What you need to know

Hair Transplant
41

I tell patients to beware. FUE may seem less traumatic, but done incorrectly, it will be worse than bad strip…cobblestoning, nasty pits, dents, weird hair angles, severe scalp shock, and extreme global donor decimation …all done in a few hours.
The doctors and tech teams doing this may be in a bazaar in turkey, or a flash glitzy address in LA, florida, New York etc…makes no difference.

I warn patients of the possible negative consequences of bad surgery. Doctors protect themselves from this. I do not. Because I will not do that to a fellow man

If patients proceed with me, I check for potential cardiac problems, keloid, etc…they Fill in appropriate forms, blood tests are done, and thorough video is taken explaining what is and is not possible, and what to be aware of…ie dont run a marathon the next day

But I do NOT cover myself with the ironclad disclaimers protecting other doctors in their safe production line clinics …

Done correctly, it is much longer, skilful , involved , and less profitable…but the patient is safe

Hence, no disclaimer required.

When I began promoting the " declaration of patient rights" in 2002 " , despite seminars in the USA in 2002 to 2005, costing me personally over 500k, we failed to get air time…blocked and black balled at every turn…the boys joe is aware of have some major influence.

If it wasn’t for HAIRSITE, no one would have heard of it

So yes, all care and due diligence is taken, but I do not, and will not cover myself for the consequences of deliberate and conscious bad production line surgery. I don’t do that.
Joe knows doctors that do…and relentlessly and obsessively needs to justify what they are doing

Mans gotta make a living somehow

Dr Woods

42

If you read Dr Woods’ opening posts, they are completely reasonable, and do not warrant Joe Tillman’s nit-picking sentence-by-sentence criticisms.

It’s ironic to see that Joe Tillman is a professional consultant for less-experienced FUE doctors now, since he was one of the most vocal skeptics about FUE when it first emerged internationally 15 years ago, or so. Joe Tillman’s past track record with FUE really kind of sucks. He has discouraged lots of guys from getting FUE in favor of strip. He encouraged lots of guys to get transplants in general. He is on the wrong side of history with FUE. Joe Tillman should not be posting in this thread at all.

Dr Cole makes patients fill out a form saying that graft yields might be lower than ___% (different levels of graft failure depending on when the surgery occurred). Everybody knows that this clause is a “get out of jail free card” in a court of law. At least Cole provides the legal disclaimer in advance - many clinics only show it to you on the day of surgery (which should be illegal). If I’m not mistaken, some of the doctors now have a clause that the patient cannot publicly complain. Dr Woods has no legal disclaimer at all.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve seen a couple of patients who said they were disappointed with Dr Woods yield, but these patients only received a limited number of grafts. I am not aware of any Woods patients who had virtual TOTAL GRAFT FAILURE after paying for megasession graft counts, as I experienced with Dr Cole. I am not aware of any patients who experienced serious shock fallout, which is a real risk with strip surgeries. I have not seen any Woods patients with massive scarring, as patients of Dr Brandy, Puig and Mangubat have. Dr Woods does not have the same kind of “screwups” that some other doctors do, as Joe Tillman is implying in this thread. For Joe Tillman to suggest there is some kind of comparison there is not just misleading, it’s highly offensive.

In my opinion, while not perfect, Dr Woods is one of the very few ethical doctors in the entire field, and over time he has been proven right about key issues with FUE. These were some of Dr Woods’ predictions about the future of FUE, which were dismissed or called “self-serving” by industry insiders like Joe Tillman at the time (roughly 2001, 2002):

  • Unethical doctors will apply “hair mill” salesmanship and conveyor-belt surgical techniques to FUE in an effort to maximize profits, while carelessly exposing the patients to risk of failure.

  • Inexperienced FUE doctors will attempt too-large sessions which will have lousy percentages of graft survival, and will inadvertently damage surrounding hairs in the donor area.

  • In many cases the new FUE patients will be unaware of the damage for years - the wasted donor area and loss of viable surrounding hair.

Unfortunately, I have been a victim of all of these predictions. The root problem with hair transplants goes far beyond a comparison of techniques like “FUE vs strip”. It’s a highly corrupt and immoral industry which at it’s core is based around exploiting the insecurity of self-conscious guys with too much money and not enough common sense.

43

Hi Arfy,

I think your case is the ideal case to reference with regards to Dr. Woods’s point about “gag orders”. That is what I’ve been talking about and the rest of your statements/accusations/or whatever are not only inaccurate and wrong, they’re irrelevant.

Here are his words just from THIS thread where he talks about how informed consent forms, which are required, are actually gag orders and by merely talking about a bad experience a doctor can sue. These aren’t my words, they are his.

“So the patient will be located and told…”. Hey buddy…you were well aware things could go horribly wrong…you signed those 15 pages of apple like clauses and went into this with full disclosure and knowledge…and unfortunately for you, things went seriously wrong…very very sad…but don’t blame me or damage my reputation or practice by your unfortunate story or I am legally entitled to sue for defamation and financial loss to my business…"

“So sure, feel free to divulge, but expect a legal response with defamation and financial compensation demands …so”

“In other words, the patient went in with full knowledge and disclosure that a disaster may occur…so dont blame the doctor.
And if you do, he is in his legal right to sue you for defamation and damages to reputation/income etc.”

“There may not be a specific gag order, but if you talk, they sue…so, you don’t talk, hence…gag”

So I will ask you, Arfy. With the blitzkrieg of negative press you have given Dr. Cole over the past year, the shock and awe campaign the likes of which have literally never been seen on any forum to the degree that you have carried it, tell us about the lawsuit that Dr. Cole filed to “silence” you. Tell us about the army of hair transplant attorneys that lined up, salivating at the chance to take you to court because of a violation to the disclaimer you signed.

I’ll tell you where it is. It is nowhere because it DOES.NOT.EXIST. If it did, if he were in a position to sue you because of what you signed, you would not be taking part in this thread. Period.

44

Interesting

Joe doesn’t refer to or seem to care about Arfy’s ordeal

He is more concerned that Arfy’ is talking about it

Dr Woods

45

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

Joe doesn’t refer to or seem to care about Arfy’s ordeal

He is more concerned that Arfy’ is talking about it

Dr Woods[/quote]

Dr. Woods,

What I may or may not be concerned about is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with our discussion. This is not the place to discuss Arfy’s issues as it has it’s own separate and quite lengthy thread. All you have done throughout this thread is inject distractions and irrelevant points. It’s all meaningless.

Arfy’s case directly contradicts your claims, Dr. Woods. Arfy signed disclaimers before his surgery, as he states in his own words, yet he is still able to talk and I imagine he has talked more than any patient in history. If ever there was a case where a doctor wanted to file a lawsuit against a patient I would imagine it would be this one. According to everything you’ve said in this thread and others for the past decade there should be nothing to stop this from happening yet here is Arfy, one year later, sans legal muzzle talking about his case. How do you explain this? The evidence is conclusive. You’re wrong.

Regarding what you do and do not tell patients before surgery, you have not demonstrated that you explain the problems that can happen with surgery REGARDLESS of whether or not the surgery is “bad”.

"I tell patients to beware. FUE may seem less traumatic, but done incorrectly, it will be worse than bad strip…cobblestoning, nasty pits, dents, weird hair angles, severe scalp shock, and extreme global donor decimation …all done in a few hours.
The doctors and tech teams doing this may be in a bazaar in turkey, or a flash glitzy address in LA, florida, New York etc…makes no difference.

I warn patients of the possible negative consequences of bad surgery. Doctors protect themselves from this. I do not. Because I will not do that to a fellow man"

I have not been asking if you inform patients of the possible complications from surgery in New York, LA or Florida. I have been asking you if you inform your patients of the potential complications that can arise from ANY surgery that YOU perform on them in your clinic. Assuming they are in your office before surgery it is difficult to see how discussing what can happen with other clinics has any bearing on your patients. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference.

I’m done here until I hear back from the Australia Board of Medicine regarding the requirements for what constitutes “informed consent” when dealing with FUE. If you don’t have anything to say specifically regarding your points about disclaimers, to support your position, then everything else is irrelevant and useless. Finally, I have not made personal slants toward you in our discussion so please refrain from doing so with me. It is unbecoming of a doctor.

46

Arfy’s case directly contradicts your claims, Dr. Woods. Arfy signed disclaimers before his surgery, as he states in his own words, yet he is still able to talk and I imagine he has talked more than any patient in history. If ever there was a case where a doctor wanted to file a lawsuit against a patient I would imagine it would be this one. According to everything you’ve said in this thread and others for the past decade there should be nothing to stop this from happening yet here is Arfy, one year later, sans legal muzzle talking about his case. How do you explain this? The evidence is conclusive. You’re wrong.

Joe

Information I have to hand supports Doctor Woods claims. And I signed the pre consent form also. Youre wrong the releases quite clearly sayagree to not disparage online, or our legal rep will seek to recover reasonable costs`

It is a two step process, most including yourself are not familiar with

1 sign pre consent all ok no problem

2 sign pre consent, problem = offers of part refund, free work but the legals
get deeper and more specific, releasing the physician from all responsibility

I assume arfy took no such deal, and I have nothing but total respect for him and his courage to do what he has done.
He is also telling the truth, but telling the truth has him $36,000 out of pocket, thats a bitter truth pill to swallow for a no show! His doctor tried to deal, he made offers, part offers, but arfy stood firm, if arfy had accepted payment then he would not be on this thread or forum now …

Most take the money Joe it is used as a bargaining tool to buy silence …totally unethical, the doctors pay to keep their reputation intact the pre consent is a pre cursor, the first layer of protection if you like to unethical doctors

2 pages you should be ok as required by state and insurance comps

10 - 20 pages head for the door !

47

It has not been a “blitzkrieg of negative press” about Dr Cole. I have posted in 3 forums so far about my experience. Everything I said was true, and I took care to document the proof, whenever documentation was possible. There is a good deal of negative information available about Dr Cole available online for those who know how look. My case is just one example of Dr Cole’s issues.

Quote:
“With the blitzkrieg of negative press you have given Dr. Cole over the past year, the shock and awe campaign the likes of which have literally never been seen on any forum to the degree that you have carried it”

Absurd hyperbole. Ridiculous. You make it sound like I’ve been unfair to Dr Cole. My family is out $36,000, with virtually zero results. Dr Cole promised a refund and reneged. All I did was recount the facts and back story. I was also quite careful to explain that I didn’t claim that nobody gets good results from Dr Cole, and that he does have satisfied patients too.

You are a paid representative of several doctors. You’re not just some ordinary guy posting online. You don’t see anything unethical about a paid doctor’s representative criticizing competing doctors? I certainly do. And in this thread, over what? Nothing! Your objections were superficial. And now you’ve been debunked.

48

Arfy,

You said…

“You make it sound like I’ve been unfair to Dr Cole.”

With all due respect, I did no such thing. You believe this only because you would expect me to. This is called confirmation bias where you expect something to be, therefore it appears to be, even when it is not. I gave no judgement about your actions. I merely made an observation about the documentation. The only opinion I made was that it is unprecedented in scale. Your initial post on HLT was 11,886 words along with multiple images. That was just one post. On this website your thread has 97 posts and you made 40 of them. Name one patient on any of the forums for the past 20 years that has come close to the scope of documentation you’ve made regarding your negative experience. For the record, I told Dr. Cole twice that he should refund your money and I said it to his face.

Again, my point was that your case, your documentation, proves that consent forms in fact do NOT act as gag orders. If they did then you would not be speaking as freely as you are due to these alleged legal constraints disguised as consent forms. I hope you understand now.

Ejj,

You said…

“I assume arfy took no such deal…”

You assume too much.

Quote by Arfy…

“Dr Cole promised a refund and reneged.”

It was not up to Arfy. Done.

Regardless it is the fact that he signed a disclaimer before surgery that is the point and said disclaimer did not act as a gag order, as Dr. Wood’s says it does.

You however are speaking about something entirely different.

"1 sign pre consent all ok no problem

2 sign pre consent, problem = offers of part refund, free work but the legals
get deeper and more specific, releasing the physician from all responsibility"

There is no such thing as a “pre-consent” form.

To clarify, what Dr. Woods and I are discussing is his decade long claim that by gaining a signature from the patient that acknowledges that they understand the potential problems that can arise from surgery, the doctor is not only protected from a malpractice suit but it also allows the doctor to sue the patient for defamation if they speak ill of their experience. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. ANYWHERE.

What you are talking about is what can happen AFTER surgery when the result is not up to expectations or if problems occur. In fact, you know that your topic has to do with after surgery, and is unrelated, because you said as much in your first post in this thread.

“I would like to talk about the disclaimers, general releases that are used afterwards when a procedure has gone wrong and a client is left with nowere to go other than request a refund, this is much more interesting to me.”

You even made the word “afterwards” in bold to emphasize your understanding of the situation. Here is your original post showing as much…

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-132607-page-0-category-2-order-last_answer.html

If you do however have proof of how a simple informed consent form, which is required in most medical jurisdictions, acts as and HAS BEEN USED AS a gag order successfully against a patient in the form of a defamation suit then please do present it. If not then nothing you have said thus far is relevant to the point.

The ridiculousness of this thread acts as a testimony to how easy it can be to use the power of distraction to avoid answering questions.

  1. I provided evidence that signed informed consent forms are required by most medical jurisdictions.

  2. I’ve demonstrated how signed informed consent forms do not act as gag orders and they do not automatically allow a doctor to sue his patient for defamation.

  3. I asked if Dr. Woods provides all the known side effects that can manifest due to FUE surgery.

  4. I’ve asked him the size(s) of his punches.

Yet thirty-eight posts later we still do not know the punch sizes and we know that instead of telling his patients about potential side effects of his surgery he instead tells them of the side effects of bad surgery performed somewhere else. We also know that he’s up to date on current reality television programming.

My questions would be answered, and quickly, had they been asked of any other clinic. Why is it so unconscionable that I ask the same of Dr. Woods?

49

one.Quote by Arfy…

“Dr Cole promised a refund and reneged.”

It was not up to Arfy. Done

Yes it was up to Arfy, if he had agreed to accept the lower offer, he chose not to … Done.

Again, my point was that your case, your documentation, proves that consent forms in fact do NOT act as gag orders. If they did then you would not be speaking as freely as you are due to these alleged legal constraints disguised as consent forms. I hope you understand now

How long was it again before Arfy felt comfortable sharing his story with the public?

Procedure 2005, complained 2007 went public 2015 ! The consent form did a pretty good job of gagging him for this time period 8 years !!! … You cant have it both ways he was gagged by a consent form for a period of time

50

"Quote by Arfy…

“Dr Cole promised a refund and reneged.”

It was not up to Arfy. Done.

Yes it was up to Arfy, if he had agreed to accept the lower offer, he chose not to … Done.

Again, my point was that your case, your documentation, proves that consent forms in fact do NOT act as gag orders. If they did then you would not be speaking as freely as you are due to these alleged legal constraints disguised as consent forms. I hope you understand now.

How long was it again before Arfy felt comfortable sharing his story with the public, 12 - 18 months ? The consent form did a pretty good job of gagging him for this time period … You cant have it both ways he was gagged by a consent form for a period of time "

EJJ,

Those were Arfy’s words. Not mine. HE said that the offer was “reneged”. If you wish to debate Arfy on this then by all means, go ahead but it has no bearing on the facts. Arfy was not silenced by the consent form he signed. And yes, done.

What Arfy “felt comfortable” with is irrelevant. It’s what he is bound to, or not bound to, by the disclaimer he said he signed that IS relevant and what he signed did not prevent him from speaking. It was his comfort level, as you just stated and not the form itself. Remember, Dr. Woods is talking about legal forms, not comfort forms.

Do you understand what a consent form is? Consent forms are put in place as requirements by the various medical organizations (AMA, NHS, etc.) to make sure patients can make a decision based on all of the relevant information that they are legally entitled to have. In the UK, the NHS says the following about consent.

"Consent to treatment is the principle that a person must give their permission before they receive any type of medical treatment or examination. This must be done on the basis of a preliminary explanation by a clinician.

Consent is required from a patient regardless of the intervention – from a physical examination to organ donation.

The principle of consent is an important part of medical ethics and the international human rights law."

It’s a big deal when something is referred to as a human right but this is what informed consent is about. By saying you have been informed about a procedure does not give a doctor automatic rights to take a patient to court for saying they are unhappy. It’s beyond ludicrous to say so and informing patients about what can happen at other clinics is not considered to be informed consent. At best it is uninformed consent.

51

Joe you said " it was not up to arfy" it very clearly was up to arfy, he refused to accept the reduced, sum his choice.

Interesting point about its not how a patient feels …

Yes it is Joe, exactly that, people are scared to talk, that`s what the informed consent form does, thats why people take time to tell their story

They feel frightened to do so gagged, silenced by default no matter of the
legal rhetoric, its how many feel a point lost on many industry employees

What Arfy “felt comfortable” with is irrelevant. It’s what he is bound to, or not bound to, by the disclaimer he said he signed that IS relevant and what he signed did not prevent him from speaking

But it did prevent him from speaking for 8 years. You are arguing over a technicality. I do not believe you have read every informed consent form, from every Doctor, neither have I. Therefore Its reasonable to assume the thirty page ones from LA doctors are more legally binding than the 2 page ones from Europe each carry different levels of protection.

The state of New South Wales does not currently require informed consent from hair transplant physicians however most of Doctor Woods associates use them whilst he does not, why do they use them if they do not have to ?

52

Ejj,

I’m not sure what part of “Dr. Cole promised a refund and then reneged.” you don’t understand. The below definition is from Merriam-Webster online.

Renege - to go back on a promise or commitment

What Arfy refused or did not refuse is irrelevant. This was part of his negotiation. Such is the nature of every negotiation in any aspect of life. Offers are made, offers are refused, you move on to the next round in an attempt to find common ground and agreement. Dr. Cole ended the negotiation entirely ( per Arfy’s quote above ) and closed the door to further discussion. It is already in the record so why are you debating this? Good for Arfy for fighting for what he feels he deserves but it has nothing to do with what Dr. Woods was talking about. What does have to do with this is that the consent forms that Arfy signed did not prevent him from speaking up.

“But it did prevent him from speaking for 8 years. You are arguing over a technicality. I do not believe you have read every informed consent form, from every Doctor, neither have I. Therefore Its reasonable to assume the thirty page ones from LA doctors are more legally binding than the 2 page ones from Europe each carry different levels of protection.”

I’m not debating over a technicality. It is the basis for this entire discussion. Dr. Woods specifically stated, and has so for years, that by signing an informed consent form that doctors are automatically given the right, and they exercise this right, to sue an unhappy patient for going online and saying they are unhappy.

These are his quotes in this very thread…

“So the patient will be located and told…”. Hey buddy…you were well aware things could go horribly wrong…you signed those 15 pages of apple like clauses and went into this with full disclosure and knowledge…and unfortunately for you, things went seriously wrong…very very sad…but don’t blame me or damage my reputation or practice by your unfortunate story or I am legally entitled to sue for defamation and financial loss to my business…"

“So sure, feel free to divulge, but expect a legal response with defamation and financial compensation demands …so”

“In other words, the patient went in with full knowledge and disclosure that a disaster may occur…so dont blame the doctor.
And if you do, he is in his legal right to sue you for defamation and damages to reputation/income etc.”

“There may not be a specific gag order, but if you talk, they sue…so, you don’t talk, hence…gag”

This is, and has been from the start, the focus of my challenge to Dr. Woods and is what I have disputed with direct evidence to the contrary so please stop trying to derail the point of this thread with more irrelevant information.

“The state of New South Wales does not currently require informed consent from hair transplant physicians however most of Doctor Woods associates use them whilst he does not, why do they use them if they do not have to?”

Incorrect. Informed consent is a requirement in every state of Australia.

"Review of State and Territory Legislation
Informed consent to medical treatment

10.48 ‘Informed consent’ refers to consent to medical treatment and the requirement to warn of material risk prior to treatment. As part of their duty of care, health professionals must provide such information as is necessary for the patient to give consent to treatment, including information on all material risks of the proposed treatment."

The six other hair transplant clinics in NSW (as listed at ISHRS.org) provide informed consent because it is part of the basics of medical ethics, as is the case in most parts of the world, and they are required to on the state and federal level. In many medical jurisdictions, if a doctor performs surgery on a (mentally) competent adult without informing them of potential complications or side effects then the doctor is not only contradicting basic medical ethics and breaking the law, he is open to criminal charges of battery.

I think what you are specifically referring to is SIGNED informed consent. THIS Is what is in question. Australian federal law does require a signature for invasive surgeries and it is left up to each state to determine this requirement and what constitutes “invasive”. In Western Australia, signed forms acknowledging informed consent are required for any procedure requiring local, regional or general anaesthesia.

"It is Department of Health policy that consent for treatment is obtained in writing, using an approved consent form for all surgical operations, and for all medical anesthetic, radiology or oncology procedures.

Written consent must also be obtained for:

surgical, medical, radiology, oncology and endoscopy treatments/procedures requiring:
general
regional
local anaesthesia"

FUE would qualify as requiring signed informed consent forms because it is both surgical and medical and it also requires local anaesthesia.

With regards to the state that Dr. Woods operates in, the specifics are more vague and is what I’m waiting to hear back on from the Australian Medical Council. I think the question may be one of invasiveness because FUE may not be considered invasive enough and it may also be one of pain management requirements.

But let’s not kid ourselves here. When Dr. Woods is talking about how he doesn’t require legal forms compared to his colleagues, he’s not talking about the six other clinics in NSW. He’s talking about North America, Europe and everywhere else.

53

Joe,

I honestly do not know which part of the below you do not understand
a direct quote from Arfy ;

April 2008: Johnnie McCarthan returned my phone calls with an offer of a $3,000 settlement (less than 10% refund) and I would be required to sign non-disclosure documents. I decline the offer. I’m not willing to sign a non-disclosure contract (requiring me to be silent about my terrible experience with Dr. Cole) for anything less than a full refund.

Thank you for your explanation of the term renege however I am familiar with the term, so your condescending and sarcastic reply is uncalled for

However not unexpected as this is how you try to elevate yourself and your position above others … epic fail !

You asked for proof of a simple consent form gagging a client and here it is

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry.html?id=97886&da=ASC&page=0&category=all&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC&be_page=1

This guy would appear to have been gagged by a informed consent form
He took the trouble to post and update then dissapeared?

Regards

54

Ejj,

I’m not trying to be condescending much less insulting but you keep reaching further and further away from the facts to defend your position. I’m quoting Arfy from THIS thread while you’re pulling up slices of his posts from over a year ago which only tell part of the story to begin with. Again, for the umpteenth time, what Arfy felt he could or could not do is not relevant to the issue. What is relevant are the claims by DR. WOODS HIMSELF that consent forms give doctors the legal right to sue their patients for the simple act of saying they are unhappy.

"You asked for proof of a simple consent form gagging a client and here it is

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry.html?id=97886&da=ASC&page=0&category=all&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC&be_page=1

This guy would appear to have been gagged by a informed consent form
He took the trouble to post and update then disappeared?"

You have provided no proof. The link you shared points to speculation and assumption; nothing more.

I think at this time I should remind you, again, that the discussion is about whether or not PRE-SURGICAL consent forms act as legal constraints that prevent patients from discussing their procedures if they have a bad outcome. It is about whether or not consent forms give doctors free reign to sue patients for defamation for the simple act of expressing their dissatisfaction with their procedure in an online format. For the third (or fourth?) time you are trying to talk about agreements that may or may not take place AFTER a bad result is realized with the intent of establishing a refund or other rectifying course of action.

THESE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES and are UNRELATED.

Please don’t be offended by my posts, Ejj. You are behind a keyboard. I have no problem with you because I do not know you but when we are discussing the points I bring up and my challenge to Dr. Wood’s statements I wish to remain on topic and not veer into debates based on carefully selected snippets of posts that are grossly out of context and made over one year ago. I’m simply waiting to hear back from the Australian Medical Council about what is required for FUE surgery and informed consent. Once I have that answer then I’m done with this thread. Also, we still don’t know what Dr. Woods tells his patients with regard to potential complications from his surgery (which is in fact required) and we still don’t know what size punches he uses. In fact, if a patient asks Dr. Woods about his punch sizes, he has to tell them as it is considered to be part of informed consent. Ask any other doctor these questions, and they’ll tell you immediately.

55

Joe,

Arfy and his Doctor reached a stalemate.

1 Below is the definition of a stalemate.

2 You said it was Doctor Coles decision to end negotiations, it was not, it was a stalemate.

Arfy refused to sign gagging orders unless he
gota full refund, his Doctor did not offer a full refund, only part = Stalemate.

No offence Joe however you are wrong, and you do not like being wrong.

You have no problem with me but I am only behind a keyboard what does this mean ? Do you expect me to post from

somewhere else ??

(1) stalematenoun [C or U] uk /ˈsteɪl.meɪt/ us /ˈsteɪl.meɪt/ › a situation in which neither group involved in an argument can win or get an advantage and no action can be taken: Tomorrow's meeting between the two leaders is expected to break a diplomatic stalemate that has lasted for ten years.

( 2 ) phone calls with an offer of a $3,000 settlement (less than 10% refund) and I would be required to sign non-disclosure documents. I decline the offer. I’m not willing to sign a non-disclosure contract
(requiring me to be silent about my terrible experience with Dr. Cole) for anything less than a full refund.

Moving on;

You have provided no proof. The link you shared points to speculation and assumption; nothing more.

I think at this time I should remind you, again, that the discussion is about whether or not PRE-SURGICAL consent forms act as legal constraints that prevent patients from discussing their procedures if they have a bad outcome. It is about whether or not consent forms give doctors free reign to sue patients for defamation for the simple act of expressing their dissatisfaction with their procedure in an online format.

I disagree. I think this is proof that this client has in fact been gagged by a simple PRE SURGICAL consent form.

I think the PRE SURGICAL consent form states all surgery carries a risk and that is what was signed, to that effect.

I think he voiced his displeasure and was warned to cease and desist otherwise he may be sued for defamation as Doctor Woods states

It is not an assumption I think it is quite clear, he has ONLY signed a `PRE SURGICAL consent form, before the procedure as legally required and this signed form has IN FACT acted as a gagging order as Doctor Woods stated in his first post

What else could it be ?

56

EJJ,

Arfy and his Doctor reached a stalemate.

1 Below is the definition of a stalemate.

2 You said it was Doctor Coles decision to end negotiations, it was not, it was a stalemate.

Arfy refused to sign gagging orders unless he
gota full refund, his Doctor did not offer a full refund, only part = Stalemate.

No offence Joe however you are wrong, and you do not like being wrong.

You have no problem with me but I am only behind a keyboard what does this mean ? Do you expect me to post from

somewhere else ??

(1) stalematenoun [C or U]
uk /ˈsteɪl.meɪt/ us /ˈsteɪl.meɪt/
› a situation in which neither group involved in an argument can win or get an advantage and no action can be taken:
Tomorrow’s meeting between the two leaders is expected to break a diplomatic stalemate that has lasted for ten years.

( 2 ) phone calls with an offer of a $3,000 settlement (less than 10% refund) and I would be required to sign non-disclosure documents. I decline the offer. I’m not willing to sign a non-disclosure contract
(requiring me to be silent about my terrible experience with Dr. Cole) for anything less than a full refund.

When one has to make things up to support their argument they have no more argument to support. Nowhere in Arfy’s 97 post thread did he say there was a stalemate. This is your word, not his, and by providing the definition of the word stalemate does not make it a stalemate. Arfy did say, in this thread that Dr. Cole “reneged”. I’m done discussing this with you because I won’t debate against fantasy.

"Moving on;

You have provided no proof. The link you shared points to speculation and assumption; nothing more.

I think at this time I should remind you, again, that the discussion is about whether or not PRE-SURGICAL consent forms act as legal constraints that prevent patients from discussing their procedures if they have a bad outcome. It is about whether or not consent forms give doctors free reign to sue patients for defamation for the simple act of expressing their dissatisfaction with their procedure in an online format.

I disagree. I think this is proof that this client has in fact been gagged by a simple PRE SURGICAL consent form.

I think the PRE SURGICAL consent form states all surgery carries a risk and that is what was signed, to that effect.

I think he voiced his displeasure and was warned to cease and desist otherwise he may be sued for defamation as Doctor Woods states

It is not an assumption I think it is quite clear, he has ONLY signed a `PRE SURGICAL consent form, before the procedure as legally required and this signed form has IN FACT acted as a gagging order as Doctor Woods stated in his first post

What else could it be ?"

Based on your logic? Any one of the three options below.

  1. I think he voiced his displeasure and was murdered.
  2. I think he voiced his displeasure and was kidnapped.
  3. I think he voiced his displeasure and he was abducted by aliens.

Your logic covers all three scenarios but it doesn’t make any one of them more likely. You don’t know, you are assuming, so don’t confuse that with proof. It’s irresponsible.

Earlier today I called an attorney I know that works at a fairly large multi-national firm. I asked him the following question.

“Does signing an informed consent form before hair transplant surgery give automatic rights for the hair transplant doctor to sue the patient if they speak negatively of their experience or of their results in any online format?”

His answer? “Not even close.” I then asked him to send me an email with his explanation so I could share it here. The personal information is removed for obvious reasons. If any of you doubt this then call up a lawyer and ask for yourself.

informedconsent.jpg2048×680

“Any argument that a patient is publically precluded from discussing his or her experience in a truthful way as a result of receiving informed consent is simply wrong”

What everyone reading this needs to understand is that informed consent was born out of the Nuremberg trials after WWII. During the trials the issue of human experimentation was reviewed which gave rise to the Nuremberg Code which in turn gave us informed consent. The American Medical Association acknowledges this…

“Informed Consent
The legal doctrine of informed consent can be traced back to the post-World War II Nuremburg Code, a set of guidelines drafted to ensure that unethical “medical” experiments were no longer carried out in the name of science. The doctrine is founded on the general principle that a person of the age of majority and sound mind has a legal right to determine what may be done to his or her body [1]. Thus, when a patient is subjected to a procedure he or she has not agreed to, the physician performing that procedure is violating the patient’s legal rights and may be subject to medical malpractice litigation, removal from preferred-provider lists, or the loss of hospital privileges.”

Informed consent is designed to protect you, the patient, not the doctor. In fact, if I were not given a form to state that the procedure was explained to me then I’d walk out the door as it puts the patient at risk if the doctor does something that was not agreed upon. It would be his word against mine. That is why it exists in the first place.

So when we take this back to Dr. Woods’s point about not requiring informed consent for his patients, I think that he is being disingenuous with the subject. If he really wanted to have something to brag about he would not only make informed consent with a signature standard practice in his clinic, he would also enter into a formal agreement, in writing, stating that if the patient is unhappy with their results for any reason, they are free to say as such online with no fear of legal retribution from him, whatsoever, and that this agreement supersedes any other forms the patient may have signed in the clinic that acknowledge informed consent. The patient signs, Dr. Woods signs, everyone wins.

57

Joe please show me were I SAID Arfy stated it was a stalemate?

I never said that Arfy used this term. I said this, as it is my opinion.

I will not allow you, to try to ram yours down my throat!

It is obvious to most (excluding you) that this was the FINAL outcome.

Please explain your comments ’ I am behind a keyboard’ what does this mean?

You are done ‘discussing this with me’

Well you would be because you are wrong, and that is what internet bullies do when they are proven wrong, they spit the dummy out of the pram AND LEAVE

Based on your logic? Any one of the three options below.

  1. I think he voiced his displeasure and was murdered.
  2. I think he voiced his displeasure and was kidnapped.
  3. I think he voiced his displeasure and he was abducted by aliens.

Your logic covers all three scenarios but it doesn’t make any one of them more likely. You don’t know, you are assuming, so don’t confuse that with proof. It’s irresponsible.

Earlier today I called an attorney I know that works at a fairly large multi-national firm. I asked him the following question.

“Does signing an informed consent form before hair transplant surgery give automatic rights for the hair transplant doctor to sue the patient if they speak negatively of their experience or of their results in any online format?”

His answer? “Not even close.” I then asked him to send me an email with his explanation so I could share it here. The personal information is removed for obvious reasons. If any of you doubt this then call up a lawyer and ask for yourself.

Very very silly here Joe.

I am using the balance of probabilities of which none of your examples are either realistic or likely.

You are employing deflection, something you often accuse others of doing.

Please stop as you are embarrassing yourself.

On the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES I am assuming Marcos PRE CONSENT SURGICAL FORM gagged him from speaking anymore, if you think any different then

YOU also are assuming, as YOU YOURSELF do not know either, YOU yourself have NO PROOF to the contrary! Therefore please explain why my assumptions are irresponsible but yours are not?

However you are entitled to an opinion and it would be nice to hear it, NOT YOUR ATTORNEYS, YOURS! …

Let me remind you of events in chronological order;

Marco books a date for surgery (at your ex employer) He has consulted earlier and all is ok, all explained, all is tickerty boo …

The morning of the procedure he signs the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM all explained in great detail all is tickerty boo …

He has a procedure goes home updates on several forums stating all is tickerty boo …

This continues for a few months then his scalp ‘dies it is necrosis’ all suddenly is ‘not’ tickerty boo …

He consults with his doctor and disappears after providing weekly updates … DISAPPEARED!!! aliens no? murdered no? kidnapped no? … Gagged … could be ???

So contrary to what you say Joe it is in fact reasonable to assume ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

that the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT gagged him. LOGIC DICTATES THIS …

What in your opinion, and feel free to ask your attorney friend for help if you are struggling with this one do YOU think happened?

As it looks to me that the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM gagged him which would support Doctor Woods claims and not yours!

Any argument that a patient is publically precluded from discussing his or her experience in a truthful way as a result of receiving informed consent is simply wrong

If the above is true then why do different doctors have different levels of informed consent, ranging from two pages to thirty?

I believe the above to be vague, Doctors can add whatever they wish to a consent form, I have read and signed ten, six completely different to the others.

We must remember though Joe is attacking Doctor Woods on a technicality.

If the above is true then it suggests other methods are employed to silence the client, what are they?

Are these even discussed at the consultation stage?

Is it the industry standard to sue patients who talk either with the pre surgical consent form or with something else?

I care not for your assault on Doctor Woods over a technicality, as we all know what he meant really, Doctors silence patients Joe fact !

With what, and when, does not matter. They bargain with the client to buy their silence, a disgusting and unethical way of conducting their business, and protecting their online reputation.

So when we take this back to Dr. Woods’s point about not requiring informed consent for his patients, I think that he is being disingenuous with the subject. If he really wanted to have something to brag about he would not only make informed consent with a signature standard practice in his clinic, he would also enter into a formal agreement, in writing, stating that if the patient is unhappy with their results for any reason, they are free to say as such online with no fear of legal retribution from him, whatsoever, and that this agreement supersedes any other forms the patient may have signed in the clinic that acknowledge informed consent. The patient signs, Dr. Woods signs, everyone wins.

Wow just wow! Not only does Doctor Woods provide monitors to enable the client to watch the extractions and count them, not only do they not need to sign any legal’s and Joe wants more! …

He really does not like this guy …

Joe no one would win…

It is clear to me Doctor Woods does not need to hide behind legal’s and attorneys, unlike many other doctors.

Doctors Woods clients are ALREADY FREE to say as much online without any legal fear of retribution from their doctor.

Please explain how this would benefit Doctor Woods and his clients?

Perhaps it may be a good idea to ask your OWN recommended doctors to adopt this practice … Just a thought as it may be beneficial to prospective clients

Were your plan is flawed big time Joe, is that the unhappy client may be offered a ‘free procedure’ or a ‘refund’ or ‘part refund’, and for them to

receive this, the doctor ‘may’ introduce more legal’s during the negotiations, effectively silencing the client to protect his online

reputation, thus making your ‘superseded disclaimer’ ‘null and void’ …

highly unethical

58

"I never said that Arfy used this term. I said this, as it is my opinion.

I will not allow you, to try to ram yours down my throat!"

But that’s the crux. It is not my opinion, it was Arfy’s, as stated in this thread and you are putting up your opinion against Arfy’s opinion regarding Arfy’s own experience. That doesn’t make sense.

“Please explain your comments I am behind a keyboard what does this mean?”

It means I don’t know you personally so you shouldn’t be taking anything I say as being personal but you appear to be taking it personally because of your smart and sarcastic remarks toward me.

"You are done discussing this with me

Well you would be because you are wrong, and that is what internet bullies do when they are proven wrong, they spit the dummy out of the pram AND LEAVE"

Ok. Thank you for your opinion.

On the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES I am assuming Marcos PRE CONSENT SURGICAL FORM gagged him from speaking anymore, if you think any different then
YOU also are assuming, as YOU YOURSELF do not know either, YOU yourself have NO PROOF to the contrary! Therefore please explain why my assumptions are irresponsible but yours are not?

I agree, you are assuming but I am not as I’ve presented evidence to support my position and the law regarding informed consent is the same in Canada as it is in the US. What is also not an assumption, and is a fact, is that informed consent forms do not act as gag orders which is what the point of this discussion has been from the start. The email I presented directly, specifically and completely invalidates the claim that informed consent forms are, by default, “gag orders”. This is not deflection, it is the very core of the discussion.

The rest of your post is far too long to quote/argue so I’ll summarize here. Informed consent is the law. Period. That is the case in the US, Canada, the EU, the UK as well as Australia. It is designed for one purpose; to allow patients to make decisions about their own bodies based on the idea that it is a basic human right to know what may be the rewards of the decision to have surgery as well as what may be the consequences of the decision to have surgery. The idea, that by signing a form acknowledging informed consent, somehow gives a doctor automatic rights to sue a patient for expressing their opinion about their own experience and results is ludicrous, whether it be for hair transplant surgery or having a tooth removed by a dentist. An informed consent form cannot supersede the 1st Amendment rights to free speech by a patient (in the US). What happens AFTER a procedure comes up short is another story altogether and is completely unrelated to the subject. You brought it up early in this thread and you are trying to bring it up now but as I said from the beginning, they are two separate issues and are unrelated.

Dr. Woods has made a claim. I challenged the claim and I’ve done so with facts that are verified by examples I’ve provided. Dr. Woods instead talked about reality television, mocked me, and called me names. In other words, he avoided the questions. You decided to get involved and you want to present your opinions as facts and your assumptions as proof and talk about subject matter that is unrelated to the topic at hand. You too wish to be personal and snarky about the issue but I’m not going to do the same in kind. It serves no constructive purpose and distracts from the points. And to be clear on this, I’m not expecting you to agree with me on any of these points and I’m not expecting you to concede anything. You absolutely are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I’ve presented multiple examples and references to support my position which is all I can really do.

What the readers should take away from this is that if they do have surgery the informed consent form will not take away any of their rights and it will not remove any barriers to putting them in legal trouble. In the unlikely event that there is some sort of pre-surgical non-disclosure form that specifically states you cannot talk about your upcoming surgery or results then put the form down and walk out. The first is for your safety and is required by law before surgery can commence. The second is not required and is not for your safety.

More to come as I follow the trail started by the email I received today from the Australian Medical Council.

59

But that’s the crux. It is not my opinion, it was Arfy’s, as stated in this thread and you are putting up your opinion against Arfy’s opinion regarding Arfy’s own experience. That doesn’t make sense.

My opinion is my opinion, I am not putting it up against anyone other than yours

It was not up to Arfy. Done.

You said Dr Cole ended it, I said it was a stalemate, Arfy said he would not agree to signing a gag order without a full refund, its simple really Joe in my opinion a stalemate as stated earlier

You said my opinion was fantasy?

You are a liar you have been caught lying and you do not like it.

Please can you run it by me again how your document you would like to impose on Doctor Woods works again?

He has no disclaimers clients can say what they want?

Joe wants to introduce a legal document on Doctor Woods (but none of his afiliated doctors) that enable them to go online and say whatever they want, pretty much like they can do already and have been able to for the last twenty years

Here is the definition of a liar from merriam-webster online whom I think you are familiar with ;

Full Definition of liar
: a person who tells lies

60

Joe,

Whilst your waiting for the Australians to come back to you, perhaps you

could take the time to answer this guys questions about Doctor Vories?

I note you managed to post an advertisement two days ago for an afiliated doctor but failed to answer the following questions.

You better be quick its already dropped onto the second page of obscurity,its been left unanswered for a while,2 weeks in fact, mentor him Joe, reply to the guys question

to neograft or not to neograft that is the question?

Why exactly did your affiliation end? I am expecting a vague, politically correct non- answer, from the hair transplant mentor/liar

05-25-2016 08:25 PM #1
JoeTillman

Doctor Representative
Join Date
Jul 2014
Location
Canada
Posts
392
Dr. Lupanzula, One on One Meetings, London, July 30th

Dr. Lupanzula of Medikemos Hair Restoration in Brussels will be in London on Saturday, July 30th for one on one meetings. You’ll get to meet Dr. Lupanzula in person and learn more about his approach to follicular unit extraction.
To reserve your spot contact info@medikemosclinic.com.
Joe Tillman
The original Hair Transplant Mentor

Currently Affiliated With-

  • Dr. Emorane Lupanzula
  • Dr. Jerry Cooley
  • Dr. Bernard Arocha
  • Dr. Ron Shapiro
  • Beauty Medical Tricopigmentation
    Reply With Quote
  • Reply to Thread
    Quick Navigation Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic Top

Joe posts his advert, but fails to answer the questions below !

Originally Posted by boldat25
Joe did anything ever become of this?
No.
Joe Tillman
The original Hair Transplant Mentor

Currently Affiliated With-

  • Dr. Emorane Lupanzula
  • Dr. Jerry Cooley
  • Dr. Bernard Arocha
  • Dr. Ron Shapiro
  • Beauty Medical Tricopigmentation
    Reply With Quote
    05-15-2016 07:46 PM #10
    smrcalidiv

Junior Member
Join Date
Sep 2015
Posts
5

Quote Was something wrong, or it just didn’t work out?
Reply With