The \'Please Remove Pats\' Forum - please Hairsite?

Hair Transplant
61

» » and its benefits oversold. I can’t speak for comments Pat made back in
» » 2004 and before, but since most leading surgeons in the field recognize
» » that FUE often produces lower hair growth yield and graft survival
» rates
» » due to the extra forces placed on the follicles, anything to the
» contrary
» » must be challenged.
»
» What leading surgeons? Who? feller? What a joke. Fue produces lower hair
» yield because the wannabe fue doctors didn’t know sh*t how to do it, as
» simple as that, so some idiot doctors failed at fue and you concluded that
» fue’s benefits must be oversold? how convenient

Uh, Doc Feller is one of the best HT surgeons in America IMHO. The terms “wannabe” or “idiot” don’t apply to Feller in any way, shape or form IMHO.

He performs BOTH strip and fue. He says fue, on average, has a lower yield rate than strip surgery.

62

» » » and its benefits oversold. I can’t speak for comments Pat made back
» in
» » » 2004 and before, but since most leading surgeons in the field
» recognize
» » » that FUE often produces lower hair growth yield and graft survival
» » rates
» » » due to the extra forces placed on the follicles, anything to the
» » contrary
» » » must be challenged.
» »
» » What leading surgeons? Who? feller? What a joke. Fue produces lower
» hair
» » yield because the wannabe fue doctors didn’t know sh*t how to do it, as
» » simple as that, so some idiot doctors failed at fue and you concluded
» that
» » fue’s benefits must be oversold? how convenient
»
» Uh, Doc Feller is one of the best HT surgeons in America IMHO. The terms
» “wannabe” or “idiot” don’t apply to Feller in any way, shape or form IMHO.
»
» He performs BOTH strip and fue. He says fue, on average, has a lower
» yield rate than strip surgery.

It certainly will in the wrong hands, no doubt about it.

63

» Uh, Doc Feller is one of the best HT surgeons in America IMHO. The terms
» “wannabe” or “idiot” don’t apply to Feller in any way, shape or form IMHO.
»
» He performs BOTH strip and fue. He says fue, on average, has a lower
» yield rate than strip surgery.

He is a good strip doctor, no doubt about it, the problem is that not every strip doctor knows how to do fue and that explains the poor yield. If all fue doctors across the board have poor yield, then no argument here but that’s not the case. I used to believe the theory that fue gives poor yield just like what Feller and others suggested, now I realize how absurb that is, it’s the doctor, not the technique that gives poor yield.

64

Therapy,

Tell me, do you agree with this statement? The benefits of FUE has been traditionally overhyped by several clinics.

I’m not saying that FUE always produced poor yield, but there are a number of additional variables that must be considered. Ultimately, the risk that it might produce lower yield is higher.

I believe FUE can be successful with experienced hands and on the right candidates.

Our community is open to evaluating and considering FUE clinics for recommendation. But clinics who talk the talk are expected to walk the walk. This includes, addressing the concerns of the community when posed.

This is a valid topic to continue discussing, but we’ve gone off the point of why I posted here in the first place.

I typically don’t post here. I’m calling Dr. Woods out since he’s made false accusations about our forum and nonexistant emails between him and Pat Hennessey. If there is another hair loss site owned by another “Pat” sponsored by hair restoration physicians, let me know. Otherwise, I think Dr. Woods owes us an explanation, a retraction of his statements, and an apology.

Happy New Year!

Bill (Falc)

65

Therapy wrote:
» He is a good strip doctor, no doubt about it, the problem is that not
» every strip doctor knows how to do fue and that explains the poor yield. If
» all fue doctors across the board have poor yield, then no argument here but
» that’s not the case. I used to believe the theory that fue gives poor
» yield just like what Feller and others suggested, now I realize how absurd
» that is, it’s the doctor, not the technique that gives poor yield.

Oh, well I agree with that general philosophy. (Except Feller didn’t say FUE was drastically less yield wise, but the chances for screw-ups was greater. IIRC, that’s all he was basically saying?)

I asked that question of a moderator at another hairloss site and he felt basically the same way you do. Pretty much the way Bill is summarizing FUE also. Makes sense IMHO.

66

» Therapy,
»
» Tell me, do you agree with this statement? The benefits of FUE has been
» traditionally overhyped by several clinics.
»
» I’m not saying that FUE always produced poor yield, but there are a number
» of additional variables that must be considered. Ultimately, the risk that
» it might produce lower yield is higher.
»
» I believe FUE can be successful with experienced hands and on the right
» candidates.
»
» Our community is open to evaluating and considering FUE clinics for
» recommendation. But clinics who talk the talk are expected to walk the
» walk. This includes, addressing the concerns of the community when posed.
»
» This is a valid topic to continue discussing, but we’ve gone off the point
» of why I posted here in the first place.
»
» I typically don’t post here. I’m calling Dr. Woods out since he’s made
» false accusations about our forum and nonexistant emails between him and
» Pat Hennessey. If there is another hair loss site owned by another “Pat”
» sponsored by hair restoration physicians, let me know. Otherwise, I think
» Dr. Woods owes us an explanation, a retraction of his statements, and an
» apology.
»
» Happy New Year!
»
» Bill (Falc)

Bill, since there has been no response, we are smart enough to read between the lines.

67

» Bill, since there has been no response, we are smart enough to read
» between the lines.

Old Baldy,

Exactly right :slight_smile: I think I’ve made my point.

Bill

68

I think I will hold off judgement until the doc reply’s. Thank you!

69

» » Bill, since there has been no response, we are smart enough to read
» » between the lines.
»
» Old Baldy,
»
» Exactly right :slight_smile: I think I’ve made my point.
»
» Bill

Falceros,

Many people I know are on vacation. I’d give Dr. Woods the benefit of the doubt and expect that he’ll post a reply. Happy New Year.

70

Seriously Falceros. Do you think Dr Woods gives a rats ass if you are “calling him out”. Trust me, he doesnt give 2 sh*ts.

I know some people like to think they are quite important around these forums, but I assure you he doesnt worry about responding to peons from piddly little hairloss websites. No offense, he just has a lot more important things to do in his day than to respond to nutty hairloss freaks on message boards.

He’s the one surgeon who’s ACTUALLY IN SURGERY all day and I would assume he doesnt spend his holidays coming here. In fact, I feel its quite a privelage when we actually see a post from him, from time to time.

For all I know he may have seen your posts, and had a chuckle at how mental you are acting over this. In fact I think we all are, lol…Seriously who cares? Just drop it, its making you look like the nutjob… Dr Woods will ALWAYS be HIGHLY REGARDED and RESPECTED so I dont know exactly what it is you are trying to do here…

PS: I will be going away for a few days now, so if I dont respond back, please dont start calling me out…

71

Sux2bme,

I can see why with a name like “sux2bme”, why you’d think of yourself and other patients as “peons” or insigificant. But just remember it’s the popular and respected patient forums that allow patients like YOU to share genuine experiences and concerns, much like you did critiquing Dr. Armani and Hair Loss Help on our forum.

These highly popular forums have helped tens of thousands of patients make informed and educated decisions on which doctors to go to. I’d say that’s pretty significant, and apparently significant enough that Dr. Woods felt he had to falsely accuse us.

But perhaps you’d rather support a community of doctors patting themselves on the back than patients evaluating and critiquing physicians demanding only the best results.

The bottom line is, Dr. Woods needed to be called out whether you see it as significant or not. And if he doesn’t respond, those reading can accurately conclude that Dr. Woods lied. And those who catch someone in a lie would be wise to be reluctant to trust anything the one who lied has to say about anything.

Bill (Falc)

72

Hi Falc. Been reading this thread. And yes you are correct Dr. Woods needs to reply. When I first signed up on your site in 2002 there was plenty of attacks on Dr. Woods but what one does is let the docs work speak for itself. That is exactly what I did. When patients demand the best for themselves they get out there and do the leg work and meet former patients from the doctor of their choice. Not just listen to recommended docs on a list. This goes for all sites. What I have learned in 6 years of posting on boards is they all have docs that are hot topic of the month. Not sure about anyone else. But I used all 3 sites you mentioned as a start. The real test comes when you see it live yourself.

73

» The bottom line is, Dr. Woods needed to be called out whether you see it
» as significant or not. And if he doesn’t respond, those reading can
» accurately conclude that Dr. Woods lied. And those who catch someone in a
» lie would be wise to be reluctant to trust anything the one who lied has to
» say about anything.
»
» Bill (Falc)

It is probably not unusual for doctors being blocked from posting on forums on which they are not sponsors or where there has been a fall out with the webmaster.
It has happened to me in the past. That will be elaborated on

Being a sponsor on certain websites may come with certain privileges eg getting maximum exposure, having problem patients or bad results “go away” and also, trashing competing doctors overtly or with sly underhanded annonymous “digs” designed to undermine the competing doctor from another site.

I was told about these “catty” remarks about me, and decided to log on and defend myself. Usually I just don’t bother, but this time I did.

I tried registering on multiple occassions in late October, but every time was rejected.

I emailed the website on OCTOBER 29TH but never recieved a reply.

here is the original email:

From: info@woodstechnique.com.au [mailto:info@woodstechnique.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:34 AM
To: ‘forum@hair-restoration-info.com’
Subject:

If People on your site can make negative comments about me, I demand a right of reply. THE COMMENT THAT MY CLINIC IS NOT MODERN IS OUTRAGEOUS , AND OFFENSIVE. And sniper attacks from Feller patients is common

I am not a sponsor or poster on Farrels site, but if someone attacks me or makes negative comments, despite any past disagreements, he gives me the right of reply. If you are such a champion of free speech and the right for one to defend themselves, I sugest you allow me the same.

So please send me info regarding account names etc and I will defend and answer the negative remarks made about me. Otherwise , remove any reference to me and make it a woods free zone, and explain the reasons why.

Dr Ray Woods

I hope everyone had a good Christmas and New year

Dr Ray Woods

74

Good for you Dr. Woods, those who provoked this should be ashamed of themselves.

75

» Good for you Dr. Woods, those who provoked this should be ashamed of
» themselves.

I’ll second that!

76

I think it’s you now Mr. Bill that owe Dr. Woods the apology. Just checked your site and the e-mail is legit under contact us on your discussion forums. Are you now to busy from deleting all mails you do not want to answer that is why you have not replied here yet?

77

» I think it’s you now Mr. Bill that owe Dr. Woods the apology.

haha, it turns out that bill (falceros) s the liar, i wonder what excuse he s gonna use, he may say he has several email accounts and he forgot to check that one or the webmaster deleteed that email by mistake, the email never arrived or dr woods totally made up the email he posted, i hope he will come up with something original :slight_smile:

78

There you go Falc, you acted like a nutcase and made a big deal over something that YOU ENDED UP BEING WRONG ABOUT. And no I dont even think you lied, who knows what happend… But point is now you look like the idiot, or should I say PEON?

Told you you should have dropped it…

Its nice Dr Woods repsonded, but even if he hadnt I still would have believed what he said because your site HAS always been anti-Woods…

Now I think you should retract YOUR statments and apologize on this thread as well as on your own site and personally authorize an account for him.

79

Well, one thing is for sure. I owe Dr. Woods an apology.

I’m sorry Dr. Woods for jumping to a conclusion. My mistake.:frowning:

Edit: It won’t happen again!

80

Dr. Woods,

Thanks for replying.

However, I check that email address daily and do not recall receiving an email message from you. I typically handle these kinds of requests promptly. So if it was sent, somehow it was missed.

Forum registration is an automatic process. All you have to do is fill out a few fields, and verify your email address is valid by clicking on the link from an email.

If you really did attempt to register, I suspect you received an error messgage or sorts since there is no evidence that you ever attempted to register

The bottom line is, nobody physicially denied you anything. Had we received an email from you, we would have replied giving you permission to defend yourself as long as you followed the rules according to our terms of service.

Bill (Falc)