Disaster with Dr.Madhu

[BlackAmish111]

Well I hate to be brutally honest but something is just not right here. I looked at dugman's 4 month pre-op and his hair looks better then. The amount of investment we all spend can be tremendous both financially and emotionally and it's vital that we as a community have a standard in which to trust and relay.

 

I'm not stating that's there's no such thing as 'X' factor -but merely that in no profession should there be allowed an all encompassing validation for poor results. Sure, maybe dugman has some unknown genetic factor working against him but is it not also worth mentioning that perhaps a physician of better artistry may have produced better results? Does a patient not deserve more than "you were asleep, you don't know" and possibly more delving into why the results may have turned out so badly instead of *shrug*, "syndrome x".

 

I'll be disappointed in this site if the doctor, failing to present better reasons continues to be promoted. If everyone is a 10, it cheapens those who are truly excellent and trumps up the incompetent...

[Blake Bloxham]

Black,

 

While I appreciate the reply, please keep in mind that the "X" factor certainly does exist, and sometimes patient physiology is unpredictable and completely out of the physician's hands. While this shouldn't be a "cop out" or an excuse for poor surgical skill, it can't be completely dismissed either. What's more, I truly don't think Dr. Madhu used the "X" factor as an excuse for poor results in this instance.

 

What's more, we did our best to investigate the issue and make sure both sides of the incident had the opportunity to present their case and also reach a level of resolution. We can't please 100% of members and physicians all the time, but we do our best to keep the community fair, balanced, and honest. I can attest that this issue was investigated thoroughly, but if any members have ongoing concerns, please feel free to share them in a private message exchange with me.

 

Thank you!

[agenteye]

What's more, we did our best to investigate the issue and make sure both sides of the incident had the opportunity to present their case and also reach a level of resolution. We can't please 100% of members and physicians all the time, but we do our best to keep the community fair, balanced, and honest. I can attest that this issue was investigated thoroughly, but if any members had ongoing concerns, please feel free to share them in a private message exchange with me.

 

I can probably speak for the majority of the members here when I say that we appreciate what you (the mod's) do for us, and the members of this community who have a sub-par result! Thanks Blake/Bill/David for trying to shed some light on this particular case!!

[Blake Bloxham]

Thanks Agent! We do our best and suggestions are always welcomed!

[nathaniel]

Chillboy's scar alone is enough for me to NEVER recommend Dr. Madhu to any of my family, closest friends, distant associates, total strangers, or my worst enemy's dog "Fido" - and Fido's been dead and buried now for 3 years.

 

Since

suggestions are always welcomed

:

 

I find it very disconcerting that the Hair Restoration Network would continue to recommend a doctor to the rest of the world that no well versed member of this site would ever recommend to anyone - especially after such a horrid result. Even if Chillboy's results were a fluke, there should be an immediate cessation of the Hair Restoration Network's unrestrained recommendation for Dr. Madhu's clinic (or any recommended clinic with such unacceptable outcomes) pending investigation. Notice I did not say that such clinics should be immediately dismissed completely without due process - just that HRN's recommendation should include a disclaimer related to any investigation pending the outcome. A disclaimer as such is far more considerate than when, for example, one of Boeing's new 737 Dreamliner airplanes has a small fire and all Boeing 737 airplanes around the world are completely grounded pending not only investigation but also a fix for whatever caused the problem.

 

Moreover, there REALLY needs to be an independent gallery of all doctor/clinic results listed alphabetically by doctor/clinic to which both doctors and patients can post results. Currently the only such pictorial galleries are under doctors' profile pages which naturally are going to include only images of a doctor's best patient outcomes. In contrast, visitors to HRN seeking evidence of poor to even average patient outcomes for any particular doctor must sift through numerous, often lengthy and frequently indirectly related threads to find such postings (assuming such postings exist). The current structure enabling doctors/clinics to post their best results in one place under the doctors'/clinics' name while in contrast providing patients only the opportunity to post outcomes in unrelated, solitary threads or personal blogs (often outdated for someone doing a current search) does not provide the general viewing public sufficiently equal opportunity to review all available information on a particular doctor/clinic.

 

The goal of any good resource provider is to make all available information easily accessible in its entirety. Imagine, Blake, if you had to study for your medical exams by searching through threads...

[Blake Bloxham]

I find it very disconcerting that the Hair Restoration Network would continue to recommend a doctor to the rest of the world that no well versed member of this site would ever recommend to anyone - especially after such a horrid result. Even if Chillboy's results were a fluke, there should be an immediate cessation of the Hair Restoration Network's unrestrained recommendation for Dr. Madhu's clinic (or any recommended clinic with such unacceptable outcomes) pending investigation. Notice I did not say that such clinics should be immediately dismissed completely without due process - just that HRN's recommendation should include a disclaimer related to any investigation pending the outcome.

 

Nathaniel,

 

As I said earlier, this situation was investigated thoroughly. Whenever a situation like this arises, we always do our best to investigate and handle the situation as fairly as possible. Because the investigate is complete, and has been for some time, there is no need for a disclaimer.

 

Also, please keep in mind that no physician "bats 1,000." While I'm not making excuses for a poor result, if we had to place a disclaimer in any instance where a dissatisfied patient shared a poor experience (whether legitimate or not legitimate), nearly every physician practicing hair restoration today would carry this "disclaimer." The important thing to remember is that while unfortunate situations like this do happen, we recommend physicians who, on the whole, practice the most state-of-the-art hair restoration and DO consistently post excellent results. Does this mean 100% of the results are glowing, positive experiences? No. However, what this does mean is that they are talented, ethical physicians who use the best techniques and practices to maximize patient results.

 

A disclaimer as such is far more considerate than when, for example, one of Boeing's new 737 Dreamliner airplanes has a small fire and all Boeing 737 airplanes around the world are completely grounded pending not only investigation but also a fix for whatever caused the problem.

 

As previously stated, we thoroughly investigated this issue. What's more, we investigate all instances like this when they arise. If we find that the poor result was an isolated incident and the physician is still performing quality hair transplantation, then we help both parties reach a resolution, support the patient as much as possible, and continue to recommend the physician with the knowledge that they are still practicing state-of-the-art hair restoration. If we investigate the find sub-par techniques, a variety of poor experiences, or an overall lapse in the quality of their practice, then the outcome is NOT the same, and different actions are taken.

 

While I understand what you're saying with the Boeing example, I'm not sure it directly correlates, nor do I believe the disclaimer warning would be helpful.

 

Moreover, there REALLY needs to be an independent gallery of all doctor/clinic results listed alphabetically by doctor/clinic to which both doctors and patients can post results.

 

Here is a alphabetical list of our recommended hair restoration surgeons. The list denotes the physician, their practice location, and their recommendation versus Coalition status. By clicking on any given physician's name, you are directed to their profile, which contains pertinent information, a detailed gallery of the physician's work, video interviews, and patient experiences. This feature has been available on our community since its inception many years ago.

 

Currently the only such pictorial galleries are under doctors' profile pages which naturally are going to include only images of a doctor's best patient outcomes.

 

The images included in the gallery are usually ones the physicians share during the recommendation process. While I suppose you could say these are the "best patient outcomes," our physicians share at least 1 case a month in the "results posted by leading clinics" section of the forums, and I see no difference between these and the cases shared on the recommendation profile. Please keep in mind that these galleries are comprised of quality results because they come from the physicians we review and recommend based upon the quality of their hair transplant practices.

 

 

In contrast, visitors to HRN seeking evidence of poor to even average patient outcomes for any particular doctor must sift through numerous, often lengthy and frequently indirectly related threads to find such postings (assuming such postings exist).

 

Nathaniel,

 

In my opinion, this is simply the nature of internet forums. Individuals share information and experiences over a number of years, and this wealth of information builds up like a database. When you're seeking one specific piece of information in a collection of years of data, it takes some researching. In my opinion, we do our best to keep the forums categorized, organized, and user friendly. I think our search feature is pretty powerful, and usually allows members to find what they are looking for if they put in an adequate effort.

 

The current structure enabling doctors/clinics to post their best results in one place under the doctors'/clinics' name while in contrast providing patients only the opportunity to post outcomes in unrelated, solitary threads or personal blogs (often outdated for someone doing a current search) does not provide the general viewing public sufficiently equal opportunity to review all available information on a particular doctor/clinic.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor am I certain it is possibly to remedy this perceived issue. First, patients and physicians post results in two different categories in the same forum. One is designated for "results posted by clinics" the other is "results posted by patients." I don't see what is wrong with separating these categories in order to keep the forums organized and user friendly? Are you saying we should disregard the forum norm of subcategories and allow all information to be posted in one generalized section of the site?

 

What's more, clinics usually post 1 case a month for years. Because this results in dozens and dozens of cases that need to be shared on a regular basis, it's hard to claim clinics are only sharing their best results. Furthermore, these clinics are recommended and endorsed by our community based partially upon their high ethics, so accusing them of cherry picking results, in my opinion, is unfair.

 

Furthermore, we have no control over the frequency at which patients post results or update blogs. While I always encourage members to share detailed information frequently, it's truly up to the members themselves. What's more, because results are shared by members, clinic representatives, etc, it would be extremely difficult to link all of these results to the physicians themselves. This is why we provide links to physicians in blogs/personal hair restoration pages and offer the search function.

 

The goal of any good resource provider is to make all available information easily accessible in its entirety. Imagine, Blake, if you had to study for your medical exams by searching through threads...

 

Nathaniel,

 

In my years of medical study, I have had to dig through books, articles, journals, websites, threads, databases, references, and just about everything else imaginable to find answers. Frankly, I, or any other medical student, would kill for a set of forums with all relevant information organized like our community.

 

Regardless, this brings me to an important point: while we do our VERY best to provide an accessible, user friendly, up-to-date resource for hair loss sufferers, research requires two parties. We provide as much as possible, but individual patients still have to spend time and effort utilizing the resources to extract the relevant information. Whether this involves simply asking questions or spending time using the search function, reviewing results on recommendation profiles, etc, it still requires patient effort. Frankly, I think we provide an abundance of information, results, resources, etc, all in one place, but members still have to review, study, and search the information. If, after doing so, they still have specific questions or need help, I (or any other moderator) will always be here to assist. Again, we truly do our best to run our network, and if you do have specific suggestions for making it more accessible for those conducting research, please let me know.

 

I hope this helps.

[nathaniel]

Blake,

 

As I mentioned, I do like you - I think you (and the other moderators generally) do a good job overall at moderating; and I'm certainly appreciative of the information and support I have found in these forums.

 

1) I would like to know, however, if moderators receive financial compensation for the time they contribute to this forum. I am already aware that doctors pay a fee to be either a recommended or coalition physician member of this site, and I do understand there are costs associated with running this site.

 

Here is a alphabetical list of our recommended hair restoration surgeons... This feature has been available on our community since its inception many years ago.

 

2) Yes, I was already aware of the alphabetical listing by physician; thanks for pointing it out nonetheless!

 

"Originally Posted by nathaniel

The current structure enabling doctors/clinics to post their best results in one place under the doctors'/clinics' name while in contrast providing patients only the opportunity to post outcomes in unrelated, solitary threads or personal blogs (often outdated for someone doing a current search) does not provide the general viewing public sufficiently equal opportunity to review all available information on a particular doctor/clinic."

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor am I certain it is possibly to remedy this perceived issue. First, patients and physicians post results in two different categories in the same forum. One is designated for "results posted by clinics" the other is "results posted by patients." I don't see what is wrong with separating these categories in order to keep the forums organized and user friendly? Are you saying we should disregard the forum norm of subcategories and allow all information to be posted in one generalized section of the site?

 

I have stated with no malicious intent on several occasions that I find this site difficult to navigate - primitive is the word that comes to my mind, but again I don't mean that to be offensive - it's just the word that comes to my mind, and I can't really control what random words pop in and out of my brain. I want to emphasize at the same time I am indeed grateful for this forum, the invaluable information I have gathered here, and the overall supportive atmosphere among members. That being said, what I would like to see is an alphabetical listing of doctors; under each doctor there would be two sub-categories: 1) posting of patient results by the doctors or their clinic employees 2) posting of patient results by the patients themselves.

 

Currently it is very easy to look up a doctor alphabetically and see the various results the doctor has posted; however, to find doctor results posted by various patients one must do a search for that doctor's name and then trudge through numerous threads in which the doctor's name appears - whether the threads show actual examples of the doctor's work or not. In this sense the HRN, as I stated before, "does not provide the general viewing public sufficiently equal opportunity to review all available information on a particular doctor/clinic." I am not saying that the information isn't there; just that the search parameters are inherently biased (whether intentional or not - note I'm not saying it's intentional!) towards results posted by doctors and not results posted by patients.

 

What's more, clinics usually post 1 case a month for years. Because this results in dozens and dozens of cases that need to be shared on a regular basis, it's hard to claim clinics are only sharing their best results. Furthermore, these clinics are recommended and endorsed by our community based partially upon their high ethics, so accusing them of cherry picking results, in my opinion, is unfair.

 

Ouch! You hurt my feelings now.... ^^

 

3) Usually post 1 case a month? Is this a requirement? Also is it stated somewhere in the forums that this is "standard" procedure for clinics? I was unaware that all clinics were posting results once a month with due diligence; but if so, I think that's great - but it would be better IMO if it were a requirement made clear to all participants in this forum - doctors, patients, casual readers. At any rate, I disagree that "it's hard to claim clinics are only sharing their best results." Perhaps for you it is hard to claim, but for me it is quite easy to claim that they are showing their best results and, by extension, not their worst results - which might simply be no worse than average - or even above average! At the same time, however, I did not state in any way that HRN member doctors are hiding horrible results or, by extension, are unethical; rather, I specifically expressed the need for a more user-friendly search parameter with particular emphasis on the new or casual user who might be seeking evidence of poor to average results - if such results even exist:

 

...visitors to HRN seeking evidence of poor to even average patient outcomes for any particular doctor must sift through numerous, often lengthy and frequently indirectly related threads to find such postings (assuming such postings exist).

 

Cherry picking, btw, is your word, not mine. I don't believe you will let me put words in your mouth, so understand I can't allow you to put words in my mouth

(Though to be fair, I have seen OTHER members use that word; however, I was trying to avoid -perhaps unsuccessfully? - using loaded terminology that might infer devious intent.)

 

The real problem in my mind (and the mind of others - and I should add I don't have a solution) - is the payment of monies by doctors to HRN (and perhaps moderators?) to obtain recommended and coalition membership status. I recognize that fees are used to support and maintain this site as a free and open resource to all interested persons as well as contribute overall to the further advancement of hair loss treatment. Nonetheless, there exists a conflict of interest of which everyone is aware. To their credit, on the whole the moderators do a good job of trying to remain impartial and objective; however, when horrid results are revealed as in the case of Chilliboy and a doctor continues to be whole heartedly recommended even while an investigation is underway, the impartiality of the moderators and HRN is suspect - and necessarily so (especially when the specifics of such investigations are secretive in nature). Where there is conflict of interest there must always be suspect and explanation - if for no other reason than to allow everyone to see all is on the up and up.

 

Again, we truly do our best to run our network, and if you do have specific suggestions for making it more accessible for those conducting research, please let me know.

 

I know you do! And my suggestion was to let both doctors and patients post their outcomes in an alphabetical listing by doctors' names.

 

Now I am tired and sleepy, though, so I wish you all a good night!

 

- Nathaniel

[Blake Bloxham]

Hi Nathaniel,

 

1. Yes, the moderators are paid for our services on the network. Bill, David, and I spend a significant amount of time keeping the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Learning Center, and Hair Loss Q& A blog updated, relevant, and useful, and it simply wouldn't be possible to keep our sites running smoothly on a volunteer basis. I truly hope most members see this as a "plus."

 

2. You view the forums as "primitive?" I've never heard this complaint from anyone before. This is simply because of the level of searching required? Like I said before, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to link all results posted by patients to the physician's profile. Do you have a suggestion as to how we could accomplish this without essentially taking the forums offline and reorganizing all our content? Again, please keep in mind that research is a collaborative process; we provide a lot of resources, but in the end patients are still responsible for utilizing this content. We try to make this simple and streamlined, but I suppose we cannot make this 100% customized for each individual, nor can we completely remove the need for patients to conduct some of the research themselves (nor do I think it's a good idea to do so).

 

3. Posting 1 result a month is fairly standard. Most recommended/Coalition physicians easily achieve this, and for those who fall behind, we contact them and encourage a monthly posting schedule.

 

4. The sponsorship fee has been discussed many times, so I won't get into it in too much detail here. However, there are a few important things to keep in mind: 1. It's necessary to both ensure our network can continue functioning, and it also keeps our entire community free from unregulated ads (which I think everyone enjoys). 2. We receive a large number of requests for recommendation/consideration for recommendation each month, and only a select few of these are actually brought to the community. We have a very strict set of standards, and only after physicians meet this criteria are they allowed to be reviewed by the moderators, community members, and other recommended/Coalition physicians and considered for official recommendation.

 

Frankly, I think the quality of the physicians who are able to make it through this process shows our dedication and objectivity. However, I suppose there will always be some who feel like our objectivity is affected by the recommendation/Coalition fee. I think we will continue to try and convince these individuals by simply recommending state-of-the-art physicians and utilizing our resources to continue running a transparent patient-based community.

[Nick153452]

Yes Blake, I do appreciate all of the work you guys do. Due to your hard work and dedication I was able to receive my hair transplant from a state-of-the-art clinic.

[hairshopeing]

I agree, this sight is invaluable for information and I also think that the moderators should get paid, and paid well!!! Without being payed with all the goodwill in the world this site would hugely suffer in terms on information, clarity of results and keeping up to date with latest procedures, results and drs performing restoration surgery!!! Also drs need to pay in order for the site to generate an income and to be sustainable,without this the site would have to resort to advertising(which we don't want I'm sure!) every product available in the market place to generate enough income to survive!!

However, what I don't like so much is that when a patient has a poor result from any dr which is a coalition member that patient in my opinion is discouraged from posting and can be quite abruptly told to just converse with the dr a d not the members!! I have seen this on several occasions, where terms like" continuing this thread serves no purpose" or I suggest you reach out to your dr or ill think its appropriate to lock this thread down!! I find that comments made to I satisfied patients are often unjust and are used to discredit what they are relaying!! Even when photo evidence has shown a very bad result its always put in the patient as to why this has happened!!! Now that I don't like!! Like every walk of life if people want recognition and praise for what goes well then they must accept the criticism when it doesn't, and I feel particularly drs who this site recommends are overly protected by the moderators when poor results are shown and documented!!!

I love this site and what it represents, but the above is my only criticism and is meant to be a constructive one!!

[Blake Bloxham]

Nick,

 

Thank you for the kind words!

 

Hopeing,

 

I think your critique is fair. Thank you for sharing. We will definitely keep this in mind moving forward.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

While I appreciate that you're trying to educate yourself, yo have an overly bad habit of taking many threads far off topic to ask unrelated questions.

 

In the future, I suggest starting your own topic and/or asking some of your questions privately.

 

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of you asking the same questions and making the same comments about physicians recommended by this community paying a sponsorship fee. This has been discussed several times (in direct response to you).

 

We operate much like an ivy league university who accepts only the brightest students. Only a handful are selected but students who choose to enroll still have to pay a tuition. Furthermore, teachers and staff members of the university do get paid for their work.

 

Similarly, we only approve a small percentage of surgeons who apply for recommendation. Those who choose to become a physician sponsor pay a sponsorship fee and are listed on this site. Moderators and publishers do get paid for all their efforts on keeping this site running.

 

If you have additional questions about this, I suggest you contact me privately. I'm also happy to speak with you on the phone if you'd like. Just send me a PM and I'll give you my number.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

hairshopeing,

 

I can appreciate your concerns. However, what you have to understand is that as moderators, we often see excellent doctors being attacked and unfairly maligned by members each time someone shares a concern or negative experience. In other words, there's often an immediate "us" (patients) versus "them" (doctors) mentality. What's more, the publishers are often criticised for recommending a particular surgeon because one out of hundreds of results didn't work out. This may at times, put us on the defensive.

 

What would be far better is if members recognized that while a situation/result is poor, that the best solution is a collaboration between the patient and the expert surgeon.

 

Some members are very good at seeing the forest through the trees and being balanced in their responses. However, others are quick to attack and disparage surgeons before they even have a chance to share their side of the story. This is sometimes coupled with uncooperative patients who refuse to show photos or give their doctor the right to share their side of the story...or worse, an agenda to discredit a surgeon just because they won't give into his/her demands of a refund. Some of these patients don't even want to allow their surgeon to see them in person to assess the result.

 

We truly do our best to be balanced and fair. There are many examples where we've walked along side of patients and did the best we can to help them find an amicable resolution with their physician. Dave, Blake and myself have personally played the mediator and helped to negotiate solutions (including refunds when appropriate) for patients. But there are also times when doctors deserve protection from malicious attacks. This is all part of being balanced.

 

That said, the publishers and moderators of this site are people too. We aren't perfect and do the best we can.

 

I hope this helps explain things further.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[hairshopeing]

Thanks for your responses bill and Blake, I appreciate where your coming from bill in regards to different approaches by different patients, especially if they havnt given th dr and opportunity to inspect them and asses in person the result and if no picturese are evident!! I would agree with the process of that being first base, but I'm talking about when an individual displays photos and has spoken and shown directly the dr his result and the dr has an opinion of " in terms of what was planted growth was good and its further loss from the patient due to mpb or shockloss" when clearly that is not the case the hairs were placed into bald areas and have very poor yield and where the pairient had hair before he still has hair now!! I think that if an ethical dr performs a surgery and the results are poor but he regularly has very good results of course he shouldn't just be removed from the list but obviously saying " the dr had produced x number of successful surgeries ain't going to help the poor guy who it clearly hasn't worked out for!! And he should be the guy we are ALL rooting to help have a happy outcome, the time, emotion, commitment and cost of this process os huge, and unparalleled with any other type of cosmetic surgery and if a Recomended dr produces a clearly unsuccessful result then I feel the patient has every right to ask anyone's and everyone's opinion of what they think and how they would move forward, unless the dr has offered a free pass( or if the patient doesn't want the same dr again due to result) a refund then I think the discussion should be allowed to glow freely as imho were allowed to praise all day long, but criticism is quickly cut!! No ones ever told listen we know that's a great hasson and Wong result, 10 people have said now, no more praise or the thread will be shut down as its going know where!! Like iv said, I think you all do a great job and should be well payed to do it, but sometimes the right thing to do is to be honest and say, yep, your right that result is not acceptable from a coalition dr!!

[nathaniel]

Bill, I apologize for taking topics off task. This forum is the first forum (and really only forum) in which I have ever utilized "threads". I have seen other sites which use threads, but quickly clicked away because >for me< threads seem primitive and are a pain to use. You have to read "backwards" to find out what's going on, and it's very time consuming!!!

 

I am not a computer person - and especially not a PC person. I don't know how to design sites, don't know how to program, don't know html, don't know code, don't know any of this stuff. I have always used Macintosh computers because they seemed more intuitive and simpler to me than PC's, but even Macintosh computers drive me crazy when they don't "do right".

 

And when does one start a new thread? Should I do it now before responding? I feel if I do so then I have left a thread without addressing your comments. Again, I apologize if I haven't learned "proper thread social etiquette" in my month and a half of being a member of this forum. I should like to point out I was happy to comment in a new thread previously when it was mentioned I was off topic and was grateful when a new thread had been created that allowed for further discussion of the new topic.

 

That said, this thread is technically about the results of a procedure performed by Dr. Madhu - and I responded with shock and criticism in regards to the outcome. I concur with sentiments expressed by posters before me that the value of "Recommended" status and "Coalition" status doctors is lessened when doctors with sub-par results, especially recurring and/or grotesquely poor results, continue to

enjoy member status. Even you stated:

 

I will be contacting Dr. Madhu and ask him to begin presenting new examples of his work...I think it's time to re-evaluate his procedure and results to make sure his typical procedure and results are still and regularly high quality.

 

Based on just one poor outcome it is completely appropriate to review any doctor's procedures and results (I believe Blake has stated this is standard practice at HRN?). My question to you, Sir, is why does it take so much public outcry to openly acknowledge this? Indeed, any hospital that did not automatically review a poor outcome by a staff doctor I'm guessing could potentially be legally liable...? Is this not standard protocol for quality control in every industry when something goes wrong?

 

Aside from my negative reaction to Dr. Madhu's surgical results in this thread, the only other comment I made in my original posting in this thread is that I would like a different means by which to search for doctor/patient outcomes - and that was at Blake's invitation:

 

We do our best and suggestions are always welcomed!

 

If suggestions really are always welcome (and I'm beginning to believe they are NOT...), then perhaps it is the MODERATORS who should start a new thread entitled: "ALWAYS WELCOMED

SUGGESTIONS!"

 

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of you asking the same questions and making the same comments about physicians recommended by this community paying a sponsorship fee. This has been discussed several times (in direct response to you).

 

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your overuse of the word "Frankly"

 

A simple "search" on this forum will show this to be true. Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed by the lack of support you seem to have for this community, given all the good we do to help people.

 

Frankly, I'm disheartened in the way you dissed Tacolinowest earlier in this thread after the many positive contributions he has made and continues to make to this community - unpaid I must add. In previous threads I have expressed concern at the way visitors to this site are treated at times, and that concern extends to you, as I "feel" (and these are my personal feelings that no one else can validate or invalidate) that you are sometimes too dismissive, aggressive, and lacking empathy towards persons seeking help - answers - for their hair loss. Indeed I would be inclined to believe that you are something of a bully if it were not for the fact that I have in actuality spoken privately with other individuals, one of whom communicated to me that he had spoken with you on the phone and that you are actually a "pretty nice guy".

 

Ok.....this is a REALLY poor analogy:

 

We operate much like an ivy league university who accepts only the brightest students. Only a handful are selected but students who choose to enroll still have to pay a tuition. Furthermore, teachers and staff members of the university do get paid for their work.

 

Let me be clear: I am perfectly capable of speaking with a wickedly vicious tongue - it's not that the words don't enter my mind; however, I continually edit my words with consideration to our shared mutual objectives regarding the best hair loss treatment options available and how to improve upon them. As such, I am deleting the next several sentences....

 

<Content deleted by Nathaniel>

 

Let me return to this statement:

 

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of you asking the same questions and making the same comments about physicians recommended by this community paying a sponsorship fee. This has been discussed several times (in direct response to you).

 

In another thread (so as not to drag this one off topic any further), could you please specify the comments made in regards to a sponsorship fee that are causing you discomfort. I do not recall at any point making any negative statement about the sponsorship fee; indeed I recall acknowledging it as necessary. It is true that I pointed out it creates a conflict of interest, but acknowledging that conflict of interest is necessary for full disclosure and transparency - which is fundamental to fostering a sense of trust among members of this community.

 

Furthermore, teachers and staff members of the university do get paid for their work.

 

That's fine, I don't have a problem with this at all! I figured as much given the amount of time you dedicate to this site - I asked simply to confirm for the purpose of full disclosure and transparency that moderators are financially compensated.

 

Similarly, we only approve a small percentage of surgeons who apply for recommendation. Those who choose to become a physician sponsor pay a sponsorship fee and are listed on this site. Moderators and publishers do get paid for all their efforts on keeping this site running.

 

Yes, I've read this before, too; in fact, I wish to point out that I've actually read quite a bit of the pre-published threads. When I asked for clarification on the differences between "Recommended" and "Coalition" member doctors, I would like to point out that even Dr. Vories was confused by some terminology:

 

I don't describe our clinic as "fully implemented ultra refined follicular unit grafting" because I don't know what it means.

 

We truly do our best to be balanced and fair. There are many examples where we've walked along side of patients and did the best we can to help them find an amicable resolution with their physician. Dave, Blake and myself have personally played the mediator and helped to negotiate solutions (including refunds when appropriate) for patients. But there are also times when doctors deserve protection from malicious attacks. This is all part of being balanced.

 

I believe this, too - up to a point. And, really, why should I or anyone else simply take your word after being a member of this forum for only six weeks? I don't know any of you. Like everyone else I come to this forum with hope - but trust, that is something that is earned over time, and it does not come easily.

 

I appreciate the offer to telephone you, but I am not comfortable with that at the present moment - personally I feel like you'll just berate me, and I've got enough to deal with as is.

 

I do appreciate this forum and the work the moderators do - as I've said before in various threads. But trust you totally and wholeheartedly I do not.

 

Sincerely,

 

Nathaniel

[greatjob]

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I will say I prefer the layout of the forum to what nathaniel is describing. This forum's layout is pretty standard and in agreement with the thousands of forums on the internet, I don't find it primitive, it is just a standard internet forum layout with categories and subcategories arranged chronologically, pretty typical.

[Bill - Seemiller]

hairshoeping,

 

Thanks for your reply. Do understand that there is a clear distinction between critiscim and blatant attacks. Unfairly maligning physicians, patients or forum members is not appropriate and often leads to a topic being cut short.

 

You are also referencing a specific situation as an example to which I cannot reply to without proper context. However, if a reputable physician genuinly believes a patient experienced additional natural hair loss and/or shock loss which may have led to a less than stellar result (especially after evaluating him/her in person), I don't see any reason to doubt that. In my experience, reputable surgeons truly do want the best outcomes for their patients and will do whatever they can realistically to help them achieve their goals. However, sometimes patients do have unrealistic demands and attempt to malign them on this forum if they don't get their way.

 

Ultimately, everyone is entitled to their opinion of a particular result and outcome. When there's conflicting information, most people immediately side with the patient and sometime attack the physician. The reality is, while we all want the best outcome for the patient, the patient is not always right. Nor is the physician always right. But often times the physician becomes the target (no matter how reputable he/she is) and there are times it's necessary to remind the community that a particular situation doesn't mean the surgeon isn't stellar and doing his/her best to help the patient.

 

You also have to understand that not every patient allows us to truly investigate their concerns. In order to truly make an educated assessment, we need to be able to discuss a patient's case openly with their surgeon on the phone and again with the patient. We've done this before and I've offered to do it in other cases recently.

 

History has shown that there has been times when we've felt certain actions were not appropriate for a recommended and/or Coalition surgeon. And when this has been the case, we've taken appropriate action. This does not always lead to their suspension from this site, but it can and has.

 

I hope this helps make how we try to keep ths forum safe and fair for both patients and physicians.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

I'm not going to answer you point by point because frankly, I feel like I spend my life doing that, as does Dave and Blake.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like the format of this forum, but frankly, like "GreatJob" said, this is the standard format for forums. There are other sections of our websites and community that are more categorized to your likings. For example, our hair loss websites are created by patients and categorized by physician and patient. Furthermore, these patient websites can be found on each physician's recommendation profile on the Hair Transplant Network.

 

I strongly suggest taking some time on visiting other sections of our website. We do have plenty of features and information that most websites don't have. That said, we are always open to suggestions and do have a few topics dedicated to it already. But I'm afraid you will have to use the "Search" feature on our standard formatted forum .

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

We are in the process of reviewing Dr. Madhu and his current work to ensure most of his work is consistent. While there have been some clear cases of poor growth, I've also seen a lot of work from him of excellent growth. Thus, I agree it's imperative that we further review his recent work and results. We are doing this.

 

The fact that physicians pay a sponsorship fee is publicy disclosed on our recommendations standards page. We've also discussed it with you multiple times. Any "conflict of interest" is shared by any company/institution that holds high standards and brings in revenue. Educational facilities, financial institutions and businesses alike all set standards but they still generate revenue. You don't have to like it, but that's the world we live in. The reality is, business and institutions can act ethically without letting money influence them. If they couldn't, then anyone who works for a living could be questioned on their actions at work and whether or not they can truly behave appropriately and ethically.

 

You have absolutely no idea what we do behind the scenes to evaluate surgeons or how many we turn down on a regular basis. If we were strictly interested in generating revenue, we'd currenlty have well over 500 recommended physicians. Many physicians are willing to hand over the monthly sponsorship fee. Yet only a few are selected based on their credentials for recommendation.

 

After reading your entire commentary, it's becoming clear that you are becoming a thorn in an otherwise healthy rose bush. You've been a member for a little over a month and with each post you're becoming more and more negative and insulting. I find this particularly insulting given how much time the Dave, Blake and I have spent helping to answer your questions to the best of our ability. The moderators of this community are probably the most active on the forums because we care about helping hair loss sufferers, not just running a forum. And instead of being thankful for our help, you decide to spit in our face. Don't think that I didn't see the comments you decided to delete after the fact.

 

Frankly (and I don't care if you like my use of this word or not), I'm not going to keep debating with you on this topic. I've already invited you to call me and have been very nice and respectful towards you. You are now being blatantly insulting and we have no reason to continue to allow it. Thus, if you want to continue to post here, I suggest you change your demeaner dramatically.

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Guys,

 

As part of our ongoing efforts to maintain the high standards of our recommendations, we started to re-evaluate Dr. Madhu's technique and results due to a few reported patient concerns. As part of that process, I've asked him to begin presenting new examples of his results on this community.

 

Currently, he's presented two more (see below). However, because 2 new examples isn't sufficient enough to truly evaluate his current work, I've asked him to collect and present additional examples as well.

 

Dr.Madhu /3092 grafts / 13 months follow up.

 

Dr.Madhu /2895 grafts / 10 months follow up.

 

I will keep you all posted as things progress.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[nathaniel]

Ok.....I have tried to figure out how to post the below in a new thread, including reading Pat's "Welcome! Click here to learn how to use this discussion group." However, due to my computer illiteracy I cannot find the "New Thread" button that Pat describes after searching for more than hour.

 

As such, if someone who doesn't mind answering my question: "Where is the 'New Thread' button?", I will happily create a new thread to continue responding to any concerns or critiques fellow members may have.

 

Thank you!

 

- Nathaniel

 

------------------------

 

I'm not going to answer you point by point because frankly, I feel like I spend my life doing that, as does Dave and Blake.

 

I will limit my questions to doctors and other forum members - you need not answer any more of my questions. The primary purpose of my asking questions is so that I can make as educated a choice as possible with regards to treatment for my hair loss; it is not so I can be called a "thorn", an "ass" (per Widowspeak), or threatened: "if you want to continue to post here, I suggest you change your demeaner dramatically."

 

This is clearly a threat to censor me or delete me - for asking questions essentially firstly about hair transplant techniques and secondly about clarification regarding the differences between a "Recommended doctor" and a "Coalition doctor" as well as the financial structure of this site and the people who moderate it.

 

I have yet to see you state specifically what you find objectionable about my "demeanor", even though I have asked you to cite specific examples.

 

I tell you what I will do, though, so as to avoid being off topic in this thread I will create a new thread where you and anyone else (including Widowspeak) can lob criticism against me at will, and I will respond as best I can. At the same time, however, I reserve the right to comment and critique at will. The purpose of this new thread for my part ultimately will be to engage in constructive criticism for the benefit of hair loss sufferers - what Hair Restoration Network claims to be about anyway - and this will be my attempt to contribute.

 

As for the explicit threat to censor or delete me, what is the point of being a member of this site if one cannot ask questions and speak freely? Your continued threats to delete me and other members of this forum who question you or "cross you" is the most offensive demeanor I have noted on this site.

 

Let me rephrase that in a way that might not sound so harsh:

 

I understand that you are trying to do your best as a moderator - and really it is appreciated. The work that you and the other moderators do in the forums as well as behind the scenes is appreciated very much by me and virtually everyone else that visits this site - otherwise they would not be here (spammers not withstanding). Even individuals who get angry, blow up, or make unfounded accusations appreciate this site and the work the moderators do even when it might not appear that way on the surface: their presence and participation in these forums, however, is a greater testament to this fact than any single post typed in a moment of emotional frustration. So with this in mind I respectfully ask that you stop questioning the sincerity of posters such as tacolinowest when they express an opinion with which you disagree; similarly don't get so aggressively defensive and start threatening members with censorship or deletion when members question your objectivity and impartiality - it only makes you appear more biased in my opinion. As a moderator, and specifically a paid moderator of a site that collects membership fees from the doctors whom people are considering for treatment, you must be prepared for people to openly question your impartiality - and you must do it graciously even if members are less than gracious in the manner in which they question that impartiality - after all, they are not paid and you are, therefore it is incumbent upon you to respond in as professional a manner as possible with language that is designed to address their expressed concerns (regardless of how ill-worded they may be) while simultaneously de-escalating tensions. In this regard I believe Blake does a better job at using language that is considerate of the poster while addressing and reaffirming forum rules and guidelines for posting.

 

As for speaking with you personally on the telephone I am completely uncomfortable at this time doing so – revealing my telephone number and name through caller ID is not something at this point I wish to do – if ever. That being said, there may come a time at which point I might be comfortable chatting on Skype with you; but honestly, why do you feel the need to talk privately with me? What can you not say publicly that requires such privacy with regards to asking questions to doctors about their techniques and procedures? I am really uncomfortable with this, even if it is well intended. If you really feel you need to communicate privately with me, start by sending a private message, please.

 

 

I really feel (and these are my feelings only) that the primary source of your annoyance with me is centered on my questions regarding the financial structure of this website and the financial compensation paid to moderators for their time – to which I have never objected and understand completely for the need. I simply asked for financial transparency so I could take that into consideration when considering advice and recommendations from moderators; however it in no way lessens the gratitude for your assistance.

 

For my own part, I reiterate that my primary goal as a member of this forum is to try and find the best solution for my hair loss needs, and I am very grateful for the input of moderators, non-physician members, and physician members. I am especially grateful to Doctors Lindsey, Vories, Feriduni, Cooley, and other doctors who have taken the time to explain their medical techniques and procedures to me. Those doctors who take time to answer my questions are much more likely to be the doctors to whom I travel for medical treatment, so in this regard I simply ask that if you don’t like my questions don’t answer and let the doctors who wish to reply do so. I can guarantee you that if I travel to Belgium to seek treatment with Dr. Feriduni or London to seek treatment with Dr. Lorenzo there are going to be a lot more questions coming.

 

Sincerely,

 

Nathaniel

[greatjob]

 

As such, if someone who doesn't mind answering my question: "Where is the 'New Thread' button?", I will happily create a new thread to continue responding to any concerns or critiques fellow members may have.

 

 

Attached is a picture of where to find the new thread button. Once you enter a sub-category such as "Hair Restoration Results Posted by Patients" the new thread button is at the top left of all the other threads.

[nathaniel]

Thank you, Greatjob, for replying.

 

I'm a bit tired at the moment - sick of looking at my hairline in the mirror trying to figure out some way to comb it to make it look better.

 

Perhaps later I'll try and start a new thread...

 

Sincerely,

 

Nathaniel.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

I have no problem with you asking legitimate questions, which includes how this community is funded. My problem with you lies in your underlying approach and failure to recognize and/or appreciate answers you're given and all of our hard work. For example, when I've described how our site works by comparing how we prescreen surgeons to how an ivy league university accepts students you claimed it was a "terrible" analogy - even though it's actually spot on. Your constant insults, distrust of this community and it's publishers and lack of respect while asking us to stop doing our job it also troublesome.

 

While we reserve the right as moderators to run this community how we choose and suspend members when appropriate (which is our decision), I suggest we both step back and try to find common ground. Overall, I do think you are genuinely trying to find answers. But you also have to understand that we are genuinely trying to help you. You seem to have a hard time trusting the process. Being skeptical is normal, but I encourage you to try to see all the positives we do here in helping people get information and find excellent doctors. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your own decisions and we hope that you find the answers you are looking for.

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill

 

P.S. It's really very easy to start a new thread. Simply go to the main forum page at www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve and then click on a forum category. Then click "New Thread" in the top left hand corner right above the actual forum topics.

[BlackAmish111]

@Nathaniel: To paraphrase Bill "Get an HT and chill out!"

 

Just kidding, just kidding yall

 

Honestly I share some of Nathaniels concerns namely in that a bad job needs to be called just that "a bad job'. That doesn't mean it's a bad doctor -just that the particular result on that case was not top notch which could be for a variety of reasons. Again, Im a little hesitant about calling every botched job a victim of "X Factor" as that completely absolves the doctor of any responsibility in one fell swoop when in reality-what if that had a less than capable assistant that day/week/year? Surely much can go into what created the ill effect but to me personally, it's all about how timely and effectively and fairly the doctor deals with it. Even the best can have an off day....