Bald-Georgie

I was expecting Maeve Duhy or Chris Atrill to be sufficiently worried by my posts to escalate the matter through the ranks, even to the CEO himself as it happens! What was that you were saying about libellous? You've absolutely no idea who I am, much to your extreme frustration as you can't deal with me in the way that you'd like. That's strange because Maeve Duhy concluded on the strength of my posts that I seem to be a very intellectual person with a vast knowledge of the Advanced Hair Studio. You appear to be claiming that the ban was as a result of a technicality because your proof was only available after the advert first commenced. I've just been reading through the ASA literature and I phoned the ASA on Friday to check. This is not how they operate. It's what evidence the advertiser can provide during the investigation. The ruling does say that the FDA clearance was used in your defence, but the complaint was upheld because "AHS had sent no evidence to show that AHS-FP could stop or reverse hair loss". It was nothing to do with a timing issue or a technicality. The ruling also says that "AHS believed their laser was technically superior to the FDA approved laser comb and said they might be in a position to substantiate re-growth claims for AHS-FP in the future". This indicates recognition by AHS that Lexington's FDA clearance would not be sufficient to satisfy the ASA for their future advertising, otherwise they'd be in such a position now. I'm a very keen soccer (and rugby) fan and have never seen any independent photos that show Hartson having achieved a good growth, even those that date back to the period that he was promoting the treatment. It's amazing what a bit of net surfing can reveal, and my research tells me that he started the treatment at West Ham and was still promoting it at Celtic. During this period he played for Wimbledon and Coventry. Here are two of many photos from his Coventry days, showing this "very good result" to which you allude. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/1435319.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/1394984.stm How could I have doubted you! I thought that might be the explanation although it is usually that he shaved his head whilst at Celtic, and so just APPEARS to be bald. If he was concerned enough to commence the treatment in the first place and if the results were so impressive, I wonder why he discontinued his treatment in its support form. Seems very strange to me. It's only libellous if it's not true, and it's the threat of legal that puts most people off saying this openly. I'm confident that I can back up my assertions, and you gave no explanation for the disparity of hair between the two photos taken around a similar time. Or why he is now receding so badly despite your treatment having regrown all of his lost hair. I suppose that despite the amazing results, he too decided to let it all fall out again? Incidentally, why doesn't Tony Lockett seem to have much hair either? Is he yet another of your clients who achieved fantastic results but decided to let it all fall out again? That suits me, although I was looking forward to hearing your justification for gagging people with your release forms or why you charge such a disproportionate amount for your hairpieces. But I wasn't holding out much hope, especially as you're so reluctant to even admit that your hair replacement is a hairpiece. There's a big fallacy in this as if I had a clear agenda to cause as much damage as possible, why have I not done so already and why have I published here only a fraction of what I know? I could do you serious damage if I so choose. Do say so if you don't believe me and I'll post some more proof. You mean your posts aren't cast-iron arguments that no one could possibly counter? But probably a very wise move on your part. Sounds like one conspiracy theory too many to me! You don't think these are simply people who feel they were exploited and cheated, and should at least be allowed the dignity of having their say without being smeared? As you know, I didn't say it "had appeared"; I said it was about to appear. If only I did have the gift of clairvoyance, or at least if I'd had the foresight to do my research first. I would never have gone to Advanced Hair Studio. I wish I could claim some credit for the BBC programme, but alas I can't. That would be taking away the credit from those who truly deserve it. To answer your question, try any of these. 1. The BBC does actually release details of programmes in advance, and it was only 2 days before, not 2 months. It's not such a closely guarded secret. 2. I expect that they contacted a large number of unhappy clients on their books whilst doing their research, so it's wouldn't be a great surprise that someone who regularly reads these forums should find out. 3. I have already admitted that I have significant inside information, so maybe I found out about it from AHS themselves. There was no black magic or sleight-of-hand involved in me finding out marginally ahead of its broadcast. It's been very rare for me to post myself until recently, when I saw what Maeve Duhy and Chris Atrill were doing. I've obviously got you rattled and worried, but you don't have to be. Just let people have their say in peace without smearing them or using intimidation tactics against them or the forum owners, and I promise I'll never post again.

Thanks Nivea. It made a fascinating read. What struck me is: - I've been monitoring these forums for a long time now and 99% of what I've seen about Advanced Hair Studio is bad, often scathing. Yet here we have 4 people extravagantly singing their praises in a single thread! - Just how reminiscent these posts are of AHS' own spiel and promotional material - The two most recent posts on that forum are 21 & 23 June, and Maeve Duhy was posting on this Hair Restoration forum on 22 June! Sorry Maeve, but I think you'll recognise everyone's right to form their own opinion, and you can guess mine!

Grav15 ??“ If it's true that they know who you are, don't be too worried. I can tell you that they rely on the mere threat of legal to be sufficient to frighten most people, and they'd only follow it through as a very last resort, for fear of bad publicity and for fear of losing. But if they do take action against you because you've dared to speak out, let me know and I'll post everything I have on them on the Internet. You can use much of it in your defence. What I've posted so far is just the tip of the iceberg. And if it's not true that you're a "bogus competitor", you should counter-sue for defamation. You see, Maeve Duhy, I feel that people should be allowed to have their say on these forums without having their motives muddied and without facing threats of legal action. The only reason why I joined in was because I was appalled to see what you & Chris Atrill were doing. If you want to answer specific criticisms about your operating practices (a justification for gagging people with your release forms or why you charge so much for your hairpieces would be a good start), then great. Otherwise why don't you just let people have their say in peace rather than acting like a bunch of bully boys, especially as you know that most of what is written is not only true, but is barely scratching the surface. And then I will be happy to keep my nose out of your affairs. Yes, I know I'm playing with fire. But so are you, and you have a lot more to lose than me.

This can only be interpreted as an acknowledgement that most if not all of what I've written is actually true, since otherwise you'd be concluding the complete opposite. Thanks for the admission! Given that you make the same accusation about a great many other critics, I doubt whether this is your honest opinion. It's more likely that this is your defamatory way of undermining me as a valid complainant. But yes, I could be a rival as opposed to a former client. But there are other possibilities. I could be a former consultant who couldn't hack having to lie, thieve and cheat, and have decided to speak out despite the strong confidentiality clauses in my contract. Or I could even be a stylist. Either of these could explain my extensive inside information. There, that's got you worried! I expected this request, and I'm surprised it was so long in coming. The real reason why you want me to contact you is so you can find out who I am. And once you know my identity, well, we both know what would happen next ... So nice try, and there you were describing me as being a very intellectual person! As a word of warning, should I ever receive any threatening letters from your solicitors, they will be posted on every Internet forum and distributed to every member of the media and every fair trading department within every country that you operate, along with everything that I know. You are in a better position, I grant you that. But you're not honest about the true level of dissatisfaction or the number of clients demanding their money back, suing or threatening to sue at any given time. Not all dissatisfied clients come to you anyway. Some won't even speak out; others don't get past the being-fobbed-off-by-the-consultant stage. Yet there's an ethos that it's reasonable to assume that anyone who doesn't come to you demanding their money back should be deemed satisfied. Get one of your satisfied strand by strand clients to post on this thread, explaining why he is so happy to have an Asian toupee glued to his scalp. Then I'll tell him where and how they're made, just how little Advanced pay for them, and just how easily he could get a much better model at a much cheaper price. I'll explain why the hair is so thick and coarse, because you've skimped on cost by using Asian hair rather than fine European hair. I'll also explain why the colour fades so rapidly, turning a shade of red. I'll see if they know why a lace front doesn't come as standard when surely it should do for the price they're being charged. And when he finally realises that he's been paying well, well, well over the odds for this "revolutionary hair replacement procedure", we'll see what effect this has on the satisfaction-ometer. There can be no question that the level of satisfaction within the Advanced client base, whether it be high or low, relies heavily on clients not being aware of the full facts. I don't question that you try to act courteously throughout and don't literally tell clients to sod off, as it helps to maintain the face of respectability. But it's true (and I see you didn't deny this) that when a client comes to you claiming to have been deceived, threatening to take action if they're not refunded, you refute all accusations, refusing to agree to their demands and accusing them of blackmail. This to me constitutes the proverbial sod off. It needs the client to be persistent or for them to pose a threat before you'll refund. Even then the offer is typically only half of their money, leaving them significantly out of pocket and Advanced still with a handsome profit should they accept, with the client successfully gagged by your release form. No, no confusion as I don't work for another company, and I know very well how Advanced operate.

Chris Atrill We both know that Advanced have a large number of clients who quite rightly feel aggrieved and deceived. Therefore it's easy enough to work out that these criticisms are genuine rather than being some kind of conspiracy organised by competitors. People speaking out in this way is clearly a concern for Advanced as they use two of their standard tactics to combat it ??“ intimidate or discredit. I'm know of website owners and individuals who have suffered threats of legal action if they don't remove criticism of Advanced, and consequently much valuable comment has sadly been removed. So if someone who feels they were deceived does contact you as you suggest, then what? You know the idea of refunding money hurts Advanced so much, and it only happens if they feel it is a sensible business decision to buy someone out. If someone's had a bad experience with a company, then forewarning others is a very constructive move. If only more were willing to speak out and if only more did proper research before signing up. If you wanted to engage the services of a company, you would welcome the opportunity to hear the experiences of others before making such a decision. But what if this company attempted to prevent you from receiving such feedback by utilising the same tactics that Advanced do? You'd decide that it's a company best not to get involved with, I'm sure. If you feel you can justify and defend the way you operate, then do so here on this forum, for everyone to read. Try this for a starter: why are all refunds made conditional on the signing of a release form, forbidding those from speaking publicly about their experience? What do you feel the need to do this? Surely this is hardly the action of an honest and up-front company who have full faith in the legitimacy of the manner in which they operate? So I'm looking forward to hearing your justification, but I won't be holding my breath!

Good on ya, Parable. This is all too typical of them. If someone dares to speak out, Advanced Hair Studio's response is to see how they can silence or discredit them rather than seeing the errors of their ways. Please do publish their lawyers' e-mail, word for word, for the rest of us to read. If everyone did this, maybe they'll think twice before employing such tactics of intimidation.

Maeve Duhy I know a lot about the company that you represent, and despite your attempts to paint the face of respectability, you are the worst outfit that I've ever had the misfortune to become involved with. Advanced is a company driven by greed, with very few scruples to hold them back. It almost seems that there's a certain gratification about trying to shaft customers in whatever way they can think of, and they never fail to amaze me of the depth to which they will stoop. It's well documented about how AHS screw the vulnerable for thousands for a cheap Asian toupee, by dressing it up as a revolutionary strand-by-strand procedure that "replaces your hair the same way that you lost it". Or how they charge thousands for Minoxidil by combining it with unproven laser and serenoa. But their unethical behaviour stoops much lower than this. Want me to list a few examples? I've heard a number of instances where clients have been asked to tell others that the laser treatment has worked for them when it did not. I know one laser client who was promised s-by-s if laser didn't work, but then Advanced wanted another grand due to an increase in "supplier's costs", even though these hairpieces only cost Advanced a 2-figure sum to purchase. I could go on all day, and some of what I know shows a very DARK side to this company. But I am aware that anyone who crosses them needs to be very careful, and I don't want to push my luck. Much has been said about refunds here, and this is one of the areas in which they really show their true colours. What hasn't been mentioned is that they only give a refund if the client signs a "release form" agreeing to keep their mouth shut. In other words, the refund is a way of buying the cooperation and silence of those who could potentially be a threat. Although you've openly invited dissatisfied clients to contact you, Ms Duhy, what do you do when a client claims to have been deceived and wants a refund, something that happens FAR more frequently that you'll care to admit? It's your standard policy to tell them to sod off, accusing them of trying to blackmail the company! As we all know, the FDA has recently granted a clearance (yes that's "clearance", not "approval") for the Lexington Hairmax Lasercomb. But this is purely for Lexington's device, and not for any similar device. It's up to each individual company to provide their own evidence and seek their own clearance. Yet this hasn't stopped AHS from issuing an international press release just this month claiming the FDA "approval" to be a vindication that their laser works as claimed. Disgraceful! Is it true that the British Advertising Standards has just banned yet another of your adverts www.asa.org.uk, refusing to accept Lexington's FDA clearance as proof? In your defence, you claim to have thousands of satisfied clients worldwide, but as has already been said, anyone who doesn't formally complain is deemed to be "satisfied". But what would be the level of satisfaction if clients knew the REAL truth about what they are getting? Close to 0%, maybe? But I'm sure that soccer player John Hartson is a satisfied client, certainly with the amount he was paid to promote the laser treatment. Whether he's happy with the results is somewhat more questionable. http://www.celtichorizontours.com/celtichorizon/Images/...20John%20Hartson.jpg And Austin Healey is so satisfied with his results that he's taken to wearing one of their hairpieces from time to time. Here are two photos taken of him at a similar time, one as a still for the club website, the other of him in action. http://www.tigers.co.uk/31_284.php?PHPSESSID=7ba13daf9476af5d9db http://www.tigers.co.uk/29_4764.php So here's your spot-the-wig competition. Answers to maeveduhy@advancedhairstudio.com or 02920 227 285

See exposures on BBC Watchdog and their NZ advert on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwWp5mlGtZU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAKpwsmq6Wk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMemogg4kI

Some great news for all those worldwide who feel aggrieved with Advanced Hair Studio. In Britain, hard-hitting investigative programme BBC Watchdog are about to broadcast an exposure of their Strand-by-Strand procedure, portrayed as a revolutionary hair replacement procedure but is really an extremely expensive but cheaply made hairpiece. For those in Britain it will be broadcast on Tuesday 30th January.

Some great news for all those worldwide who feel aggrieved with Advanced Hair Studio. In Britain, hard-hitting investigative programme BBC Watchdog are about to broadcast an exposure of their Strand-by-Strand procedure, portrayed as a revolutionary hair replacement procedure but is really an extremely expensive but cheaply made hairpiece. For those in Britain it will be broadcast on Tuesday 30th January.