alarming question about all but one ht clinic!!!! you must read

[nemo.shark]

ive been researching ht's for some years now and im looking for a fue procedure, out of all the clinics web sights ive looked at there's one that stands out over and above the rest!!! and thats hassan & Wong! with literally hundreds of extremely impressive results and before and after photos and videos documenting how extremely impressive their results are! unfortunately for me and others in the same position as me they dont do fue! but after looking at their results they have achieved they are the only place i would be 100% confident going to because they have documented hundreds of fine results on their web sight! and that fills me as a consumer with confidence in their ability's!

 

now in contrast all the other clinics and surgeons, pretty much all of them are showing very few results on their own web sights and the majority they are showing are not so great and not so impressive! you could even say mediocre results! yet those same clinics and surgeons choose to put their best results in photo evidence on to web sights like this one and not on their own web sights! with their names on! this to me rings alarm bells! and makes me think this is being done to deceive people in a way that legally you can do nothing about????

 

example, if im a business man or woman and i or someone writes a thread or blog on a web sight making claims about a product im selling that are misleading and then publishing photoshopped pictures on a 3rd party web sight unassociated to me and my business then someone purchases what im selling based off this information on the 3rd party web sight, then there is nothing that you the consumer can legally do about it if the information you received about the product came from anywhere else other than the person or business that you bought the product from! making that business not liable for any complaints regarding the information you received from the 3rd party in regard to what your buying.

 

if im wrong about what im saying here and have offended any clinic or surgeon then im sorry, but i think its the elephant in the room and if you are a surgeon or clinic reading this then i think you should explain what the reason is why you show your best photographic evidence for the work you have previously carried out on 3rd party web sights like this and others and not on your own web sights in your name and your clinics name???

 

if anyone wants a conversation on this issue then please feel free to give your opinion here.

[hairthere]

Clinics will post their results here rather than their own web sites for one simple reason: traffic. They will have far higher visibility and reach more people.

[nemo.shark]

I'm sorry but i don't buy that explanation, i think you will find that if anyone is looking for a hair transplant then the first thing they will do is type into a search engine like google or yahoo "hair transplant" followed by the country or area they live within as a first point of call and look at a clinics information direct before they dig deeper and find somewhere like this web sight as a valuable resource of information in regard to what level of service and expertise a specific clinic or surgeon is capable of!

 

i think this issue has got more to do with a clinics or surgeons liability in regard to a bad result than anything else and as a consumer it does not fulfill me with confidence in the slightest, in fact it does the complete opposite and makes me raise questions about there integrity and until clinics start to show their best results on their web sights in their surgeon's name and not exclusively display them on 3rd party web sights like this then my opinion wont change!

 

you say they are doing this because they get more traffic to places like this, well i don't believe that. for starters you have to sign up to a place like this before you can view things which takes time and effort so they are advertising in a place where an individual has to do a deep amount of digging to uncover the information they are looking for and the information they are looking for they don't even know for sure is here before they do! this is the last place i would expect to find a surgeon or clinic advertising their past patient results and i think if you asked anyone where they would most expect to find a surgeon or clinic advertising or displaying their previous patients result that they have acquired the rights or consent to display, they would say the company's or surgeons web sight and not a social networking sight! personally i think its unethical.

 

a surgeons or clinics own web sight is like a resume or cv for the surgeons ability's and past work, its the place you would expect a surgeon to display his or her finest work and be proud to display it, just like you would put your best achievements on your resume or cv when going for a new job, you would not hide your best work away in a place where people interested in your work would have difficulty finding it or even be aware it exists at all! in business terms this is bad business and businesses don't run that way two nets catch more fish than one and the clinics are already buying server space on the internet for their web sights, so the question remains why are they not displaying their best results on their own websites that they are already paying money for??

 

a surgeons results should get better with experience, so why are they displaying their less experienced older work on their web sights and not updating it with their more recent more impressive work and instead choosing to do that in places like this where liability for their claims is not officially associated with their business or them selves???? this makes no business sense unless you are trying to deceive people and i for one are uncomfortable with it and so should anyone else considering using a clinic or surgeon based on photographic evidence and testimony's gained out side that of an official channel in relation to a specific clinic or surgeon as any decision anyone does make is based on hear say and propaganda.

 

if any clinic or surgeon reads this then for gods sake if you have done good work and have consent to display it then be proud of it put it on your web sight with your name on it and say yes i did that!!!! or carry on doing what your doing and leave yourself open to criticism that brings your integrity in to question!!! if you have nothing to hide then its in your best interests!!! and if you have something to hide then at least people can work out who you are!!!!

[Blake Bloxham]

Nemo,

 

I really don't see why the physicians posting their images on a website such as ours (where not only can they upload cases, but they can also receive input and feedback, and interact with other hair transplant patients and professionals) compared to their personal .com makes any difference? As long as the images are out there, they are visible to whomever choses to view them and make a decision as to where they would like to have their hair transplant.

 

Furthermore, it's my understanding that many physicians pay a significant fee to have a website designed and built for them when they first start off, and because of the cost and the inability to really change and update it on their own, not many changes are made to the site (ie uploading a weekly case like they can on our community).

 

I'm not sure if this clarifies anything, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with recommended hair restoration physicians posting results on our community and not their personal clinic websites. The doctors who post here really don't have the need to fake or dilute any results, and I personally think the amount of cases uploaded to our community daily proves this.

[bullitnut]

Agreed a lot of phsicians websites are dated, but i believe its down to convenience and hassle, not anything sinister...like Blake says it costs money to change and build websites so therefore they only get updated periodicallly.

 

I also believe that despite being incredibly intelligent many doctors are not computer savvy and would not know how to update their own .com sites, where as uploading an image on a public forum is easy...and they get to interact with their potential clients which makes good business sense.

 

That and the fact that good surgeons are generally very busy most of the time.

From what ive seen is it tends to go in trends...ie. one Dr updates his/her site then they all follow suit and update.

 

If i was a doctor i would much rather interact with my potential patients daily/weekly etc on a public forum where people go for support, than fiddle around with my own site all the time.

 

You make a valid point though and i believe many clinics should update their sites....in with the new and out with the old dude:)

[nemo.shark]

i don't have a problem what so ever with physicians coming to a place like this to interact with potential patients or giving advice to anyone that has an interest in the subject, all im saying is that from a legal stand point any claims made in a place like this by anyone and that includes a surgeon or clinic are irrelevant in the eyes of the law in regard to trades descriptions and advertising, so any information received about what you are investing in is of an unofficial nature and should be treated as such and because of this loop hole in the law it is open to abuse by anyone who wishes to take advantage of the situation and the fact that surgeons are posting their best results on here and not on their own web sights is highly indicative of such abuse, so to address your first point it does make a difference from a legal point of view in regard to the liability any surgeon or clinic has or does not have from any information received through channels out side that of an official one which is related to the products or services they provide.

 

your second point i will also address, in fact you have addressed it for me from what you have said. yes it costs money to have a web sight designed/developed and made active, but its also possible during that process with no extra cost to have the facility of an owners administrators account created in to its design which allows the owner to upload new images and remove old ones at their leisure! so when you say this ( "because of the cost and the inability to really change and update it on their own, not many changes are made to the site (ie uploading a weekly case like they can on our community)." ) its not the fact that they are unable to do this on their own web sights its because they are unwilling!!!!! and as you have said your self they are able to upload new patient results in the form of photos on to this community which is also a web sight by the way and there is no reason why what this web sight and many others facilitates could not be facilitated on to a surgeon's or clinics own web sight, as a web sight is 100% adaptable to the owners requirement's! so this is no excuse for them to not display their work in their name on their company's web sight!!

 

i don't think the amount of photos physicians upload onto this sight proves anything other than the fact that its funny they don't put them on their own web sights so people who are serious about a hair transplant from their clinic can view them and assess them in an environment which is legally related to them in terms of what they are capable of offering to people or are realistically able to achieve.

 

and don't you think the fact that if you are considering a hair transplant you have to become a research detective and dig through unofficial and potentially erroneous information and hear say from others to decide who's the right surgeon for you tell you that some thing is totally wrong!! it should be as simple as going each surgeons web sight looking at the past work the have carried out within those environments and then making a decision on who you want to acquire more about and not spend years having to look through photos that you have no assurances are genuine or talking to people you have no idea are genuine and having to make a decision in this manor! everything should be up front and above board at the point of enquiry in to any clinic or physician.. this is my opinion and believe it is a more than valid one!

[Blake Bloxham]

Nemo,

 

Although I am having some trouble deciphering what you're trying to say, I think your main point is as follows:

 

physicians post information on 3rd party websites because it takes away the legality of making such claims, posting such results, etc, on their own personal website (ie: they cannot be held accountable for what's posted on a third party site). Furthermore, you feel like physicians do possess the time and ability to upload information to their own websites, but do not do so for the same "legal loophole" scenario you've posted above.

 

Is this correct?

 

Frankly, I don't want to start making generalizations or discuss other websites, but your theories simply don't hold weight in our specific community. The physicians who are recommended here are screened, approved by the community as a whole, and must adhere to a set of standards and practices to keep the recommendation status.

 

Because of this, these physicians simply can't (nor would they) run around making knowingly false claims, posting deceptive results, etc, because the community would self-regulate and stop the behavior. Additionally, outside clinics and physicians are not (according to the terms of service) allowed to use the network for promotional purposes, so any of these alleged practitioners wouldn't even have the opportunity to post information, results, new therapies, etc, on the site/discussion forums.

 

These are the facts, but anecdotally, I can personally tell you that the types of physicians associated with our network are not the types of need to subscribe to these types of antics, and if our community did humor these types of actions, it would have been dismissed by the hair restoration community and shut down a long time ago. Again, I won't get into what happens on other 3rd party sites, but I simply do not believe you theories hold weight in our specific setting.

[nemo.shark]

future, i can see this getting political.

 

"physicians post information on 3rd party websites because it takes away the legality of making such claims, posting such results, etc, on their own personal website (ie: they cannot be held accountable for what's posted on a third party site). Furthermore, you feel like physicians do possess the time and ability to upload information to their own websites, but do not do so for the same "legal loophole" scenario you've posted above."

 

in a nut shell you seem to get the gist of my concerns so yes, but regardless of any legal liability in terms of misinformation or misrepresentation in terms of results posted on sights such as this by surgeons, do you not think its in the surgeons and clinics BEST! interests to display their work on their own web sight?? so people who go to their sight can easily assess the work they are genuinely capable of achieving?? and not potentially be mislead in anyway what so ever by looking at pictures of results they have posted in other places unrelated to their businesses? in medical terms i think this is unethical.

 

"The physicians who are recommended here are screened, approved by the community as a whole, and must adhere to a set of standards and practices to keep the recommendation status.

 

Because of this, these physicians simply can't (nor would they) run around making knowingly false claims, posting deceptive results, etc, because the community would self-regulate and stop the behavior. Additionally, outside clinics and physicians are not (according to the terms of service) allowed to use the network for promotional purposes, so any of these alleged practitioners wouldn't even have the opportunity to post information, results, new therapies, etc, on the site/discussion forums."

 

ok firstly this sight is not the fda or any sort of medical regulatory body that is recognised by any country or any authority, the individuals responsible for this sight are not elected individuals that represent the interests of the people who elected them. but having said that, if you think you have power of attorney in regard to the public's best interests and you think you have a vetting procedure for physicians then may i suggest that you implement a rule that all physicians this community recommends to the public show on their own web sights all the work they have carried out in the past that they have consent to show and would like to display publicly?? then if they have got nothing to hide they have got nothing to loose and all to gain, as people like me will not be vilifying them for their actions and instead complimenting them and even having a hair transplant with them!! if your saying they have to adhere to a strict set of standards to retain recommendation status then i think you should have this as one of your strict standards!! be open and honest and up front about the work you have done and are capable of achieving and display it on your web sight and claim it to be your own work!!! then people like me will have confidence in your work and i will come to you for a hair transplant!! that's simple good business practice!! if they cant or wont do this then it just raises to many negative questions as to what the true reasons are for not doing it!! the consumer is king make me feel confident in your ability's and you have got my attention!! give me any reason to doubt you and you haven't got a chance!

[nemo.shark]

because of the issues ive raised in this thread my advice to anyone opting for a hair transplant is to do it through their own legal representation, i.e. have the surgeon or clinic forward their photographic evidence of the previous work they claim to have carried out to a solicitor or lawyer who can archive and confirm receipt of them and then relay those photos to yourself so you are sure that what you are looking at is genuine work carried out by that particular surgeon and not photos that have been loaded up to a web sight unrelated to their business that you have no idea are genuine or even no idea who actually uploaded them!

 

if anyone does this i would love to see if physicians are willing to send the same photos that they have apparently uploaded on to sights like this to somebody's legal representative and categorically state that these pictures are genuinely work they have carried out in the past!

[hairthere]

I just typed "hair transplant" into google...the first thing that came up was this site. Now that could be because the search engine knows I visit here a lot on this computer, so I'll have to see if that's the case from another IP address....

 

I like the fact that I get to see results posted from actual consumers and not just the clinics as these shots are usually more honest and less glamour shot.

Edited March 24, 2011 by hairthere

[nemo.shark]

no, i think its great that people are posting their results on to places like this! don't get me wrong but all im saying is you have got totally no assurances that they are genuine pictures or genuine people posting them or who actually did the work, this isn't really my main argument but it is definitely a concern!

 

my main argument/concern is surgeons or clinics or people affiliated to them regularly publicising their best results in this manor on to places like this and not even bothering to do the same on their own web sights! which is totally wrong!!! only people of limited intelligence would do such a thing from a business point of view! unless there was another more sinister reason for doing so!

 

hell if i was a ht surgeon and i had done impressively good work and i had permission to display evidence of it then it would be on my web sight with my name on it proudly displayed without a shadow of a doubt!

 

would an estate agents or car dealer run their business in the same manor?? by not updating their web sight with photos of new cars or new property's???

 

would you commission with your live savings a builder to build you your dream home when the only way hes willing to proudly display extensive evidence of his past work is in snap shots of random buildings on social networking sights claiming to be his own work which apparently were uploaded by him and others affiliated to him, but on his own personal web sight hes only willing to proudly display very little evidence of any work to show what he is capable of?

 

if anyone thinks this isn't an issue then your crazy! surgeons should be proudly displaying their best work on their web sights! and if they are not then you have got to ask why are they choosing to display in places like this instead? from a business point of view you do both!!! display here and display on your own web sight! that is if you want to have a business and keep it!

Edited March 24, 2011 by nemo.shark

[baldingbro]

You mentioned you are looking for FUE, As far as I know Hasson and wong does not do FUE. I do not know whether you realised or not, I suggest you spend more time researching in who does better FUE.

[Blake Bloxham]

Nemo,

 

I apologize if I'm not interpreting what you're saying correctly, but hopefully I can address a few of your comments and concerns:

 

1. I don't think our site claims to be a regulatory board or the final say in what is 'right and wrong' within the field of medical hair restoration, but I do think that if you spend some time on the discussion forums interacting and discovering what our community is all about, you'll come to find that we do recommend a set of physicians based upon a well discussed and accepted set of rigorous standards.

 

Additionally, because the community is patient driven AND the fact that individuals can post their own personal results, I feel like the cases presented are fair, balanced, and represent a spectrum of specific physician work.

 

I don't believe this community claims to be the 'final say,' but I do think we offer a good view into the field of hair restoration, and I think patients and physicians generally respond well to our community.

 

2. Do I think it's in a clinic's best interest to display their best work on a personal/clinic specific website? I'm uncertain. Frankly, I think that would be up to the specific physician, but I do stand by my assessment that many physicians don't design, update, or alter their personal website and uploading cases to their sites simply isn't the same thing as uploading them to a community that is designed for this purpose.

 

Additionally, I don't really notice much of a difference between the cases presented on recommended physician's websites and the cases presented on our community. The quality of the work seems perfectly on par to me, and I often notice cases that are presented on both.

 

All I can attest to is my personal experience, and this is what I've seen and do not find it unethical.

 

3. I'm not sure if you're aware how we recommend and continue recommending hair transplant surgeons, but posting cases at a reasonable rate is part of the requirements. Additionally, because of the rate at which these cases are presented, they aren't 'cherry picked' and do represent a realistic view of surgical hair restoration.

 

Furthermore, since I already stated that I don't see a difference in the quality of the results between physician websites and the results posted on the network AND because many of the recommended physicians do have a link to our discussion forums on their personal websites, I don't see why a new requirement (as you described) is necessary.

 

Again, I don't want to sound like I'm blindly or routinely supporting a certain set of practitioners or disregarding any of the potential issues inherent within the field of hair restoration, but I simply don't think the doctors who are recommended by our community indulge in the practices you're describing.

 

If you do have any specific questions about a certain website that you find differs from the results posted here or if you do have a legitimate recommended/amendment as to how we recommend physicians, I'm more than happy to discuss these issues with you.

 

I hope this helps!

[TakingThePlunge]

Blake,

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. Great response!

[EpilepticSceptic]

bravo to the OP !!

 

I feel he has very valid concerns and the same type questions that I had before I could decide on getting my HT.

 

Now that I have 5 years of HT research under my belt, and also having recently had a HT, I guess I could play the role of "teacher" here with the OP.

 

And if he/she was one of my students in HT 101, right now I would give him an A+ for his very sharp mind which thinks very much like my own.

 

As far as the "screening" process of this site goes, it is indeed an excellent and noble effort but there is no way it can ever completely control or predict what the future behavior of it's members will be. And it could very well be YOUR HEAD and life that takes the fall from being one of the unlucky ones who "was in the wrong place at the wrong time" when HT suregeon X starts going on his downward spiral into butcherdom --- and the community will only become the wiser AFTER you (and others) report it, when it is already too late

 

We've seen this before and we will definitely see it again. Even recently "usedandabused" confirmed that his butcher was a recommended doc on this site AT THE TIME when he selected him. You can even search the archives and find many threads where patients praise this doc as one of the very best, yet today he is a well known butcher who used to do good work but for whatever reason decided one day to get lazy and become a hack.

 

But when you see hundreds of cases (pics and HD video) on one HT clinic's site and nobody else bothers to do the same thing it has to make you wonder why ?

 

IMO the OP has very valid concerns.

Edited March 24, 2011 by EpilepticSceptic

[hairthere]

"example, if im a business man or woman and i or someone writes a thread or blog on a web sight making claims about a product im selling that are misleading and then publishing photoshopped pictures on a 3rd party web sight unassociated to me and my business then someone purchases what im selling based off this information on the 3rd party web sight, then there is nothing that you the consumer can legally do about it if the information you received about the product came from anywhere else other than the person or business that you bought the product from! making that business not liable for any complaints regarding the information you received from the 3rd party in regard to what your buying."

 

Here's the bottom line: before you go in for HT surgery you sign a waiver form saying the surgeon is not liable and that results are not guaranteed. It does not matter where the clinic has results posted, be it on this site or on his own. THAT is what protects surgeons in a court of law. As far as whether or not a clinic should have the most up to date web site, I could honestly care less: so long as I have seen results, be they on this forum or in person. It's up to each patient to do his due diligence and make an informed decision.

 

An interesting side note: One doctor with a great reputation on this forum had a bad review posted, another with very little reputation had a glowing review posted, roughly at the same time. The one with "Bad Review of..." in the title had over 6,000 views in just three days. The "Great Experience with..." title has just 900 reviews.

Edited March 24, 2011 by hairthere

[MusoInOz]

Hah!

 

I read every reply to this thread, quite the discussion going on.

 

I strongly believe that if you have truly been researching HT surgery for quite some time you would not be dropping these statements regarding legal factors etc, your posts have been written to great length yet portray no real conclusive question or much of anything with any relevance. I can see why Blake seems confused with your previous posts or unable to actually decipher the situation. Please do not take this as a personal attack I enjoy a strong discussion on the forum just like the next poster.

 

If you search HT surgery into your Google bar this is the first site presented.

 

 

Cheers,

[rahul143]

hi guys can any body suggest me about the HT in Hyd. how is the best doctor and about the charges

[rahul143]

who is the best doctor??

[nemo.shark]

future, "you'll come to find that we do recommend a set of physicians based upon a well discussed and accepted set of rigorous standards." What you actually do is recommend a set of physicians based on photographic evidence that physicians or their associates have mostly uploaded themselves on to an environment where any legal assurances and protection from the consumers point of view has as to the authenticity or accuracy of the information and evidence they see or here do not exist. Which would not be the case if the photographic evidence came directly from its source to the consumer! and not through an unassosiated 3rd party such as a sight like this, so all you have actually done is create an environment that leaves the consumer regarded as a fool by the law in view of where he/she acquired the information from to make a decision about who they want to have as their surgeon and at the same time presented an opportunity to any physician or clinic who is intent on misleading their potential patents as to the extent of their ability’s to get away with doing so unchallenged in the eyes of the law, so you actually recommend surgeons on photographs intentionally publicised by surgeons or affiliates in an environment that takes away all the consumers rights or protection the law may have in terms of information and imagery received before an operation, which in turn influences their decisions on who does that operation.

 

 

 

"Additionally, because the community is patient driven AND the fact that individuals can post their own personal results, I feel like the cases presented are fair, balanced, and represent a spectrum of specific physician work." individuals can post their own personal results?? Well your right it looks like they can, BUT! What assurances have you got that anyone coming to this sight in regard to the individuals who are actually uploading their personal results are indeed genuine and not anyone affiliated to the clinic or surgeon professionally or personally?? I would love you to answer this? as its no secret physicians have made profiles on here and do upload photographic evidence as well as individuals affiliated to there business, this is no secret so how do you know it is not also these people uploading results as if they are genuine happy customers who have undergone a hair transplant????

 

"Additionally, I don't really notice much of a difference between the cases presented on recommended physician's websites and the cases presented on our community. The quality of the work seems perfectly on par to me, and I often notice cases that are presented on both." I totally disagree with most of this statement! You have already said that the volume of uploaded pictures on this sight is a testament to this sights requirements for particular physicians to attain and remain recommendation status! Well volume speaks words my friend! And I think if you or anyone looks at physician’s photo evidence on this sight and then look at their official photographic evidence you will find very few photos in general and pretty much no close up photographic evidence! but on this web sight you will find not just only 99% more photos that on a surgeons own sight but also close up shots, so the question remains why are they willing to present that kind of evidence for previous work on here which is place they are not liable for any legal misrepresentation and unwilling to do so through channels what are official to them where they are liable for any legal misrepresentation in regard they claim to have carried out?? I think anyone with half a brain can determine what advantages this has for the surgeon and what disadvantage this has for the patient!!

 

"Do I think it's in a clinic's best interest to display their best work on a personal/clinic specific website? I'm uncertain. Frankly, I think that would be up to the specific physician, but I do stand by my assessment that many physicians don't design, update, or alter their personal website and uploading cases to their sites simply isn't the same thing as uploading them to a community that is designed for this purpose." hmmmm your uncertain if its in a clinics best interest to display their work on their personal web sight?? Are you also uncertain that it’s in your best interest to display your best work achievements on your resame when applying for a job??? Are you uncertain if it’s in an artist’s best interest to display their best work on their web sight??? Are you uncertain if it’s in estate agents best interest to display the property’s they sell on their web sight?? Are you unsure if it’s in a car dealer’s best interest to display the best vehicles they are selling on their web sight?? Do you thin it’s in a business best interest to advertise the products they are selling their web sight??? Do you think it’s in anyone who is selling something eBay’s best interest to put a photo of what they are selling on there advertisement??? Do you think it’s in a business best interest to advertise the products they are selling??? You saying you are unsure about this only confirms to me that you have an alteria motive or hidden agenda in regard to your avoidance of giving the answer to this question that anyone with a brain could answer which is yes sure it is in their best interest to display their best work on their web sight!!!! by attempting to defend the fact that surgeons and clinics are uploading more of their best photographic evidence on to this sight and not on to their own personal sights only highlights what you are obviously more concerned with which is the amount of hits this web sight generates week in week out by people having to research hair transplantation surgeons by the potentially illegitimate photographic evidence they regularly upload, which you then present as marketing figures like viewing figures on television to the company’s you sell advertisement space to on this sight as to justify the fees you charge them for them!!! This is also a reason why you think it’s not a good idea to require recommended surgeons to upload more evidence of their work on their web sights! (By the way it is a good idea to this from the patents point of view!!! it’s just not a good idea for you or this web sight!!!

 

And you obviously didn’t understand what I said about web sights being totally adaptable to any owner’s requirements and a physician’s web sight could have the exact same features as this sight and many others have, which allows them to log in and upload new photos at their leisure! This is simple! And it’s not done!

"But I simply don't think the doctors who are recommended by our community indulge in the practices you're describing."

 

You don’t think the doctors who are recommended indulge in practices im describing??

 

So you don’t think doctors have a disproportionate amount of evidenceon this sight for the work they have done or are capable of achieving compaired to what evidence they are willingly displaying on their own sights?? Ok you think that if you want but seen as though you made this statement below but not wanting to single anyone out I may as well oblige.

 

"If you do have any specific questions about a certain website that you find differs from the results posted here or if you do have a legitimate recommended/amendment as to how we recommend physicians, I'm more than happy to discuss these issues with you."

 

What have we here then? Maybe 20-24 patent photos??

 

 

Photos of Hair Transplants at FellerMedical.com

 

now in comparison what is uploaded up to this sight 47 patent photos all with on average another 8 photos with in that 47 so around 350 photos in total and that’s not to mention the hundreds of additional photos this particular surgeon has uploaded himself as well as his representative spex which if all accounted for would equate to between 1000-2000 photos. And you don’t think that’s a disproportionate amount of evidence for the previous work and quality of work carried out by a particular surgeon then I don’t what is??

 

Hair Transplant Photos :: Alan Feller, D.O

 

Im not intentionally singling anyone out I have picked this example at the drop of a hat as you requested an example, but this situation is not unique!

 

Rule 101 when researching anything is what is the source of the information, is it reliable what agenda do they have and is it disproportionate, I would say this example is a very disproportionate amount of evidence for previous work carried out which has been intentionally displayed in a environment where legal liability for such claims don’t really exist and in comparison very little evidence willingly presented in the environment where the consumer has protection by the law!

 

And just to add a search engine uses cookies search history and temporary internet files to track your movements on the web and previous web sights you have visited will take president in search results if the software determines it relevant and where you search from also has an influence, personally typing hair transplant in Google for me puts this sight at position 10. no that this is any argument that supports anyone Google yahoo all take payments to place sights higher up in search listings, and I stand by my statement that photo evidence on this sight is more difficult to find out about and even locate once you do know about than typing in hair transplant clinic and researching a clinic that way, so its more beneficial if a surgeon has done good work to display it on their web sight!

Edited March 25, 2011 by nemo.shark

[Blake Bloxham]

Nemo,

 

At this point in time, several things are clear:

 

1. We aren't communicating clearly

 

2. You clearly haven't done much research about our community before making these accusations (you were unaware patients could upload photos; you are unaware that Pat - the gentleman responsible for this network, spent countless hours and resources literally visiting numerous, numerous hair transplant clinics all over the U.S. and abroad before launching the recommendation feature; you are unaware that physicians are required to post cases HERE (not personal websites) to uphold the recommendation status, et cetera).

 

3. At this point in time, you're jumping to very illogical conclusions and essentially pandering to conspiracy theories (which, as someone versed in research like yourself will know, is the least objective, informed, and sound type of conclusion), and I simply can't and won't reasonably reply to this conjecture.

 

4. I've articulated my points, and you are free to disagree with them or maintain your personal feelings regarding some sort of "agenda" (which again, I completely disagree with), but these points (and this reply) will be my last response regarding this situation in this thread.

 

Again, if you have specific issues pertaining to what we do here, I am more than happy to clarify, help you research, point you in the right direction, et cetera. Thank you.

[nemo.shark]

i also feel this a more than valid point to argue here and i would appreciate a response in regard to this, i notice that the waver you sign before the operation has been brought up by "hairthere", well this is nothing new with any kind of surgery you have even dentists will make you sign a disclaimer when having minor things like fillings replaced or more complicated procedures like implants surgery, in my opinion its like this any ht doctor that is experienced and has been practicing for a while will be aware that some surgery's do not go the way they or the patent expected and in regard to such occurrences that surgeon must know or be able to determine what percentage of patents they treat end up with a satisfactory result! you asked me for any recommendations i had well this is another, if the practitioner is good then he should publish or at the very least make aware to the patent his rate of success in percentage terms before the operation. if the surgeon is good then he should be confident of a result and his disclaimer should reflect his or her confidence claiming his or her success rate in percentage terms if the surgeon feels their success rate for a particular operation will be 90% and they are then willing to undertake that specific operation under these conditions then he should be willing to reimburse 50% of the funds to that particular patent if the result is not what is expected. any surgeon that has a high rate of success this will be beneficial to offer as more people would be inclined to undergo the treatment with them under those conditions.

 

here's a link to a dentists who publicise their implantation success rate on their sight at 97% VitalEurope - Budapest Implants only ?480

 

if dentists are doing this for implants then ht surgeons should also make people aware of their success rates!! if they are not making you aware or unwilling to disclose this information to you, then they are guilty of not making you aware of all the facts and you would have grounds which invalidate the disclaimer you signed.

[nemo.shark]

its not me jumping to conclusions i was fully aware that patents can upload photos on to here and i was and am fully aware of most of what you just accuse me of not being aware of. and just to get things strait

im

 

not accusing any one of anything,

im

 

presenting a case for my concerns which you have simply been unable to address with anything which has any substance, its not what you are making out to be which is we are not communicating clearly, as i think

ive

 

made it perfectly clear as to what points i have and provided evidence which it is to difficult for you to explain and not to difficult for you to understand! do not get me wrong i think this sight is great but from the point of view that it benefits its self quite possibly financially from photo evidence presented here from surgeons which may well mislead people and at the same time mislead people in way that strips them of their rights as a consumer is definitely a worry to me and it will be to others if they were aware of it! and the only problem really is physicians that you recommend do not display an equal and not disproportionate portfolio of evidence for their work on both their own web sights as well as on here and the fact you don't see it as a problem and are unwilling to do anything about the situation is even more disturbing!

[MusoInOz]

I have to agree with Futures statements, your posts seem to scream conspiracy amongst the HT field.

I do not need to reply in a detailed rant format such as yourself, Reading over your posts and reviewing exactly what you have said I would suggest more research is required into the entire field mate. Just my honest opinion, you are not going to find every answer you seek.

 

Cheers,

[nemo.shark]

well if you think what im saying screams conspiracy theory then you should be asking yourself why you have come to that conclusion??? all ive done is raise issues which highlight facts, feel free to selectively point our anything ive wrote that you feel isn't a fact and we can address it.

 

all ive done is present facts and what effects those facts present and relate to everyone concerned.

 

funny you say i should do more research, how do you expect me to research further when the majority of information and evidence is in and from unofficial resources?

 

if you are someone considering a hair transplant and you think that its not a good idea to ask the surgeon his success rate then your crazy.

 

your also crazy if you have surgery based on pictures you have seen on the internet from channels out side that of the specific surgeons organisation.

 

its funny that everyone on this sight is spending years of their lives reading thousands upon thousand of testimonials and viewing thousand of pictures that they have no assurances are from real genuine people and they think this is the best way of going about it. this should be simple the surgeons should be advertising their success rates on their web sights saying 90% satisfaction rate and displaying the majority of evidence for their work through official channels which you the consumer can rely on as being authentic and genuine, that way you are protected and not given a false impression.