Does someone belife this result

[arpma]

http://www.4hair.com.au/page3.html

[arpma]

http://www.4hair.com.au/page3.html

[arfy]

Sure, why not?

 

He still has almost all of his original hair in the crown, before the transplant. He is only getting a limited area transplanted. And by combing his hair straight back, he can camoflage any less-dense grafted areas in the middle scalp. Most of those grafts are in the front, I presume.

 

The photos are not high-quality, but I don't doubt them.

[Guest]

it's apparent each person dyed their hair it

almost looks like to match the couvre and topic

better.

[arfy]

Figsy

Look at the photos of George again. In the 'before' and 'after' the rooms are completely different. Believe it or not, that green room could influence the overall color of the pics.

 

Also, George does not have a huge bald area to cover. All the work is being done in the front.

 

Saying a doctor alters their before and after photographs, is a serious charge. Are you saying you think Dr. Woods is a cheater and a con man...?

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree. The photos are poor quality (but not the worst I've seen) and I think they are authentic.

[Guest]

You guys got my curiousity up, so I took another look at the photos on the Woods website. They use a common technique to distort the results, overexposing the Before photos and underexposing the After photos. This has the effect of making the results look much better than they actually are. The Woods photos are probably the most blatant example of this that I have seen. In fact, they have manipulated the exposure to the point that it's hard to judge the results at all. I don't have much to say about Dr. Woods results either pro or con, but IMO a doctor doing quality HT work should not need to resort to manipulating their photos to make their results look good. Of course this is just my $.02, so take another look and judge for yourself.

[JEBSTER]

With out a doubt, the photo's which are apparently taken in a way to over state the density that is possible with only 2,200 hairs. 7 months is a fairly short period to achieve enough length or thickness of individual hairs to get the amount of coverage depicted. Review other photos of individuals with simular hairloss who received 2, 3, and 4 hair FU's with far more grafts and you will understand that 1,100 grafts(1 and 2 hairs to equal 2,200 hairs)will not give a top view reflecting that much density! The photo was shot in a manner to give a maximum affect of low reflective light that normally gives thinner hair a less see through appearance. This is Photography 101!! The first photo on the other hand was taken to accent the maximum amount of light to depict greater hairloss. In the world of photography, use of just such a green backdrop and controlled exposure often gives the desired result which is a type of illusion. I have spent some time in the darkroom working in forensics and we often saw remarkable things that truly trick the eye!! Jebster

[Guest]

While I am sure Woods is able to achieve density as great as other HT surgeons, and his procedure may be the best in the world, it is sad that he resorts to such obvious and manipulative photographic tricks to exaggerate his results. If he is proud of his results, why would he feel the need to resort to tricks? The use of such blatantly deceptive comparison photos (overexposed before vs. underexposed after) is bound to hurt his credibility. Unfortunately, it will draw in the gullible. His patients will arrive with unrealistic expectations, expecting a thick head of hair. When they don't get it, they will be very disappointed. I expect this type of dishonest marketing to backfire. While it is great to avoid the trauma, pain, numbness, scar, tight scalp and other problems associated with strip excision, I don't believe the results in the recipient area can be expected to be any greater than a top notch (all follicular unit) surgeon. o

[Guest]

Here are three excerpts from Wood's website, in quotes:

 

"THE STRIP EXCISION We believe excessive skin and tissue removal can 'stretch out' the remaining skin and 'thin out' the posterior hair."

 

"Cutting thick soft flesh into ....single follicles can be very tedious and we believe it can be very traumatic to the hair follicles. There are limitations on how finely and consistently a blade can be used to cut this soft thick tissue and for practical reasons, larger 'bites' are often required. Hence one can have rectangular grafts containing 4 and up to 8 hairs per graft. We consider such grafts cosmetically unacceptable. Larger grafts are responsible for the 'Tuffty, toothbrush or dolls hair' appearance."

 

"When a very large number of punctures are made into the scalp there can be Intrusion upon and demise of pre-existing hair. Hence the common complaint of, "after my transplant operation a lot of my natural hair has fallen out around the graft, making the graft stand out." Some of this loss would have occurred anyway but trauma to the scalp through excessive hole punching or slits (scalp shock) is also responsible."

 

Woods procedure appears to be excellent, with real and significant advantages over SE (strip excision). However, if he expects to be taken seriously, he should portray the these advantages accurately. He puts forth a very inaccurate description of the differences. Here are three blatant examples:

 

1. Thinning in donor area. Of course, SE thins out the hair in the donor area by stretching the skin. But he clearly implies that somehow his method of removing hundreds of individual hairs does not thin out the donor area. The only thing he can do is spread out the thinning over a wider area. That is a slight advantage, but he apparently wants us to believe he can remove hairs without thinning the donor area. He certainly knows better. How stupid does he think we are? Removing hairs=fewer hairs=thinned out donor area. (While he can transplant hair from the chest to the head, leaving more hair on the head, I don't believe the typical patient is desperate enough to resort to this.)

 

2. He wants you to believe that any other surgeon will give you "doll hair". While does not come right out and say it, he implies that there are no surgeons who use only follicular units except for him. While most surgeons ARE probably still using outdated "minigraft" techniques, Woods does not admit to the existence of the many all-FU surgeons who NEVER use "mimigrafts". Again, he obviously knows better, but he doesn't want the visitors to his website to fully informed so TRUE comparisons can be made.

 

3. He says "excessive hole punching or slits" causes shock loss of existing hair. OF course, that can happen. But, he ALSO must make a hole for every FU he inserts. Does he somehow punch a hole in a special way so it doesn't cause trauma? What is he saying? Does he put in fewer grafts per square inch, resulting in thin coverage but avoiding "excessive" hole punching? Is it just the "excessive" punching, i.e., packing the FU's more densely than he does that causes shock loss?

 

While it seems that Woods has developed a superior HT technique, it is sad to see him resort to deceptive marketing. If he really is the ONE to lead the rest of the world's surgeons into the next "state of the art" procedure, he should be up front and honest in his advertising. It seems to me that accurately describing the REAL differences would be enough to convince people. Why would an "wonderful and honest" (to quote others) surgeon resort to this type of unfair characterization of the "competition"? I might have gone to Woods if I would have known about him earlier and could have afforded it, but THIS STUFF TURNS ME OFF. If he knows his descriptions are deceptive, which he must, than it is a reflection on his character. CHARACTER MATTERS. "??

[Guest]

Excellent post. I agree 100%

[arfy]

I think Woods' website is not-so-great. But I would never suggest it is because Woods is trying to con people. Supposedly Woods is working on an updated site. And also I have heard people suggest that guys should request a copy of his videotape, which is supposed to be a better representation.

 

Regarding Doug H's #3: Most FU doctors create the recipient sites all at once, which is allegedly more traumatic than what Dr. Woods does: Creating each recipient site individually, only when a graft is ready to be placed.

[JEBSTER]

Often I here noise about how marketing and consultant techniques are unethical and how they should be against the law; however, I don't see the difference in what Wood's is doing in his web presentation and the other alleged unethical practices. Once a man has lied or misrepresented the truth...a new video or package is not going to increase his character. Words mean things fellows and always have! Jebster

[arfy]

Jebster, you are really a confused guy.

 

You really ripped into me for saying consultants should be banned. You ripped into me for saying clinics should not be allowed to advertise surgery on TV.

 

Then you turn around and say "I don't see the difference in what Wood's is doing in his web presentation and the other alleged unethical practices."

 

If you "don't see a difference", why are you slamming the hell out of me one day, then turning around and saying Woods is wrong the next?

 

Duh?

 

[This message was edited by arfy on June 04, 2002 at 04:44 AM.]

[Guest]

Concerning Wood's statement about trauma-induced shock loss: His website says it is due to "excessive" hole-punching. He is clearly talking talking about numbers, not timing. You used the word "allegedly". Who is alleging? Not Dr. Woods, at least not on the website. Maybe there is a slight decrease in shock loss when only poking 500 holes a day, instead of 1,000-3,000 a day. If so, it may be "alleged", but I doubt if it is proven. Anyway, if I were a satisfied patient of Dr. Woods (as they all seem to be), I would be upset to see him resort to these tactics. A first class surgeon should use a first class marketing strategy. r

 

[This message was edited by doug h on June 04, 2002 at 02:21 PM.]c

 

[This message was edited by doug h on June 04, 2002 at 02:21 PM.]

[arfy]

Doug

I believe Dr. Woods has mentioned the trauma of creating all of the recipient sites at once...maybe I heard him say that on Spencer's radio show? I don't remember where I got that from, as there is quite a bit of information on Woods being circulated from sources other than this site.

[Guest]

Fair enough. However, in a way, you make my point for me, that the website itself is unclear (and I believe purposely so). My criticism is limited to his website. While other sources may contain statements that explain, clarify or justify the statements on the website, if the website was done properly, it would stand better on its own. It is poorly done, and no one but Dr.Woods and his partner are responsible for the contents. I think I will stop beating this dead horse.