Secrecy , hypocricy , and videotape

» Well,
» We have done many many 3000 graft sessions last year. This year we are
» venturing in the 4000 and 5000 graft (multiple sessions).
»
» I am not worried about results at all. We have our patients comming back
» for more grafts, sending relatives and friends. Unsatisfied patients
» usually dont come back for more, dont recommend us, and some will use the
» forums to vent.
»
» Listen,
» If FUE was such a doubfull procedures with sooo many risks it would show
» in all results. Nature has a way of telling us what is right and wat is
» wrong.
»
» Improperly trained FUE surgeons and FUE wannebees, along with record
» seekers are IMHO the worst that can happen to FUE.
» That is why we practice it every day, to keep routines going, to strive
» for perfection.
»
» Here is a little video of our doc just getting started on a new session.
» The donor area has just been numbed and he will go for the first scores.
» During the first scores he will get a feeling for the skin, the depth and
» the angle. In fact in the video he briefly adjust his instrument.
» Please notice how a highly trained FUE surgeon gets it right, from the
» beginning. During his initial extractions all grafts came out easily and
» intact. This is an example of how things start in 90% of the cases. In
» some cases it takes somewhat longer to adjust some variables before the
» rest of the extractions take place.
»
»
» Starting an FUE procedure
» by dr. De Reys at Prohairclinic

You better think twice before showing the video, Feller may take legal actions against your clinic for patent infringement :stuck_out_tongue:

No, the threat was an anonymous phone call, 2 calls in fact.
The language was defininately English and the person was upset about me, dr Ilter and dr. De Reys promoting FUE megassesions.

Both threats where made last year, about 6 months apart.

I guess we are getting too good for some peoples liking :slight_smile:

Actually we are using ‘of the shelve’ instruments that anyone can buy in specialised HT companies.

» No, the threat was an anonymous phone call, 2 calls in fact.
» The language was defininately English and the person was upset about me,
» dr Ilter and dr. De Reys promoting FUE megassesions.
»
»
» Both threats where made last year, about 6 months apart.
»
» I guess we are getting too good for some peoples liking :slight_smile:

What did the person say over the phone? If what Dr. Woods said is true, Feller may be sitting on a goldmine, imagine getting royalties from all fue doctors around the world, even from the inventor (Dr. Woods) himself.

Dr. Woods,

I believe the shoe is on the other foot. As I recall, it was YOU who wanted a check for every FUE performed worldwide, not I. You also wanted a $150,000 fee for training and licensing of your technique. Of course, you and your lawyer left out the part that you did not legally protect the intellectual property you claimed to be licensing. That’s called a “scheme”, had you actually taken money, it would have been called something a whole lot worse.

I also saw that video that is now featured on the home page of this site. Your “patients rights” list is admirable, if not a cute marketing tool that at once raises you to sainthood while vilifying the faceless masses of non-Woods doctors. How clever.

Your last “right” stated…”Do No Harm”. But, doesn’t implanting hundreds of body hair grafts that form cysts along with foreign body reaction constitute harm?

I noticed you refused to address the points I raised in my earlier post to you. Instead, as usual, you attack me with some strange conspiracy story. Viewers are going to wonder why you avoided such direct questions and statements.

Dr. Woods, take heart, I’m not going to sue you for infringement. I only ask FUE doctors who claim to be using superior techniques, like you, to prove their claim by disclosing their method. Specifically, they have to prove they have minimized or eliminated the three destructive FUE forces 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression.

Anyone claiming to possess a superior technique, as you do, must show how they accomplished minimization of those forces. If they haven’t, then their FUE techniques are just like everyone else’s.

Your so fond of posting theories about your competitors, here’s one for you:
I believe your FUE technique, despite the hype, is the same as everyone else…and that’s the LAST thing you would ever want the public to know about.

Franklin,
Yes, Rassman and Bernstein were just learning how to perform FUE back then, but they clearly did not yet feel confident enough to take on a case your size.

Bverroti,
I must admit that you have been transparent and never made a claim that your techniques were better than anyone else. Your approach is open and honest and that’s all anyone can ask for. Best of luck.
Oh, and I’m not suing you for infringement either, just in case Dr. Woods got you wondering

JohnP,
That would be something, wouldn’t it? You never know.

Yeah you definately have to wonder why the ONLY FUE doctor to have all these patents is the ONLY one trying everything in his power to sneak a peak at what everyone else is doing…

I figured he just wanted to see what everyone else was doing so that he could steal any ideas that he liked and patent it for himself… Hmmmm

Whatever the case, his behavior on the forums is getting pretty pathetic… He absolutely cannot stand it that he is not regarded as the best in the industry, whether it be strip or FUE. Ever notice how he eats up the slightest compliment and how he cries like the fat kid who just dropped his ice cream on the ground if you say the slightest negative thing about him?

In all my years, he’s the only doctor I have seen scolded over and over by a moderator for interferring in patient discussions, and yet he still keeps doing it…

»
» I only ask FUE doctors who claim to be using superior techniques, like you, to prove their claim by disclosing their method. Specifically, they have to prove they have minimized or eliminated the three destructive FUE forces 1.Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression.
»
» Anyone claiming to possess a superior technique, as you do, must show how
» they accomplished minimization of those forces. If they haven’t, then their
» FUE techniques are just like everyone else’s.

When you’re getting the same or better yield as the top strip docs of the world (over 90%), which they do, then Id say THATS your proof right there. I dont see how disclosing it to doctors such as yourself would be beneficial.

“Franklin,
Yes, Rassman and Bernstein were just learning how to perform FUE back then, but they clearly did not yet feel confident enough to take on a case your size.” Well here is the thing doc. IN 2001 I did not want another strip period. All I read from the website of NHI they said they can do it. Just have to go through the test.But I never even had the test. This is what I mean . Either you can do it or you can’t. If you advertise it at least go through with the Fox test that they feel they need to do. I asked both of them about Woods. One was same old b.s not going to work. At least Benrstein said to my face well you can call him see what has but we still do not think it is anything and I should go for strip. Well we all know how my ht turned out. And as far as case size. I really did not think it was that big. I have personally seen cases 3- 5 sizes bigger then mine when I was in Australia.

“When you’re getting the same or better yield as the top strip docs of the world (over 90%), which they do, then Id say THATS your proof right there. I dont see how disclosing it to doctors such as yourself would be beneficial” You see Sux2beme. I have talked dozens of Ht patients over the last 9 plus years. And as patients no one really cares about the business side. Just about the results.

aFranklin- It was premature on the part of any doc to offer clinical FUE back in 2000. It’s premature now for any clinic to offer FUE megasessions in 2008.

Sux- Are making up statistics and attacking me personally really going to help anyone reading this post? Come on, you’re better than that. Besides, I never liked ice cream. Let’s get back on track:

Your wrote with respect to Dr. Woods:
“ When you’re getting the same or better yield as the top strip docs of the world (over 90%), which they do…”
Where did you get this incredible statistic? I’ve not seen any evidence to support this. In fact, I’ve not even seen Dr. Woods himself make such a grand statement.

Dr. Woods-
I only get interested in particular competitors when they make questionable claims or intimations. You claim loudly that your technique is better than the FUE technique of any competitor. That may or may not be true. I simply challenge your claim. If you are going to go public with such a pronouncement, then I can certainly challenge it on a public forum. Which I have done, and continue to do. To date you have only attacked me instead of supporting your claim.

I wonder, for all your “patient’s rights” rhetoric, do you provide complete “Informed Consent”? Specifically, the fact that FUE grafts must undergo 3 traumatic forces that strip grafts never endure:

  1. Torsion
  2. Traction
  3. Compression
    (and a few other minor ones).

For those of you out there who have wondered why FUE has not yet put an end to STRIP, it is because of these 3 detrimental forces. In the best of hands these forces are minimized, that’s what my patents are all about, but even so, yields are STILL lower than with strip surgery and is why I believe that if large procedures are needed, they should be done with strip, not FUE. ( The exception, of course, being patients like Franklin who would rather never have a strip surgery again. That’s a different matter).

Personally, I couldn’t care less what techniques Dr. Woods uses. I doubt they are revolutionary or even interesting. But if he is going to claim superiority in this field, he is going to have start by at least telling his patients before surgery the true differences between strip surgery and FUE surgery. Specifically, the limitations of FUE surgery.

Well, Dr. Woods. How about it? Do you inform your patients of these three destructive FUE forces prior to surgery? 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression ?

You see, HT doctors do not make patients sign “waivers” as Dr. Woods loves to claim in his never ending effort to vilify other HT doctors. What he clearly doesn’t understand is that patients CAN’T “waive” their rights. That’s what makes them “rights”. And what he calls “rights” aren’t actually “rights”.

What HT doctors actually give patients is an INFORMED CONSENT document that TELL them what possible problems they might face should they decide to go ahead with a procedure. It also INFORMS them, specifically, of the downside of any procedure and that ALTERNATIVE treatments were discussed (in some states). The three detrimental forces of FUE and their resulting lower yields for FUE procedures must be included to have offered full informed consent.

Bverotti,
Does your doctor give informed consent that makes it clear that FUE yields are consistently lower than strip yields because of 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression ?
Does your doctor inform patients of this during consultation?

Dr. Woods,
Do you inform your patients of the detrimental forces FUE grafts must endure when compared to strip dissection? Or do you claim that your particular FUE technique does not inflict the three detrimental forces of 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression ?

Even your most dedicated supporter will be waiting for your answer.

There are a few things Feller cannot own, control or patent.

He cannot own , control or patent the years of hard work and experimentation another doctor has done.

He cannot own, control and patent the care and commitment another doctor has given his patients

He cannot own control or patent the microsurgical skills another doctor has acquired.

But it is my guess, if he could find a way , he would.

In my opinion, that is what this guy is all about.

I think Feller has scribbled everything he could imagine and turned it into a patent, and like a spider , he waits for someone to “infringe”

As we all know , in every business venture, there are those who will out smart, or just plain screw hard working dedicated people who just didn’t see the threat coming.

But not in this town…boy
I
To all doctors performing FUE, with total commitment and hard work. I wish you all great success and great results

Dr Ray Woods

Well unfortunately for many of us this thread leaves a lot to be desired…

As long as money is involved the arguing will never end. So I suppose at the end of the day the only thing we as consumers can truly rely on is results. It’s the only thing we have to go on. Let them speak for themselves.

Thank you gentlemen for your time and efforts…

» To all doctors performing FUE, with total commitment and hard work. I
» wish you all great success and great results
»
» Dr Ray Woods

O.K but with all the secrecy and lack of sharing whether necessary or not, we as punters want to know whether FUE in the best hands is a replacement for strip under all circumstances; whether FUE can achieve the 5000-7000 aka top strip docs or whether in all hands FUE has its limitations vs strip. You may have to be secretive but you should at least be capable of stating your opinion on these issues.

» aFranklin- It was premature on the part of any doc to offer clinical FUE
» back in 2000. It’s premature now for any clinic to offer FUE megasessions
» in 2008.
»
» Sux- Are making up statistics and attacking me personally really going to
» help anyone reading this post? Come on, you’re better than that. Besides, I
» never liked ice cream. Let’s get back on track:
»
» Your wrote with respect to Dr. Woods:
» “ When you’re getting the same or better yield as the top strip docs of
» the world (over 90%), which they do…”
» Where did you get this incredible statistic? I’ve not seen any evidence to
» support this. In fact, I’ve not even seen Dr. Woods himself make such a
» grand statement.
»
» Dr. Woods-
» I only get interested in particular competitors when they make
» questionable claims or intimations. You claim loudly that your technique is
» better than the FUE technique of any competitor. That may or may not be
» true. I simply challenge your claim. If you are going to go public with
» such a pronouncement, then I can certainly challenge it on a public forum.
» Which I have done, and continue to do. To date you have only attacked me
» instead of supporting your claim.
»
» I wonder, for all your “patient’s rights” rhetoric, do you provide
» complete “Informed Consent”? Specifically, the fact that FUE grafts must
» undergo 3 traumatic forces that strip grafts never endure:
» 1. Torsion
» 2. Traction
» 3. Compression
» (and a few other minor ones).
»
» For those of you out there who have wondered why FUE has not yet put an
» end to STRIP, it is because of these 3 detrimental forces. In the best of
» hands these forces are minimized, that’s what my patents are all about, but
» even so, yields are STILL lower than with strip surgery and is why I
» believe that if large procedures are needed, they should be done with
» strip, not FUE. ( The exception, of course, being patients like Franklin
» who would rather never have a strip surgery again. That’s a different
» matter).
»
» Personally, I couldn’t care less what techniques Dr. Woods uses. I doubt
» they are revolutionary or even interesting. But if he is going to claim
» superiority in this field, he is going to have start by at least telling
» his patients before surgery the true differences between strip surgery and
» FUE surgery. Specifically, the limitations of FUE surgery.
»
» Well, Dr. Woods. How about it? Do you inform your patients of these three
» destructive FUE forces prior to surgery? 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3.
» Compression ?
»
» You see, HT doctors do not make patients sign “waivers” as Dr. Woods loves
» to claim in his never ending effort to vilify other HT doctors. What he
» clearly doesn’t understand is that patients CAN’T “waive” their rights.
» That’s what makes them “rights”. And what he calls “rights” aren’t actually
» “rights”.
»
» What HT doctors actually give patients is an INFORMED CONSENT document
» that TELL them what possible problems they might face should they decide to
» go ahead with a procedure. It also INFORMS them, specifically, of the
» downside of any procedure and that ALTERNATIVE treatments were discussed
» (in some states). The three detrimental forces of FUE and their resulting
» lower yields for FUE procedures must be included to have offered full
» informed consent.
»
» Bverotti,
» Does your doctor give informed consent that makes it clear that FUE yields
» are consistently lower than strip yields because of 1. Torsion 2.
» Traction 3. Compression ?
» Does your doctor inform patients of this during consultation?
»
» Dr. Woods,
» Do you inform your patients of the detrimental forces FUE grafts must
» endure when compared to strip dissection? Or do you claim that your
» particular FUE technique does not inflict the three detrimental forces of
» 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression ?
»
» Even your most dedicated supporter will be waiting for your answer.

With these forces playing a major role, 1. Torsion
2. Traction
3. Compression
(and a few other minor ones). Is this part of the reason why BHT makes it hard to bring about regrowth?

Again, Dr. Woods, you’ve reversed the roles. It’s YOU who sought total control over the FUE industry (and failed), not I. I and a few other industrious doctors opened FUE up and demystified it through total disclosure. You sought to secret it away all for yourself while claiming others could NEVER perform it.

Your ad homonym attacks on me don’t relieve you of your obligation to answer the questions put to you. If patient education and physician accountability are as important as you make out in your marketing, then you must answer the question:

Do you inform your patients of the three destructive FUE forces and the fact that such are not present in STRIP cases?

  1. Torsion
  2. Traction
  3. Compression

You wrote:
“To all doctors performing FUE, with total commitment and hard work. I wish you all great success and great results”
Thank you. That’s the first time you’ve ever positively acknowledged your peers in general. That’s a first step. Well done.

accidental repeat

Dave21,
Yes. I believe so. Body hair follicles are not as hardy as scalp hair follicles and as such are more susceptible to the three traumatic forces. 1. Torsion 2. Traction 3. Compression.

Speaking in terms of raw results, the best place to look for them are on the web and no reasonable person can claim that, graft for graft, FUE as YET stacks up to Strip.

For now the “sound barriers” of FUE are the three destructive FUE forces- no matter what level of personal skill has been attained. The problem goes beyond what a human can do, even with an ideal “perfect” punch tool. Revolutionary new tools must be designed and developed to move forward. I absolutely believe the obstacles will be smashed, but it hasn’t been done yet. Maybe next year?

We will absolutely know the problems have been solved when a stream of consistent FUE results rivaling that of strip starts coming out of someone’s clinic somewhere in the world. To date, there have been several “false prophets” of FUE, but the time for FUE is coming. I can practically guarantee it.

» This is all very well but here are some contradictions that are common to
» all FUE practitioners.
»
» 1: We are told that density change is unnoticeable until 50% density is
» lost. How can this stack with the philosophy by all FUE docs that only
» 28%-30% of the donor can be removed.
»
» 2: We are told that in the best hands the donor angulation surrounding FUE
» is not changed but all docs admit that scar retraction can change
» angulation.
»
» 3: The residual donor follicles proximal to the extracted FUs are maybe
» 100 times as many compared with strip since every removed FU in FUE leaves
» local donor follicles. The risk to these even in the best hands must be
» pertinent devils halo or not and also regardless of direct transection.
»
» These questions have never been adequately answered and the the idea that
» there are few 5000+ FUE results simple because the procedure is new is no
» longer a viable excuse.
»
» I think we deserve some believable answers at this juncture from those who
» still maintain that FUE can fully replace strip. If it cannot then the
» correct context for FUE needs to be explained but the FUE only or proponent
» clinics.

Dear Marco,

  1. FU density and hair calibre is not uniform over the entire safe donor area, in most people. Strip is excised from the donor scalp area that has the maximun FU density and the thickest calibre hair. FUE,on the other hand is extracted from the “lushest” as well as not so lush donor areas.

  2. The 50% rule needs to be read in correct perspective. 50% hair, in most people, when grown long, will give adequate coverage. The improtant question is, whether the same will be true if the person shaves/buzz cuts the hair.

Even otherwise, there are certain races (negroid, orientals etc.), where the FU density is naturally low and the 50% thumbrule may not apply.

  1. If smaller size instruments are used, and the correct technique employed, damage to surrounding hair is minimal.

  2. Scar retraction is not an issue with fue because it is balanced on all sides (unlike the strip, where the retraction forces act in 2 planes).

In the end, its not a question of which technique should replace which.
Each patient should research the options and decide which method suits his aspirations and lifestyle.

Regards,
Dr. A

“O.K but with all the secrecy and lack of sharing whether necessary or not, we as punters want to know whether FUE in the best hands is a replacement for strip under all circumstances; whether FUE can achieve the 5000-7000 aka top strip docs or whether in all hands FUE has its limitations vs strip. You may have to be secretive but you should at least be capable of stating your opinion on these issues.” Marco. Have you had your ht yet? Or you just a potential patient. Really all ones needs to do is seek out the patients that went through the procedures strip or Fue. And see for yourself. Do you ever here from strip docs “Top ones” tell you they can transect grafts when doing the strip? Well it can happen. Just go for a consult in person demand to see patients not technique that will tell you all you need to know from any doc you chose. Good luck

This is all very well but here are some contradictions that are common to
» all FUE practitioners.
»
» 1: We are told that density change is unnoticeable until 50% density is
» lost. How can this stack with the philosophy by all FUE docs that only
» 28%-30% of the donor can be removed.
»
» 2: We are told that in the best hands the donor angulation surrounding FUE
» is not changed but all docs admit that scar retraction can change
» angulation.
»
» 3: The residual donor follicles proximal to the extracted FUs are maybe
» 100 times as many compared with strip since every removed FU in FUE leaves
» local donor follicles. The risk to these even in the best hands must be
» pertinent devils halo or not and also regardless of direct transection.
»
» These questions have never been adequately answered and the the idea that
» there are few 5000+ FUE results simple because the procedure is new is no
» longer a viable excuse.
»
» I think we deserve some believable answers at this juncture from those who
» still maintain that FUE can fully replace strip. If it cannot then the
» correct context for FUE needs to be explained but the FUE only or proponent
» clinics.

Dear Marco,

  1. FU density and hair calibre is not uniform over the entire safe donor area, in most people. Strip is excised from the donor scalp area that has the maximun FU density and the thickest calibre hair. FUE,on the other hand is extracted from the “lushest” as well as not so lush donor areas.

  2. The 50% rule needs to be read in correct perspective. 50% hair, in most people, when grown long, will give adequate coverage. The improtant question is, whether the same will be true if the person shaves/buzz cuts the hair.

Even otherwise, there are certain races (negroid, orientals etc.), where the FU density is naturally low and the 50% thumbrule may not apply.

  1. If smaller size instruments are used, and the correct technique employed, damage to surrounding hair is minimal.

  2. Scar retraction is not an issue with fue because it is balanced on all sides (unlike the strip, where the retraction forces act in 2 planes).

In the end, its not a question of which technique should replace which.
Each patient should research the options and decide which method suits his aspirations and lifestyle.

Regards,
Dr. A