It's your choice

[Guest]

Hey, ho! It's me, Pic, again!

 

Well, not too many of you have voted in my oh-so-incredibly-scientific poll. You needn't, of course, but I see that around 56 people have looked at it -- or 2 people repeatedly. Folks, if you could vote, it'd mean a lot to me.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

It may be that I simply wasn't looking hard enough, or just a coincidence, but I didn't see (m)any former dr. Woods posters on this website. Also, sometime around when I started visiting this forum, there was a thread by dr. Fedler, who went to a conference organized by Woods, and wasn't all that impressed with the work, which sort of turned me off. Again - I truly don't know, but from what I hear he's expensive, and although money shouldn't be a factor, I'd rather go to Canada, and get (almost) the same thing cheaper.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic''. Arthur C. Clarke

[arfy]

There's not a lot of people posting about Dr. Woods here. Pat is not a big fan of Dr. Woods and has posted negatively about Woods... that drives his supporters away, unfortunately.

 

Dr. Feller was impressed with Dr. Woods enough to try to copy him. Try to read between the lines a little.

 

The best way to reach the Woods clinic is to call them around 10:30 AM. Sydney time, from what I have read. Because the Woods clinic is supposedly booked 4-6 months in advance, general inquiries can get lost in the shuffle. If you are truly interested, keep trying.

[Guest]

If Pat doesn't support Dr. Woods, then there must be a reason. I know money shoulnd't dictate where and with whom you get an HT from but if it's gonna cost and arm and a leg, forget it. I'm with Pat on this one.

[arfy]

TexasNW2

Dr. Woods is considered a threat to the other doctors in the field. At least he was, up until recently. The criticism of Dr. Woods is not based on his results. However, as a patient the results are really your main concern.

 

As I said, try to read betwen the lines a little.

[Guest]

arfy,

ok, sorry, bro. i'll try to read between those lines ......which lines where they again?

[Guest]

ARFY:

 

As always, thanks for your input. I have been reading on this forum for about a year (a bit more) but somehow I missed the whole Woods FIASCO (a watched pot never boils, but erupts when you look away...); too bad. As useless OVERALL as it is when people get overly emotional, it's helpful in determining their prejudices (verses the facts in their arguments).

 

I completely agree about Woods representing a threat to the vested interests of strip surgeons, who obviously can see a great many more patients, do a lot more procedures in a day and as a result make a wad more money by doing strip work (ah, no pun intended) than they can by investing in the long learning curve needed to do FUE work and, as a result, wind up having to do ALL the surgery themselves (as assistants dissect strips, NOT docs) on FEWER patients. Seems obvious to me why Woods's prices are so much higher -- the procedure is so much more labor intensive.

 

I seem to recall Pat posting things such as "It's time for Woods to put up or shut up," a comment which, frankly, I can completely, wholly, fully and totally (did I mention 100%) understand -- at least on an emotional level. Rationally, I know that a doctor as busy as Woods reputedly is cannot be bothered trying to address every poster's concern on every hair-related Web site in every country in the world.

 

You'd think, however, that if a reputable doctor CARED about his public image -- not to mention attracting new customers HOWEVER busy he is -- he'd manage SOMEhow to have more of these specific queries answered.

 

Over on hairsite.com (apologies for mentioning another forum here Pat! :eek), they've set up a "Consult the Doctor" thing and supposedly you can ask Woods questions. Other docs have answered. Woods never seems to.

 

Well, he's Down Under...he's SOOO busy...etc. But I just can't help feeling that too many excuses are made for the guy sometimes; frankly, I don't care HOW good he is, if he won't communicate, or ARRANGE to have his message communicated a bit better when there's such OBVIOUS interest in his work, well, to me it rings sour.

 

I'm NOT saying he's got anything to hide. I work in Hollywood and I know how bogged down you can get -- NO time even for writing you own mother, wife, whatever. I doubt Woods is a scamster. But it just makes me feel like his attitude is "I don't need you, I have other customers," or "The only way to get information is to call me directly in Australia as this is a seller's market, hahahahahahahah!" -- which is a bad attitude a la Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons" and, if nothing else, irritates the s--t out of me.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, Pat, I know you won't like this, and I know this is YOUR forum, but, ultimately, if you claim to be maintaining an open forum on the best, most up-to-date hair restoration techniques and top docs, more information on Woods has GOT to be allowed. I know you don't censor posts from people discussing Woods. But there has been such obvious interest in him... The thing is, of course we can "just go to other Web sites" if we don't like it. But that strikes me as exactly the kind of "I don't need you" attitude we're critical of Woods himself about.

 

And besides, this is THE most CIVILIZED site related to this matter (hair loss). So who'd want to go elsewhere? I've never partaken in another Web site's forum and, frankly, as important as getting as much information on all this is, I just CAN'T STAND to wade through the juvenile, stupid-ass posts on some other Web sites. I just lose more hair from the stress!

 

Arfy, thanks for the info on best times to contact Woods. I AM interested. You mention somewhere else that you know of "at least 20" people who have been almost completely satisfied or were completely satisfied with their Woods results. May I ask for a few names and e-mail addresses so as to contact them? Or what do you suggest I do to try to get some info from them?

 

If I MUST go to another site, which is the best for info on Woods?

[arfy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i'll try to read between those lines ......which lines where they again?

The part where I said the criticism of Woods was not based on his results. I believe Pat's #1 beef is that Woods will not share his knowledge with other HT doctors.

 

Pic

Try the website Hairlosshelp.com (I also try to avoid directing people to other sites.)

 

First look in the "Hair Transplant" section on the first page. It should take you to 3 feature stories, 2 of which are about Woods (the other one is about Dr. McLellan). One shows the remarkable repair work done on Timetested (aka "Dave") in the story "Hair Transplant Survivor", on a guy who literally no other doctor in the world could really help at the time. The other story shows how Woods has pioneered a body-to-scalp hair transplant (an experimental technique for guys who have had their scalp donor hair wasted by bad transplant techniques, etc. In other words, the more desperate patients). This body hair transplant explodes one of the fundamental principles of hair transplants (donor dominance) by showing that body hair will actually take on the characteristics of scalp hair, when placed in the scalp. (this runs contrary to conventional wisdom that donor hair retains it's characteristics in the recipient zone... aka "donor dominance"). body hair actually grows to new lengths when placed in the scalp, giving hope to guys who have no conventional donor area left.

 

Then check out the forums (discussion). I would go right to the "search" function. Do a search on Woods, and (if I were you) I would only check the threads that say things like "My experience with Woods" or "Just got back from Woods" or "My results from Woods" and that type of thing. Because there is an awful lot of arguing about Dr. Woods on that website, 2 years worth of fighting.

 

Here's a few names of people who have been to Woods, who have posted on that site: Squid, Charlie Chaplin, Redskinboy, Timetested, Poet, Curious, Photomatt, Juiceman, Used2BeJaded, Hotty_ca, these are just a few off the top of my head, that you might want to look for. There are many others. I know Charlie Chaplin is at CharlieChaplinCharlieChaplin@yahoo.com. That's an easy one to remember, other guys have email addresses but I don't remember them offhand.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I agree with Arfy's statement that Dr. Woods does do good work. Very good work. I am not,however, trying to "copy" him. I couldn't even if I wanted to since he has disclosed exactly nothing about his methods to me or anyone I know.

 

In a way I am thankful for this because it has forced me to study and discover the dynamics of FUE for myself, something far more satisfying than having it spoon-fed to me.

 

Saying that I am copying Dr Woods is not only untrue, but negates the tremendous amount of work I've put in to this point. To date I have extracted thousands of grafts and have performed countless experiments on volunteers. I've filed two U.S. patents and am writing 2 more. I will also be making a Primer for FUE available to doctors and anybody else who is interested.

 

Please be more accurate in the future.

 

Dr Feller

[arfy]

I apologize if my choice of words offended you. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you were "inspired" by Dr. Woods.

 

Since Dr. Woods is not forthcoming with his technical information, it is basically impossible for anyone to copy him.

 

Apparently there is some confusion on what your opinion of Dr. Woods' work is. Someone in this thread says your comments were that you were "not all that impressed". On another website, there are patients claiming that you said that Woods technique leaves a donor area "moth-eaten". Care to respond to that "moth-eaten" comment?

[Guest]

Dr. F,

 

Yes, to echo Arfy, please do respond to that "moth-eaten" comment. I am very seriously considering going to Woods for work and I want a fellow HT professional's opinion.

 

Am I mistaken in thinking that you are the NYC doctor who attended Woods' presentation in NY and who subsequently posted a couple photos on this very forum, one of which was a follicular unit extracted from a strip and trimmed, and another of which was one extracted "FUE-style"? I remember being very impressed with your work based on those photos -- IF it was YOUR work and YOUR photos.

 

I presume, also, from your comments that the only FUE work you have done on live clients has been on the "volunteers" you mentioned. Are you not doing actual FUE work on regular clients of yours? If not, is that because you have yet to feel experienced enough/confident enough in your technique (no criticism implied here) or what? And, finally, when do you think you WILL be doing FUE work on regular clients?

 

I sincerely hope you reply to these questions of mine as well as to Arfy's.

[Guest]

to the 'moth-eaten' phrase when mentioning the doctor not being all that impressed.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic''. Arthur C. Clarke

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Thank you Arfy. I was "inspired" by Dr. Woods' unique approach. Perhaps more so by the mystery surrounding it.

 

Pic,

Yes, the photos were MINE, and they were done by ME. In fact, I just sent Farrel a video of the extraction procedure I used on that very same patient. He will be posting it very soon on HLH.

 

When I wrote "moth-eaten", I was reffering to the obvious physiological change in the skin from a large amount of micro-scarring. Perhaps this effect wouldn't be as noticible in a lower quantity transplant, but it was quite noticable in Dr. Woods' lawyer. That's not to say that you should put off your surgery because of it. In my opinion, you shouldn't. I see the same exact "moth-eaten" effect in my FUE patients.

 

Whenever you do surgery there is a physiological price to pay, scarring of one sort or another is inviolate LAW, not just a haphazard function of the practitioner's skill. The question just becomes how much scarring, and where. Dr. Woods' scars are more faded and ubiquitous, BUT by no means INVISIBLE, as has been implied and outright stated over the months.

 

I could start to offer FUE to patients on a commercial basis as my speed and confidence have reached that level, however, my immediate focus is not to offer it as a modality option to my patients, rather to continue to study the involved dynamics and produce new and useful instrumentation.

 

FUE surgery is very time consuming, and since Dr Jones is already performing it on a large basis, there is really no need for me to do it yet. I'd rather do multiple small cases and continue to experiement with and study the procedure. If someone doesn't do this now, the procedure will never develop a grounded foundation upon which to grow.

 

I am already designing and constructing an FUE specialty room in my office and will be offering FUE to all patients in September, 2003

 

Dr. Feller

[Guest]

Dr. Feller,

 

Thanks for the detailed reply -- a soul after my own heart (or blabber mouth ).

 

I think it's only fair that you credit Woods as your inspiration; I honestly think that if NO ONE had worked to develop FUE, it would have been like Tucker's famed (but ultimately abandoned) better-mousetrap automobile -- that is, left untouched. That's not to say you yourself wouldn't have been the one to develop it -- maybe so. But Woods got there first and has sparked a lot of interest in the FUE technique.

 

Anyway, I'm glad to see you are unafraid to give him credit for inspiring you. That speaks well to your integrity.

 

For my part, I'm happy to have it clarified that the photos comparing strip excisioned and FUE hair follicles were/are yours. I will duly note that from now on every time I mention those photos, which I'm sure to.

 

If Woods got there first vis-a-vis FUE on a large scale, it appears to me, Dr. Feller, that you have gotten to the U.S. public first and foremost with openness and transparency -- a no less important contribution, especially considering what you call the mystery surrounding Woods.

 

I, for one, find it inordinately frustrating to be unable, in this Internet day and age, to get better pictures of the results of his work, nevermind more useful information than I find on his Web site and to mention nothing of personal responses to my numerous queries (and public queries I've seen posted on other forums by others, which Woods has either not seen or ignored).

 

My point? You'd think I'd have one -- forgive me, I'm tired out here in Lala-land (L.A.).

 

I'm just trying to thank you for your response and clarification. I will give YOU credit where credit is due when mentioning those photos. And I very much appreciate that, UNlike Woods, you are making a major effort NOT ONLY to develop a viable FUE technique but ARE sharing your knowledge with the public on forums such as this one. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that.

 

Cheers

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Thanks Pic

 

Dr F