Neograft Chicago?

[Doug Monty]

Hi Bill,

 

Hopefully I answered all your questions.

 

 

Doug,

If the FUE procedure was so easy, then not only every hair restoration physician would be performing it with consistent excellent results, but a $90,000 machine wouldn't be needed to perform it.

= You actual help to make my point with this one....FUE is easy if you can get the grafts out. Prior to advances in technology grafts could not be easily harvested, which is why you had doctors feel the need to say it was an "Art Form" to get the grafts out....because it was...Yes it is a very expensive system and its not for everyone - especially for doctors who have no patient base that wants FUE.

The problems I have with the NeoGraft machine isn't whether or not it's effective, it's your marketing strategies.

1) It's being promoted and overhyped as a superior machine over other FUE tools (which by one of your very employee's admission on another discussion topic is unproven)

= Not sure what you are referring to, but I know of no employees who feel that way, but I do know several who have had the procedure done themselves. I do know that the NeoGraft system has gotten a lot of exposure this past year. I do know at the last ISHRS Live Work Shop the NeoGraft outperformed expectations in front of 100 doctors.

2) You're attempting to market the NeoGraft as a distinct type of procedure which you believe requires it's own name giving NeoGraft the credit. I've already seen a couple posters ask about the "NeoGraft Hair Transplant" as if it was something distinct from FUE. For all I know, this is just one of your employees attempting to covertly sneak the term "NeoGraft" into the term "hair transplant".

= Is Branding a procedure wrong? Have you ever heard of CIT or any of the other self identifying techniques which Doctors use to help distinguish themselves from their competition.

3) You're placing much more importance on the machine than the physician who uses it which I believe is a huge mistake and disservice to prospective hair transplant patients considering FUE.

= Well you really do need to see the procedure live. When considering FUE I personally would choose the machine over a doctor harvesting by hand, its all about graft quality and you can not tell me that the human hand is that repeatable after 1000's of attempts.

4) You reject what the leading hair restoration physicians say regarding patient candidacy and mislead prospective patients into believing that FUE is the only viable option worth considering.

= Your Web Site only Recommends TWO hair transplant doctors who perform FUE. So forgive me, if I take those comments with a grain of salt. I see countless doctors who do not perform FUE so it is no surprise that people they see are not "good candidates" for the procedure. On the flip side I see doctors who are FUE only and are doing quite well. The official position of NeoGraft is that its up to the patient and their doctor to determine what is the best option for their procedure. The NeoGraft does open up patients who may have not been a good candidate in the past. Keep in mind that Doctors may say a patient is not a "good candidate" because they need 2000 grafts. And the doctor just can not spend 4-5 days on one patient to get the case done.

5) You're using anti-strip scare tactics to sell your tool to patients (which is quite interesting in itself considering it's the physicians who are your real market)

= What you see as anti-strip, I see as transparency. When I went in to have my hair transplant consultation, the video I saw, showed the hairs magically float from the back of the head to the front of the head. No real mention of a strip being removed - or if it was it was so quick I did not notice. Again I went in for an FUE procedure but was talked out of it because I was not a "good candidate". Even though the doctor advertised that they did FUE.

The bottom line is, NeoGraft is just a machine to aid an FUE procedure and as long as there's proof, it deserves some, but no more recognition than any other tool designed to accomplish this purpose.

Well the NeoGraft is FDA Approved and made in an ISO 9001 certified facility.

I also think it's funny that your company feels the need to attempt to sell the concept of NeoGraft to prospective patients as it's the physicians who ultimately have to "buy in".

Are you hoping that if you can convince the patient community that NeoGraft is superior that they'll put physicians under pressure to spend the $90,000 on a NeoGraft machine?

One major doctor who uses and whose been outspoken about NeoGraft charges $20 per graft. I don't see the patient community trying to convince physicians to charge more for surgery, especially when there's no real proof that NeoGraft is any better than other much less expensive FUE tools.

= Well the cost of the machine is a major downside, personally I wish it was less expensive I think we would be able to sell more.

The cost of the system can lead to higher prices for the patients but the bottom line is, if all the tools were the same - quality, speed, ease of use - do you honestly think that doctors would spend 15 to 20 times more for a system if everything was equal and produced the same results - especially in this economy?

Best Regards,

Bill

[Blake Bloxham]

Doug,

 

First, I wanted to thank you for sharing that video. I appreciate that you are attempting to share NeoGraft evidence. However, I must say that it confirmed many of my issues and seemed extremely misleading. I'm still shocked that anyone would advocate a torsion tool that involves:

 

1. An initial drying of the grafts by sucking them through a tube(which are already removed with a torsion tool that can highly increase follicle damage).

 

2. An initial damage of the grafts by sucking them through a tube

 

3. Sucking the grafts back through a tube to implant them without giving any consideration to the depth of implantation into slits that (according to your market) are made by untrained practitioners.

 

Additionally, the video was very, very misleading in the representation of strip harvesting and included pictures that were taken from far away with inconsistent lighting, differing angles, and with patients (who I believe was actually a physician who uses and promotes the NeoGraft) who have used hair-dye. For someone advocating transparency, I find this a bit odd.

 

Furthermore, I still think you are misinterpreting the artistic portion of a transplant procedure. Personally, I believe that the artistic value comes from hairline design, mapping restoration, and interpreting levels of future loss. These skills come from natural artistic vision and thorough training. I personally do not see how the NeoGraft machine could replace any of these ideals.

 

Also, can you clarify what you mean by FDA approval? Has the food and drug administration evaluated NeoGraft as an effective method for hair restoration? Was it "grandfathered in" during the 1997 federal shift allowing products that have been approved for other purposes being allowed to wear the label of "FDA approval" (much how people state that low level laser therapy is FDA approved when it actually first received safety approval in the 1970s for issues completely unrelated to hair loss). Furthermore, I do not think individuals like Dr. Harris and Dr. Feller have submitted their tools for any sort of approval, which, in my mind, does not make the NeoGraft extraction tool a superior method.

 

Also, the network recommends far more than two hair restoration physicians who perform follicular unit extraction. Without truly researching, Dr. Feller, Dr. Harris, Dr. Shapiro, Dr. Feriduni, Dr. Kulahci, Dr. Devroye, Dr. Dorin, Dr. True, Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Gabel, and Dr. Rassman, are just a few that come to mind. Furthermore, these individuals are highly trained and reviewed hair restoration physicians, not practitioners looking to add follicular unit extraction to an existing practice (as mentioned in the NeoGraft video).

 

Finally, Doug, I mean no personal attack or harbor no ill feelings because of this, but I feel as if a lot of your evidence is anecdotal. You claim NeoGraft greatly impressed physicians at the 2008 ISHRS conference, but offer only inconsistent pictures as concrete evidence. You tell us that you've witnessed people have the procedure with greater results than FUE with different tools, but I don't see those patients on here sharing photographs, their experience, etc.

 

The bottom line is that NeoGraft is, at it's core, simply a new type of follicular unit extraction device (If I remember correctly, Dr. Feller said he spoke with an individual using the device at a conference and he chose not to use the implantation portion of the device, which leads me to believe others won't either). Frankly, the device seems expensive and caters to untrained practitioners - two ingredients for patient suffering in my book. I hope you will be able to produce some real evidence, but again, until that time these arguments are complete conjecture that truly are going nowhere.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Future_HT_Doc

[Doug Monty]

Future_hair Doc,

I am actually enjoying the debate, so no you can't hurt my feelings.

Since I have been doing my best to answer as many questions as possible on my day off, maybe you can answer a few of mine.

How many FUT procedures have you been seen live?

How many FUE procedures have you seen live?

With how many different doctors have you seen perform these procedures?

How many different Hair Techs have you seen sitting at desks slicing off grafts underneath Microscopes with lamps too hot to touch for hours at a time?

How many different Hair Techs have you talked to, to find out the extent of their experience or their length of employment?

As far as the ill informed arguments of Torsion, Traction, Compression, Overheating, and Desiccation. The video clearly shows this to not be the case. If you look at the slow motion portion, you can actually count the number of revolutions which it takes prior to harvesting the graft about 3.

One of the best selling points of the system is when we have a doctor ask, "well doesn't the suction dry out the grafts"?

Then the other question is "well what about all the damage from going through the tube"? Then we show the harvested grafts and they look like the below link.

Doctor's who see the procedure live, have no worries of any of the unproven accusations which were leveled at the NeoGraft in the past.

I really enjoy the argument of grafts drying out. And then ask questions about how long the strip stays under the microscope and is rubbed, squeezed, pressed and cut.

I have let slide a lot of recent comments/statements which you/Bill imply I made. Please if you are going to quote me on something and then counter point at least get what I said right the first time.

Also show me where I ever said anything negative about any other tool on the market.

The FDA Approved our 510K also our manufacturing facility ISO Certified.

Artistic Value - Show me where I said anything about the NeoGraft having anything to do with Hair Line design.

I am not sure where you were headed with the Strip Stuff in the video, its just in there to show the difference between the two procedures for patients who are not familiar - anything else and you are reading way too much into it.

We have recently had quite of few plastic surgeons either enter or re-enter the world of Hair Transplants. Many have done this in the past and got out for various reasons.

However I find it hard that you are going to tell a plastic surgeon who is capable of re-attaching hands or reconstructing a face that they are not capable of making the slits to gain a perfect hair line design.

Currently there are no qualifications for any type of doctor becoming a Hair Transplant Physician, just as long as they are a MD or a DO (maybe even DDS). This is evident by the diverse background of well respected hair restoration physicians we have today.

Anecdotal evidence? How is almost anything within this industry not considered anecdotal? Show me where statements like Torsion, Traction, Compression, Overheating, and Desiccation (as it relates to the NeoGraft) are not considered Anecdotal and are supported by Data.

I have spoke with Doctor's who have used other FUE devices and they have told me that they either could not get them to work as described or they kept on breaking.

The NeoGraft is a complete FUE Hair Transplant System it allows for people to harvest as well as implant. Hair Techs who have been implanting for 15 years are probably more comfortable implanting by hand. But the system gives you the option.

You are correct when you say that the NeoGraft is a New Device and that we cater to practitioners who want a better faster way to get FUE Hair Transplants performed.

To Quote a well Respected Hair Transplant Physician

"This tool also offers the unique combination of LOWERING operator skill level requirements while actually RAISING the quality of each and every extraction. This translates to faster 'ramp-up' times for new doctors interested in adding FUE Hair Transplant surgery to their practices; as well as making for easy and near seamless integration into clinics that already offer FUE to their patients.

 

This device allows not only for greater quality of extraction, but greater speed as well. Much greater. And all without any extra risk to the grafts themselves. The same cannot be said of other FUE tools on the market.

 

All these unique benefits result in far less fatigue for the doctors, technicians, and patients. It's important not to forget this all important (but often ignored) human factor because in the end any 'work product' will only be as good as the vitality, enthusiasm, and confidence possessed by the doctor and team at the time of the procedure.

 

The obvious purpose of the tool is to facilitate the FUE procedure for practitioners; but that is only part of a far greater strategy: the sparking of a new and legitimate industry that's inclusive of ALL practitioners-novice and veteran alike.

 

The bigger picture is to elevate the current 'cottage industry' status of FUE to a more mainstream role in hair transplantation; and to forever strip away the mystery, hype, and secrecy with which it has been unnecessarily surrounded by since it's inception.

 

 

However, for this field to grow, the credibility and exposure of the FUE technique must increase, and I can think of no better way to achieve this than offering a device that makes it easier for hundreds or thousands of other doctors to get into the FUE field themselves. Once they get a taste of the success I've had with FUE over the past 7 years, a greater number of doctors will join the FUE ranks. More successful FUE practitioners means greater numbers of satisfied patients, and thus a more popular procedure with ever increasing demand. Everyone wins. "

Dr. Alan Feller 3/29/09

I could not have said it better myself and I agree 100%

[Blake Bloxham]

Doug,

 

Let me begin by stating that my job is to moderate these forums. Frankly, I feel like our exchange is beginning to border on inappropriate, but I'm going to respond to your questions because, as you said, you've responded to mine. I'll do my best to address your concerns, and ask you to keep in mind that this community is begging you for one simple task - present evidence. Not in the form of arguments, investor videos, or anecdotal suggestions, but in the form of high-quality photographs, and patient/physician testimonial.

 

 

 

 

How many FUT procedures have you been seen live?

How many FUE procedures have you seen live?

With how many different doctors have you seen perform these procedures?

How many different Hair Techs have you seen sitting at desks slicing off grafts underneath Microscopes with lamps too hot to touch for hours at a time?

How many different Hair Techs have you talked to, to find out the extent of their experience or their length of employment?

 

Doug, part of my HUGE issue with your past, various responses has been issues with you resorting to primitive, unrelated forms of discussion to make certain points. I invite you to review a definition:

 

ad hominem:

 

also known as argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical. The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue

In layman's terms, you're trying to discredit my opinions by claiming that I have not witnessed live hair transplant surgeries (to your knowledge), and assert that, because of this, what I say about NeoGraft must be incorrect. I have to say, this is the type of situation I personally feel is inappropriate for this argument. My experience with hair transplantation has nothing to do with the NeoGraft (or issues with the machine).

 

 

One of the best selling points of the system is when we have a doctor ask, "well doesn't the suction dry out the grafts"?

 

Then the other question is "well what about all the damage from going through the tube"? Then we show the harvested grafts and they look like the below link.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42368186@N03/4770067476/sizes/l/

 

Doctor's who see the procedure live, have no worries of any of the unproven accusations which were leveled at the NeoGraft in the past.

 

I really enjoy the argument of grafts drying out. And then ask questions about how long the strip stays under the microscope and is rubbed, squeezed, pressed and cut.

 

Again ...

 

Because something inappropriate happens with follicular unit transplantation procedures, it makes it acceptable for your machine to potentially damage grafts "less?" Furthermore, are we not comparing different methods of follicular unit extraction? I'm having trouble following the logic of your argument again. Furthermore, I'd love to hear from some of these physicians. Are these doctors associated with the marketing or promotion of NeoGraft? Finally, I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending that despite thousands of successful FUT cases presented on this site (where grafts grow at levels 95% and higher), the grafts are damaged during microscopic dissection.

 

Frankly, I still think NeoGraft puts far more strain on the follicular units.

Also show me where I ever said anything negative about any other tool on the market.

 

Doug Monty:

Non [sic] of the other "tools" are FDA approved and I doubt that they have gone through ISO approval process

Personally, I felt as if you were dismissing other extraction tools based on the fact that they weren't approved.

 

 

The FDA Approved our 510K also our manufacturing facility ISO Certified.

 

How does this relate to the NeoGraft itself? From what I understand, FDA approval is a complicated issue, and I think you are using this umbrella approval to claim that your tool is superior. I'm simply not sure this is the case, and it feels like a slight ploy to undermine other extraction tools (personally).

Artistic Value - Show me where I said anything about the NeoGraft having anything to do with Hair Line design.

 

You didn't which was my entire point. You asserted that the "artistic" portion of a transplant procedure was graft extraction. I disagreed and asserted that the hairline design (among other things) was the artistic portion. Frankly, I don't think this is a wild claim, nor do I think saying that if you are marketing this product to inexperienced extraction practitioners that these doctors will not have experience in hairline planning or design either? You're advocating removing the "artist" from the "artistic portion" of the operation, and I think this is disastrous. I don't see the point of extracting units quickly if they are placed incorrectly. Furthermore, I thought some of the graft placement in your promotional video was questionable, and this just confirms my worries.

I am not sure where you were headed with the Strip Stuff in the video, its just in there to show the difference between the two procedures for patients who are not familiar - anything else and you are reading way too much into it.

 

Doug??? Come on! : )

 

That video had numerous clips of open strip wounds, large FUT scars (from untrained practitioners - I'm sure), clamped, unclosed wounds, an image of actor Jeremy Piven with his recipient area shaved, in the bright sun, taken by a professional paparazzi etc, but did not bother to show one picture of a high-quality, pencil-thin trichophytic closure? Do you really believe this is a fair comparison to "show patients who are not familiar?" I invite all members to watch the video and ask me if I am reading too much into it.

However I find it hard that you are going to tell a plastic surgeon who is capable of re-attaching hands or reconstructing a face that they are not capable of making the slits to gain a perfect hair line design.

 

To be completely honest Doug, I am going to tell you that, and here's why:

 

In theory, any plastic surgeon who spent 4 years in medical school, graduated top of their class, and completed 5-7 years in an intense plastic and reconstructive surgical residency is more than capable of understanding and grasping the mechanisms behind a transplant procedure. Especially if the doctor further specializes in something like facial reconstruction (as you mentioned).

 

However, understanding something in theory and sitting down and perfecting it perfectly in reality are two completely different things. I'm a musician and I've played guitar and piano for years. In theory, I also completely understand how to play other instruments ... like a violin (for example). Now, let's say that through my extensive musical knowledge and training I can read music, have refined finger motions, understand musical theory, etc. Let's even say my skills are so honed that I look at the violin as an "inferior instrument." Do you think I can pick it up and play beautifully on my first try??

 

Frankly, I do not. Additionally, if you were going to play a concert, would you pick me - the person who excels in music theory and has years of training, or the person who may not have such an extensive background, but has played the violin 8 hours a day for the past 10 years and does nothing else??

 

I'm not claiming that plastic surgeons are not 100% capable of grasping and performing follicular unit extraction, but I'm saying that it's dangerous to assume they just can or shouldn't have any sort of training in it (I highly doubt it's covered in plastic and reconstructive residencies).

 

Go to youtube and listen to our recommended physicians' opinions on choosing a hair transplant surgeon. Nearly every single one says to go with a doctor who performs the procedure often and dedicates a large majority of their practice to hair restoration. They do not recommend picking a doctor who bought a machine and started doing transplants leisurely. No matter what their educational background or opinion of the procedural difficulty may be.

 

Anecdotal evidence? How is almost anything within this industry not considered anecdotal? Show me where statements like Torsion, Traction, Compression, Overheating, and Desiccation (as it relates to the NeoGraft) are not considered Anecdotal and are supported by Data.

 

I personally consider the phrases like "the NeoGraft impressed doctors at the conference," and "I have a friend who underwent FUE with a different tool and said NeoGraft was better" completely anecdotal. I do not consider photographic evidence and strict physician review (like we use at this community) anecdotal in the least.

I have spoke with Doctor's who have used other FUE devices and they have told me that they either could not get them to work as described or they kept on breaking.

 

I've spoken with doctor's who have worked with other FUE devices that performed wonderfully and have not broken whatsoever. Who's argument is more valid? This is my problem with anecdotal claims.

The NeoGraft is a complete FUE Hair Transplant System it allows for people to harvest as well as implant. Hair Techs who have been implanting for 15 years are probably more comfortable implanting by hand. But the system gives you the option.

 

Then why wouldn't one seek out the clinic that has 15 years of transplanting experience? Is a procedure with NeoGraft less expensive? A member on this forum stated that he spent over $20,000 on a FUE procedure with NeoGraft? Can you demonstrate to me (with photographic evidence) where the results are the same? Why should the option for mediocracy exist when patient well-being is on the line???

You are correct when you say that the NeoGraft is a New Device and that we cater to practitioners who want a better faster way to get FUE Hair Transplants performed.

 

I did not say this at all, nor would I endorse this statement.

To Quote a well Respected Hair Transplant Physician

 

"This tool also offers the unique combination of LOWERING operator skill level requirements while actually RAISING the quality of each and every extraction. This translates to faster 'ramp-up' times for new doctors interested in adding FUE Hair Transplant surgery to their practices; as well as making for easy and near seamless integration into clinics that already offer FUE to their patients.

 

This device allows not only for greater quality of extraction, but greater speed as well. Much greater. And all without any extra risk to the grafts themselves. The same cannot be said of other FUE tools on the market.

 

All these unique benefits result in far less fatigue for the doctors, technicians, and patients. It's important not to forget this all important (but often ignored) human factor because in the end any 'work product' will only be as good as the vitality, enthusiasm, and confidence possessed by the doctor and team at the time of the procedure.

 

The obvious purpose of the tool is to facilitate the FUE procedure for practitioners; but that is only part of a far greater strategy: the sparking of a new and legitimate industry that's inclusive of ALL practitioners-novice and veteran alike.

 

The bigger picture is to elevate the current 'cottage industry' status of FUE to a more mainstream role in hair transplantation; and to forever strip away the mystery, hype, and secrecy with which it has been unnecessarily surrounded by since it's inception.

 

 

However, for this field to grow, the credibility and exposure of the FUE technique must increase, and I can think of no better way to achieve this than offering a device that makes it easier for hundreds or thousands of other doctors to get into the FUE field themselves. Once they get a taste of the success I've had with FUE over the past 7 years, a greater number of doctors will join the FUE ranks. More successful FUE practitioners means greater numbers of satisfied patients, and thus a more popular procedure with ever increasing demand. Everyone wins. "

Dr. Alan Feller 3/29/09

 

I could not have said it better myself and I agree 100%

 

Hmm, I've frankly never heard Dr. Feller state this about the NeoGraft machine (please send me the link if you can), but I think, for the sake of fairness, I should include some of his responses from other NeoGraft threads:

 

Dr Feller:

 

Not only did I see it being used in person, but the the Neograft tech who was using it did NOT allow the graft to be sucked through the tubing because he also felt it caused unnecessary damage to the grafts. Rather, he chose to use the Neograft machine for scoring and then manually plucked the grafts free separately.

 

link

 

In short, the neograft machine is just a spinning punch. But rather than using a simple electric motor, it uses compressed air to spin the punch. Just another way to skin the cat, albeit more unnecessarily complex and expensive.

 

The neograft also features the use of suction to aid in the extraction process. This suction serves no useful purpose and is indeed a danger to the graft in that it will increase the chances of desiccation due to the continuous airflow over the graft.

 

But those aren't my biggest objections. The real problem is that this device requires the graft to travel through the punch and down a tube. Many FUE grafts splay out at the deep root, which means the chances of it getting clipped by the sharp edge of the punch is quite high.

 

The second problem is that as the graft is being desiccated while being sucked through the punch and the tubing, it is also being physically traumatized as it slams against the walls of the tubing as it travels on it's tortuous path toward the collection basin after which the graft has to be picked free of the other debris that travelled with it.

 

link

 

Again Doug, I feel like I'm beginning to cross the line a little bit, and it really is the opposite of my responsibilities to argue on this forum. I think I've stated my case fairly clearly, and I simply ask that you provide photographic evidence that this tool works and is on par with a trained hair transplant surgeon providing follicular unit extraction.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Future_HT_Doc

[Jake]

I find this entire debate on the Neograft a waste of time. Show us consistent results with before and after photos (non photoshop). One of the few Doctors that uses it is Dr. Bauman and he is also big on laser therapy and does not have the best reputation. What good is a $90K machine that a monkey can use to perform an HT? We all know that it takes a highly skilled and experienced Doctor and staff to perform an HT with great results.

[ukbloke]

Here is the choi thing

 

(promotional link removed)

 

Obviously something different, apologies for interfering with your technical debate

[wb280]

Just to chip in, in fact, my whole exposure to HT from the very beginning was due to Neo graft. As u can prob gather, the hype and marketing was there. I was reading it online and in magazines, meaning i learnt abt one of the newest tool rather than the good ol' FUT. Not that its wrong, hey kudos to them for being aggressive in marketing, but i agree with Bill and future ht doc, we need pictures. Pre op, post op and 1 year later to show the results

[Sparky]

Like I said before, he wont show any Hi-Def pictures because they dont have any, he already lost this arguement on another forum, due to the same problem, he didnt feel the need to show pictures.

 

This company just cant accept that they built a worthless piece of junk.

 

Doug, you will only be able to sucker the less savvy and vunerable people to have an HT with the Neograft, no one who knows anything about HT's will touch this.

 

Please post some Hi-Def pictures now, we dont want to read anymore of your promoting jargon , just pictures, JUST PICTURES!

[Doug Monty]

Actually I answered everyone one of your questions.

I wanted to get a baseline on how you were getting your info and asking you how many procedures you have witnessed and which types is a valid question, especially if you are giving your opinion.

and you came back with?

ad hominem:

If you have never seen a case, which I will assume, since you refused to answer the question. I have to also assume that all your opinions on the NeoGraft are based upon another doctor's Input who had a competing tool.

No real conflict of interest there.

I have see many doctors operate, using different FUE tools (hand and motorized), Strip, cases, Eye Brow's, Body Hair, I have spoken with the patients before, during and after these procedures - I don't pretend to be an expert. Just a purveyor of facts as seen through my eyes.

Please don't confuse a good debate with an argument. If you have ever taken part in a debate in school the one who thinks the debate is heading down the argument path is the one with the least points at the end of the day....

I know we have come down a long path, from the start, but the First Poster was just looking for a place to get some FUE work done and we ended up here.

 

Respectfully yours,

Doug

[wb280]

Hi Doug! Just out of curiosity, as we are so used to seeing pre, post and obviously pics of results, is there seriously nothing u can share?

I mean, i have to say that the argument will not come to a conclusion and this forum is in the first place just meant for us hair losers to find an avenue as well as collect information to make a sound decision. Your posting of photos will defn help many in their cause and sway them in your direction:) thanks!

[Bill - Seemiller]

Doug,

 

In response to some of your comments:

 

--------

 

Originally Posted by Bill - Managing Publisher

 

The problems I have with the NeoGraft machine isn't whether or not it's effective, it's your marketing strategies.

 

1) It's being promoted and overhyped as a superior machine over other FUE tools (which by one of your very employee's admission on another discussion topic is unproven)

 

= Not sure what you are referring to, but I know of no employees who feel that way, but I do know several who have had the procedure done themselves. I do know that the NeoGraft system has gotten a lot of exposure this past year. I do know at the last ISHRS Live Work Shop the NeoGraft outperformed expectations in front of 100 doctors.

 

If you read some of the posts from other NeoGraft employees on this forum, this claim was made and thus challenged and refuted.

 

2) You're attempting to market the NeoGraft as a distinct type of procedure which you believe requires it's own name giving NeoGraft the credit. I've already seen a couple posters ask about the "NeoGraft Hair Transplant" as if it was something distinct from FUE. For all I know, this is just one of your employees attempting to covertly sneak the term "NeoGraft" into the term "hair transplant".

 

= Is Branding a procedure wrong? Have you ever heard of CIT or any of the other self identifying techniques which Doctors use to help distinguish themselves from their competition.

 

In my opinion, I do believe there are problems with "branding" a procedure if it's riddled with promotional propaganda and misleading promises. The procedure FUE is still FUE whether or not you want to label it something else. Many physicians use distinct tools and have variances in techniques but don't feel the need to "brand" their procedure and promote it as superior to all others.

 

3) You're placing much more importance on the machine than the physician who uses it which I believe is a huge mistake and disservice to prospective hair transplant patients considering FUE.

 

= Well you really do need to see the procedure live. When considering FUE I personally would choose the machine over a doctor harvesting by hand, its all about graft quality and you can not tell me that the human hand is that repeatable after 1000's of attempts.

 

So to get this straight, you would choose having an FUE procedure done with the NeoGraft with an inexperienced doctor over an experienced doctor with a proven track record of success using manual tools? You're putting a lot of faith in a machine to do a physician's job for them.

 

4) You reject what the leading hair restoration physicians say regarding patient candidacy and mislead prospective patients into believing that FUE is the only viable option worth considering.

 

= Your Web Site only Recommends TWO hair transplant doctors who perform FUE. So forgive me, if I take those comments with a grain of salt. I see countless doctors who do not perform FUE so it is no surprise that people they see are not "good candidates" for the procedure. On the flip side I see doctors who are FUE only and are doing quite well. The official position of NeoGraft is that its up to the patient and their doctor to determine what is the best option for their procedure. The NeoGraft does open up patients who may have not been a good candidate in the past. Keep in mind that Doctors may say a patient is not a "good candidate" because they need 2000 grafts. And the doctor just can not spend 4-5 days on one patient to get the case done.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting the number 2 when off the top of my head earlier in this discussion, I've named 4. Go back and read my original post on this. But again, the ones I've listed were Dr. Feller, Dr. Shapiro, Dr. Devroye, and Dr. Feriduni. Others recommended by this community do perform FUE however, many of them have not showcased their FUE results on this forum. Others who have however, also include Dr. Harris and Dr. Beehner. That's 6 doctors who've showcased realistic FUE results.

 

One thing we do agree on is that it should be left up to the patient and physician to decide which procedure is optimal for them. But where you and I differ is that you see it as a detriment when physicians attempt to persuade them away from FUE and toward FUT whereas I see it as trying to do what's best for the patient. Besides, why attempt to persuade a patient to undergo FUT when they could make so much more money with FUE?

 

 

5) You're using anti-strip scare tactics to sell your tool to patients (which is quite interesting in itself considering it's the physicians who are your real market)

 

= What you see as anti-strip, I see as transparency. When I went in to have my hair transplant consultation, the video I saw, showed the hairs magically float from the back of the head to the front of the head. No real mention of a strip being removed - or if it was it was so quick I did not notice. Again I went in for an FUE procedure but was talked out of it because I was not a "good candidate". Even though the doctor advertised that they did FUE.

 

Take a look on this community showcasing hundreds of excellent results featuring strip results. How FUT and FUE are performed is well documented on our websites and doesn't attempt to blatantly promote the procedure using misleading tactics.

 

The bottom line is, NeoGraft is just a machine to aid an FUE procedure and as long as there's proof, it deserves some, but no more recognition than any other tool designed to accomplish this purpose.

 

Well the NeoGraft is FDA Approved and made in an ISO 9001 certified facility.

 

Great! But what exactly does that mean in terms of comparing it to other FUE tools? Possibly in the hands of experienced physicians for the right candidates, excellent results can be achieved. But this is also true with other FUE tools.

 

I also think it's funny that your company feels the need to attempt to sell the concept of NeoGraft to prospective patients as it's the physicians who ultimately have to "buy in".

 

Are you hoping that if you can convince the patient community that NeoGraft is superior that they'll put physicians under pressure to spend the $90,000 on a NeoGraft machine?

 

One major doctor who uses and whose been outspoken about NeoGraft charges $20 per graft. I don't see the patient community trying to convince physicians to charge more for surgery, especially when there's no real proof that NeoGraft is any better than other much less expensive FUE tools.

 

= Well the cost of the machine is a major downside, personally I wish it was less expensive I think we would be able to sell more.

 

The cost of the system can lead to higher prices for the patients but the bottom line is, if all the tools were the same - quality, speed, ease of use - do you honestly think that doctors would spend 15 to 20 times more for a system if everything was equal and produced the same results - especially in this economy?

 

Your very statement contradicts the very nature of one of NeoGraft's major promotions, which is, that it can lead to less expensive hair transplants for the patient. Here you're openly admitting that it will most likely be more expensive and we've already seen evidence of that. What I don't see evidence of, are experienced hair restoration physicians purchasing the NeoGraft for regular use. After all, it seems that you're primarily targeting new doctors with claims that they can perform FUE as efficiently as experienced surgeons if they own and use this machine.

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill

[Sparky]

Still no pictures? Its like hitting your head against a brick wall!

[Blake Bloxham]

Actually I answered everyone one of your questions.

I wanted to get a baseline on how you were getting your info and asking you how many procedures you have witnessed and which types is a valid question, especially if you are giving your opinion.

and you came back with?

ad hominem:

If you have never seen a case, which I will assume, since you refused to answer the question. I have to also assume that all your opinions on the NeoGraft are based upon another doctor's Input who had a competing tool.

No real conflict of interest there.

I have see many doctors operate, using different FUE tools (hand and motorized), Strip, cases, Eye Brow's, Body Hair, I have spoken with the patients before, during and after these procedures - I don't pretend to be an expert. Just a purveyor of facts as seen through my eyes.

Please don't confuse a good debate with an argument. If you have ever taken part in a debate in school the one who thinks the debate is heading down the argument path is the one with the least points at the end of the day....

I know we have come down a long path, from the start, but the First Poster was just looking for a place to get some FUE work done and we ended up here.

 

Respectfully yours,

Doug

 

Doug,

 

I think I've explained my point of view and I'm unsure how I could really elaborate from here (if you're unsatisfied with my answers). As far as the debate comment, I personally understand what you're trying to say (though I disagree that I didn't have many "points"), but please keep in mind that my job is to moderate these forums. I simply have to keep an eye out for discussions that could potentially turn sour and since this topic was originally about a poster looking for a FUE surgeon in Chicago and has now come to this point, it's definitely something to keep an eye on.

 

Furthermore, my opinions are not based off any other physician's view on the NeoGraft machine. In fact, I think I've reviewed every piece of evidence you've submitted and its completely reinforced my opinions. If there is something else you would like me to review, please let me know and I will do so. Until that time, again, I truly believe that this discussion would be far, far more productive if you could share some quality photographs with the community. Isn't Dr. Ken Williams past the 6th month mark of his FUE with NeoGraft procedure? Perhaps his staff could take and send you photographs to present?

[wb280]

Guys, i have been coming across Neograft, Omnigraft, whatever it is called once in a while in the forum. To be honest, as much as i personally want to give some benefit of doubt to the machine, somehow when it comes to picture time, the guy shuts down.

 

I feel Bill and Blake have been very impartial in the discussion and have raised many points some of us laymen will not understand.

 

Ultimately, PICTURES speak a thousand, maybe million words. Pre, post and results in a year will shut some negativity towards the overhyped machine. The lack of replies when prompted for pics somehow chilled me and prob many other forum members.

[kremiczek]

Hello,

I underwent hair transplant by Dr Gregory Turowski, a borad certified plastic surgeon in Chicago. I am very happy i used board certified physician. I felt safe and secure. They are running a top notch clinic. As for the transplant - who wants an ugly scar Neograft is the way to go! I did 1500 grafts they look great!

[kremiczek]

Neograft is not just a machine. It let's you get HT without ugly linear scar. It is just like fighting laparoscopic surgery. Who wants an ugly long scar of the old fashioned gallbladder surgery????? everybody wants laparoscopy. The same with FUE . SO far the most reputable place in Chicago is New Horizons and Dr Turowski

[Blake Bloxham]

Kremiczek,

 

Although it's been thoroughly discussed before, I wanted to add that NeoGraft, in and of itself, is simply a tool for performing follicular unit extraction (FUE). Many physicians use, have used, or may consider using similar types of tools to perform FUE in the future. In my opinion, I believe it's the skill, dedication, and artistry of the surgeon that creates a phenomenal FUE result, and not necessarily the tools utilized. As the old saying goes, "it's the poor carpenter who blames his tools."

 

I would encourage all patients to research and thoroughly investigate a particular hair transplant surgeon's history with FUE (ie: a dedication to performing the operation and outstanding results) before committing to any procedure or being swayed by a particular tool utilized by the doctor.

[TakingThePlunge]

kremiczek,

 

I think you will find that being a brand new member and making your first two posts, back-to-back, enthusiastically endorsing a new and as yet unproven hair transplant device with no photos to support your statements is going to raise some suspicion among our members.

 

According to our terms of service, you are required to "divulge in your posting signature any compensation, monetary or otherwise, that you are, may, or will receive from any physician, company, establishment, or other persons in any post that promotes or advocates that physician, or any particular procedure or treatment."

 

If you are indeed a satisfied NeoGraft patient then I encourage you to create a blog on your profile or a Hair Restoration Website in order to share your photos and allow the community to follow your progress.

 

To be clear, NeoGraft IS just a machine. It is a machine that is marketed to inexperienced, would-be hair restoration physicians under the guise of being "fool-proof." The procedure that is performed with NeoGraft is follicular unit extraction (FUE) which, is a highly complex procedure best performed by a highly-skilled physician and staff, manually.

 

All the best,

[wb280]

oh dear... there we go again with the neograft thingy

[scar5]

It's amazing, isn't it. It seems that some want to create the impression that a promotion post into a forum like this, gets delivered with as much thought of a junk-mailer popping thousands of leaflets in every box in town. I mean, how many HT sites are there out there? Sure, readership is small compared to the industry at large, but wouldn't neograft want to win us over? Haven't they got the kind of acumen to make sure that they profile their product better? Obvious to us, these kind of posts have hurt Neograft and it's a shame. I have no idea whether it is any or not, but these kind of posts make you feel bad about it.

[weweregods]

Firstly, for the pro-Neograft crowd: everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that, while the scars might not be linear, FUE STILL produces scars--that's scars, plural. I and several others on this board have seen the scar results of what happens when some unskilled doc tries to do FUE and the guinea pig patient ends up looking like he has the mange on the back of his head with little solution to this dilemma--at least with a bad linear scar scar revision is possible. The only way to solve bad FUE is to transplant into the scars, leaving less grafts for other areas of the scalp.

 

As for this statement: "I'm not letting any doc carve up a piece out of the back of my head," etc. I actually feel the opposite. I'm not letting the doc come at me with some Flowbee looking device with razor-sharp blades attached a la Peter Griffin attaching razors to a fan and trying to shave with it.

 

Finally, your presumption that a higher cost is equivalent to quality is ridiculous. I don't even know how to respond, it's so illogical. If someone offered you a quality porterhouse steak at $1 and you knew it was good, you'd insist on paying more? Forgive me, but I've never seen anyone walk into any establishment, pick up a bill, and then insist that they pay more for their purchase.

 

Speaking as someone who has gotten a very unsatisfying result from an HT--no problem with the scar, but the density is so bad that it can't be photographed--I once thought that 'a transplant is a transplant.' I paid a price for this naivety. I basically wasted time and money only to come-up worse than if I had done nothing at all. Well, I'm not falling for it again, my next transplant will be with a quality surgeon whose skill, science, and artistry are unmatched. Enough hype, let's let skill and talent speak for itself.

[Bill - Seemiller]

kremiczek,

 

Frankly, you sound like an informercial for the NeoGraft machine and Dr. Turowski. If you're a legitimate patient who's happy with your hair transplant procedure, why not share your actual experience and photos? As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words!

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

P.S. Do you have any idea what it means to be a "board certified" hair restoration physician? You mentioned it in your first post as something vital for selecting a physician, so I want to know if you just bought into the hype or truly understand what an ABHRS certified diplomate is and its relevance to quality results.

[kremiczek]

Well,

you can argue all you want but the truth is Neograft machine will bury all strip procedures. It may not be Neograft in the years to come but FUE is the way to go for sure. Why would you want the ugly scar???? The donor site is basically undetectable. Can you say that of strip procedure????? The rst is the ame Your choice

[Blake Bloxham]

Well,

you can argue all you want but the truth is Neograft machine will bury all strip procedures.

 

I suppose only time will tell, but I don't think I've seen a single NeoGraft result posted online (anywhere) thus far. Personally, I believe objective evidence makes the strongest point, and think the majority of the hair restoration community agrees.

[Bill - Seemiller]

flashcab,

 

NeoGraft is just a semi-automated tool and isn't proven to be better than other motorized FUE tools. FUE is still the same procedure regardless of whether a manual or motorized punch is used. It's true that some tools make the procedure a bit easier than others, but at the end of the day, it's the skill and experience of the physician that matters most.

 

On a related side note, asking for results shown with the NeoGraft is less important as asking a physician using the NeoGraft to showcase their results. One physician using the NeoGraft may produce entirely different results than another. Experience and skill is paramount to using any tool.

 

For instance, hand a carpenter a hammer and nails and he'll build you a house. Hand the same tools to a novice and he'll end up missing the nail and breaking his fingers.

 

In my opinion, FUE is a viable alternative to strip for a select group of patients. I understand that some patients fear scar stretching, but in most cases, strip scars are almost as undetectable as FUE scars, even in patients with short hair. That said, optimal FUE scarring does typically allow patients to shave their hair down even shorter on the sides and back. However, consistency in FUE growth is still a factor and most leading surgeons still agree that no FUE result has ever wow'd them like today's state of the art strip procedures.

 

At the end of the day, each patient should choose what's best for them. But it's important to have all the facts and not buy into scare tactics like using the phase "ugly strip scars", etc.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill