inventor" or something …otherwise they have no marketing edge or distinction and therefore will not do as well.

I personally don’t give a damn as I don’t run a production line, I can only do a limited number per week or ,month or year , and don’t need to feed the HT machine, which I deplore.

Its small. its personal, and its primarily a microsurgical art form.

So if I am targeted as evidenced by the Arvind attack, then they have a problem or personal issue. It doesn’t concern me.

Now, to Hairsite, I know Dr Arvind does not have a call center. But he does have several people posting and working for him.

And to be fair, he is not alone. Many do the same. That is part of the business.

And finally, I do agree with Dr Arvinds and Dr Coles view on the ARTAS and the case presented here

Dr Ray Woods

65

It’s one thing to debate the merits of different techniques but for someone to so blatantly rewrite history, it’s like robbing you.

Another word of advice for Dr. Woods, print or download a copy of this thread, you never know when threads are mysteriously removed from the forum, if you catch my drift.

66

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Cole[/postedby]
there are many tiny details they do not mention when promoting the Robot. One is the missed graft rate. “They don’t think doctors care enough about this” That’s the message i got second hand from someone who asked Artas. My assumption is that Artas did not want anyone to know about this problem because it is huge. Second, they don’t tell you just how slow the device is. Finally, there is no full disclosure about the full wound and transection rates.[/quote]

What does “missed graft” mean? Never heard of it before.

67

Nearly everything, even those things that appear original are derivative. Einstein said “The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

35YrsAfter also posts as CITNews and works at Dr. Cole’s office

Cole Hair Transplant
1045 Powers Place
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
Phone 678-566-1011
email 35YrsAfter at chuck@forhair.com
I am not a doctor and the content of my posts are my opinions, not medical advice.
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. Ask for Chuck

68

From my perspective of FUE, which is fairly significant, Dr. Woods is the inventor. We can credit Dr. Inaba, but after my visit to the Japan Society of Clinical Hair Research it seems clear that they have a very limited view of hair transplant surgery technology. They are great on basic science, but not so good on hair transplant surgery. I brought in the latest advancements in hair transplant surgery, but you might as well have thought i landed with the star ship Enterprise, but they thought it was just a new office building. They had no interest at all. The good news is that they look at the ARtas the same way, which is good. A bad piece of equipment in the best of hands will perform poorly. A good piece of equipment in the best of hands will perform well. No matter whose hands you put the artas in, poor results will prevail. Fortunately, you can’t sell even the most disconnected individual on poor technology. Even they recognize that poor offers on benefit.

69

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by NeverAgain[/postedby]
It’s one thing to debate the merits of different techniques but for someone to so blatantly rewrite history, it’s like robbing you.

Another word of advice for Dr. Woods, print or download a copy of this thread, you never know when threads are mysteriously removed from the forum, if you catch my drift.[/quote]

I agree.

I happened to read recently a previous thread on curled hair follicles, and there is an example in there of the personal conflict between Arvind and Woods that was obviously the cause for Arvind’s bizarre claims in this thread.

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-118285.html

What’s quite interesting is that he performs the same tactics. He makes an unfounded claim, and when simply asked for proof he says something like “what you said shows me that I don’t have to give any proof”, or similar illogical nonsense.

We’re still waiting for proof of what he said about Dr Woods in that thread, and we’re still waiting for the proof that Dr Okuda invented FUE in this thread.

I imagine no proof will be forthcoming in either case.

70

Dear readers,
FUSE is not the same as fue.
I have presented the technique (with the basic concept of the Expanding needle concept), in front of my peers at ESHRS, ISHRS and AHRS meetings.

Thereby clearing the difference between traditional fue and the FUSE technique.

The same was much appreciated by the doctors presented there.

  1. Unlike fue, FUSE is not an entirely blind extraction
  2. Dissection of the dermal attachments is done under direct magnified vision.

Regards,
Dr. A

71

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]

Now, to Hairsite, I know Dr Arvind does not have a call center. But he does have several people posting and working for him.

Dr Ray Woods[/quote]

Ray Woods,
Please stop posting inaccurate things. Please grow up.
Dr. A

72

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]

I heard of Dr Okuda in around 2005, and understood he was moving follicles around but not to treat baldness per se , and not micro surgically.

[/quote]

Interesting Ray!! You heard of Dr Okuda in 2005.
Now you try to downgrade his contribution by saying that he was not trying to treat baldness per se.
He was moving hair follicles. And he was moving individual hair follicles. For me that would be proof enough that he invented the concept and I would have expected you to acknowledge the same instead of trying to demean/discard it.

(again the analogy that Alexander Graham Bell did not create the telecom network but he was the inventor of telephone)

Regards,
Dr. A

73

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]
Not true at all. Woods was/is not inventor of fue.

[postedby]Originally Posted by HairSite[/postedby]

Dr. Arvind, can you let us know who was the first doctor who invented FUE as a commercially viable mainstream treatment for hair loss?

[postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]

Dr Okuda, Japan .

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairdar[/postedby]

[1] The technique was in fact much older than this and Japanese dermatologists Sasagawa,[2] Okuda,[3] Tamura[4] and Fujita[5] were using small autografts containing hair follicles for the correction of scars and cicatricial alopecias. It is not known whether they used these techniques for the correction of androgenetic alopecia, but if they did, they certainly did not mention it in their medical papers. In any case their publications, written in Japanese did not reach Western eyes for decades.[/quote]

Thank you.

74

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]

Dr Ray Woods

Ps…15 years later, .Arvind took my FSUE, and swapped two letters around to make FUSE . [/quote]

Dear Ray,
I have tried to impress this upon you many times. Taking credit of other people’s work is just not worth it.

  1. How could I have taken your FSUE when even your patients do not get to see the instrument or you in process of inserting the instrument before extraction.

  2. For years, you have been saying fue is blind and I have proven that a major part of FUSE is done under direct magnified vision.

To back that up I have :

  1. Published the technique years ago in indexed peer reviewed medical journal
    Just to refresh your memory (age can lead to forgetfulness so i give you benefit of doubt about having forgotten)
    Expanding needle concept for better extraction of body hair grafts Poswal A - Indian J Dermatol

  2. Presented the technique and its video in front of all hair transplant physicians at ESHRS, ISHRS and AAHRS (in case readers do not know these are the european, international and Asian hair restoration societies).

  3. The expanding needle technique which is the basic part of FUSE is demonstrated in a video format on hairsite and Ray you saw it too (Ray, hoped it helped you with some patients - because it did help many other doctors and they were gracious enough to accept and acknowledge it)
    http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-110906.html

Now, please do tell me how it can be that while I have shared my technique worldwide, and on the other hand, you have blindfolded your own patients that you can accuse me of taking your technique and renaming it?

As I say time and again Ray, please do grow up and stop making up things. That is something children do.

Regards,
Dr. A

75

Topic Title: FUSE v/s traditional fue-Dr.A demonstration of technique
Topic Summary:
Created On: 06/10/2004

Quote “Peace” in response to a post by Dr Feller 06/14/2004 (approx. middle of post)

“(The truth is that neither we nor you or anyone else for that matter can claim to have discovered/invented fue.That credit goes solely to Dr. Woods because he was doing it much before anyone else).”

http://www.hair****help.com

****add loss :slight_smile:

76

I take it, Arvind, that you are not able to post any sort of proof, whatsoever, that Dr. Okuda was performing FUE as we know it? It’s all we ask. Very simple.

Proof that Dr. Okuda was performing FUE.

You would rather post random personal attacks instead? Nice try. We expect better.

77

Dr A, I can respect the fact that you have your own version of FUE and you called yourself the inventor of that very derivative. But what makes you the authority in determining that Dr Woods’ FUE must be exactly the same as what Dr Okuda did decades ago?

78

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]
Dear readers,
FUSE is not the same as fue.
[/quote]

So can you please give us any proof at all that Dr Okuda’s procedure was the same as FUE?

79

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by licht[/postedby]
I take it, Arvind, that you are not able to post any sort of proof, whatsoever, that Dr. Okuda was performing FUE as we know it? It’s all we ask. Very simple.

Proof that Dr. Okuda was performing FUE.

You would rather post random personal attacks instead? Nice try. We expect better.[/quote]

+1

Orentreich re-discovered the technique while investigating whether various common skin conditions showed donor or recipient site dominance. Word quickly spread about this wonderful new technique and he soon had many disciples in America and Europe. By 1970, the technique known as “punch grafting” was being performed by small numbers of :slight_smile: dedicated practitioners :slight_smile: in many countries of the world.

80

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]
Dear readers,
FUSE is not the same as fue.
I have presented the technique (with the basic concept of the Expanding needle concept), in front of my peers at ESHRS, ISHRS and AHRS meetings.

Thereby clearing the difference between traditional fue and the FUSE technique.

[/quote]

There are huge differences between punch graft and FUE too, even a 5 year old can tell the difference without the help of elaborate presentations. What is your logic for discarding the huge improvement that FUE has over punch graft while at the same time glorifying the differences between your FUSE and FUE?

Are you telling me you are unable to tell the difference between punch graft and FUE?