Desirehair,

I also want to address a few comments you made that are nonsensical:

On what basis do you make the above claim? NeoGraft increases the number of potential candidates for FUE compared to what...previous generation NeoGraft machines?

You've already claimed for example, that you have no experience with Dr. Feller's new FUE tool. I also suspect you haven't compared the NeoGraft machine to all other FUE tools in the world. Thus, there's no way you can make the above bold claim in comparision to tools you haven't evaluated. And since you haven't listed what you're comparing NeoGraft to, this claim makes no sense.

I'm not referring to each type of procedure as an "approach". I'm referring to the multiple approaches and methods used to perform each step of each procedure. With FUT for instance, there's varying "approaches" to harvesting the donor strip, slivering and dissecting follicular units, storing the grafts outside of the body and for how long, making recipient incisions and inserting the grafts into recipient sites. With FUE, there's multiple approaches to extracting the follicles, whether or not they require further trimming, making recipient sites, inserting the grafts, etc.

The claims I've seen from various NeoGraft affiliates are seemingly different. Your company appears to be promoting the the NeoGraft machine as a single "do it all" and seemingly flawless approach to FUE. I'm not disputing these claims, but such bold claims need to be backed up with substantial proof.

I recognize that some of my statements above are conclusions not solely based on just your input, but claims I've read about NeoGraft from here and elsewhere by your associates. Thus, if the above statements are incorrect, now is the time to set the record straight.

Regards,

Bill

__________________
Managing Publisher of the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog and the Hair Loss Forum and Social Community

View our hair loss articles on EZineArticles.com

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Subscribe to our Newsletters | How We Recommend Physicians

-----

To learn about how I restored my hair, view my my hair loss website.

Remember, true beauty radiates from within, not from the skin.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.

Bill,
This will be my last post about NeoGraft to your forum for a while. Perhaps if things change??¦.. then maybe I will post again. As I said before in several former posts any information given does not seem to get taken in and you return to your original position regardless of the facts or any explanations given to the contrary. There is also speculation and jumping to conclusions about things never said. I cannot see how we can have fruitful dialogue in this forum under these conditions. For example, your comment in your last post and I quote:

'I have no problem with you debating Dr. Feller regarding the use of your machine. But whether you agree with it or not, he has provided a genuine and honest critique of your devise. You're now upset about it because a well respected physician isn't standing behind your machine 100%.'

I have pointed out in about 3 or 4 posts in different sections of this forum that Dr. Feller has never seen NeoGraft perform a hair transplant using our full Pneumatic Pressure technique, yet he chose to make negative comments (critique) about NeoGraft without ever having seen our device in action. His critique was based as I said before on pure speculation as his comments were totally incorrect. I keep pointing out over and over again that negative comments made about NeoGraft without ever having observed NeoGraft perform the procedure criticized is not something done in 'good faith' nor is the critique 'genuine' or 'honest ' as you want your readers to believe. Regardless of how many times I have pointed this out in other posts you continue to ignore the real facts that Dr. Feller has never seen NeoGraft do a procedure using the full Pneumatic method and you continue to claim his negative comments were 'honest, and genuine'. Furthermore, you want your readers to believe there is a healthy debate going on with Dr. Feller about NeoGraft. How can we have a debate about a procedure he has never seen? The purpose of my posts has been to point out these facts, not to debate, but I cannot seem to make this clear to anyone. We are going around in circles here as though there is some kind of dialogue to be had about NeoGraft under these circumstances. No dialogue is possible in this framework.

Your next comment and I quote: 'It is you who have come to this forum to promote the NeoGraft machine. ' This comment is not accurate. I never came to promote the NeoGraft machine. A doctor who is using our NeoGraft device and is very happy with it discovered Dr. Feller's harsh negative comments about our device on your site and pointed these comments out to me. I came to your site to explain that Dr. Feller had never seen our machine and so his negative comments were not based on any facts. This doctor also pointed out to me Dr. Feller had recently launched his own device. I have no interest in promoting the NeoGraft machine on any forum. My interest is for doctors to come and see the machine do live procedures so that the doctors can judge NeoGraft for themselves. That is why we are doing 4-5 live demonstrations every month throughout the United States. However, no one on this site wants to address the fact that negative comments were made about NeoGraft before seeing Neograft do a procedure. This fact is ignored and then as I have so many times pointed out the negative comments about NeoGraft are classified as 'honest, and genuine' comments.

Your next comment and I quote: 'if you have no evidence that the previous generation NeoGraft machines worked, how can you expect us to blindly trust their successor'? This comment is an incorrect assumption . What was there in my previous comments about NeoGraft that makes you think we do not have evidence that the previous generation of NeoGraft worked? The previous generations worked very well and continue to work and be used by their owners. It is like an older model car. They continue to work, but there are always some improvements that can be made to newer models. Your comment and I quote: 'Learning to take genuine and constructive criticism by reputable hair restoration physicians is the basis for further innovation.' We are willing to take constructive and genuine criticism, however, although Dr. Feller is a reputable hair restoration physician and he does excellent work with patients his criticism was not 'genuine' nor 'constructive', because as I said, he had never seen the NeoGraft device when he made his harsh negative comments. He made his comments in March 2009 and he did not see our machine till several months later, and then he saw a totally different procedure than the one he criticized. The procedure he saw worked very well. (These comments I am making I have said over and over again in this post and in other posts.)

This back and forth dialogue has gone on for too long. It is a simple matter of clarifying with Dr. Feller the dates of when he wrote his comments and when he first observed NeoGraft. Why not ask him to give you the timeline. That should settle this discussion once and for all and put an end to it.

In answer to your question:
'NeoGraft increases the number of potential candidates for FUE compared to what...previous generation NeoGraft machines?......... there's no way you can make the above bold claim in comparision to tools you haven't evaluated. And since you haven't listed what you're comparing NeoGraft to, this claim makes no sense.'

In the comment I made you are referring to, I was not comparing NeoGraft to other tools or previous machines but to the manual FUE technique. In general, I have not been comparing NeoGraft to other tools in the posts on your forum or anywhere else, but only to the manual FUE technique. Our goal with NeoGraft was to improve the outcome of a manual FUE and not to compare NeoGraft to other tools. We will leave that to the doctors. When something is unclear in my posts there is no need to call my comments 'nonsensical.' I am happy to clarify anything which was not clear in my post. In giving information about NeoGraft we have stated that NeoGraft uses positive and negative pneumatic pressure, allowing a "no touch, no handling, no use of tweezers" method for the grafts. This is also stated as a comparison to the Manual FUE technique and not in comparison to other tools. I cannot speak of other tools I have not seen and I do not think Dr. Feller should have commented about NeoGraft, until he had seen NeoGraft do the procedure he commented on.

I do agree with your comment 'Because even if you put the best tool in the hands of an unskilled surgeon, poor results are inevitable.' NeoGraft is a tool in a doctor's hand. However it is a tool which considerably improves the quality of work compared to doing a manual FUE procedure. Transections are greatly reduced and the process is speeded up, compared to manual FUE. At our demonstrations doctors are personally able to view the grafts which are harvested, including any that were transected. They also view the grafts being implanted. As I said in other posts we are doing everything to be open and transparent. Finally, as I explained in my previous post we are working hard to grow our pictorial portfolio. This takes time, as we are new to the U.S. and do not want to publish results from doctors in other countries, but from doctors that Americans can contact in their own country. This is why we do live demonstrations. We believe this is as good as or maybe better than any pictures. Doctors can follow up on the patients to see the progression of the results of the NeoGraft procedure as the demonstrations are done in the same location where the patients and the doctors reside .

As I said, I am signing off for a while. I cannot continue to repeat the same information over and over again and keep getting the same unresponsive response. Hopefully we can discuss another topic at a later date.

__________________
------------

I am affiliated with NeoGraft as a consultant and investor

Desirehair,

Why you operate under the assumption that nobody can have or express an opinion or concern about NeoGraft prior to seeing a live demonstration is beyond me. Don't scientists form educated opinions (hypotheses) before conducting experiments? These opinions are then either reinforced or changed based on the data of an experiment. Similarly, someone may form and express an opinion of NeoGraft based on the knowledge of how it works and later have it reinforced or changed after seeing a live demonstration of your machine. So who cares if Dr. Feller presented his honest critique of your machine prior to seeing it live? In my opinion, you would have done far better to address Dr. Feller's concerns head on rather than attempt to discredit and call them "harsh" based on some faulty notion that his initial educated opinion is invalid.

You said:

"What was there in my previous comments about NeoGraft that makes you think we do not have evidence that the previous generation of NeoGraft worked?"

Then you said:

"Finally, as I explained in my previous post we are working hard to grow our pictorial portfolio. This takes time, as we are new to the U.S. and do not want to publish results from doctors in other countries, but from doctors that Americans can contact in their own country. "

The fact that you don't (or won't) present photo evidence from physicians outside the US showing the success of NeoGraft FUE procedures is the answer to your question in the first quote above. You've had 10 years to collect and present photos demonstrating the success of your previous generation machines. I think you've had enough time.

You address this by claiming that you feel compelled to collect enough evidence from American doctors of success before presenting them. Why? If physicians outside of the US have had success, why not present photos? Results are results!

You continue to act as if I'm claiming NeoGraft doesn't work. All I'm doing is calling you out on the obvious inconsistencies and problems with your posts. You came here with an accusatory attitude wanting to dismiss Dr. Feller's opinion instead of simply addressing them head on.

And I apologize...perhaps YOU personally didn't come here to promote NeoGraft, but representatives of your company did several months ago. I believe the first guy's name was "Doug Monty" who initially plastered our community with promotional links in violation of our terms of service. Admittedly, he did a much better job after I called him out on it and discussed our forum policies with him privately. Nevertheless, the "you" I'm referring to is your company, whom you represent, not "you" personally.

I am still interested in seeing a live demonstration of the NeoGraft machine and will continue to keep an open mind (despite the fact that you keep accusing me of holding an anti-NeoGraft position).

Regards,

Bill

__________________
Managing Publisher of the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog and the Hair Loss Forum and Social Community

View our hair loss articles on EZineArticles.com

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Subscribe to our Newsletters | How We Recommend Physicians

-----

To learn about how I restored my hair, view my my hair loss website.

Remember, true beauty radiates from within, not from the skin.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.