A New Surgical Instrument for FUE Procedures

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Thanks for the kind words Dr. N. My company will have a booth at the Amsterdam meeting showcasing the motorized FUE tool. In the meantime I'll have them send you our brochure.

Dr. F

[Dr. Jean Devroye]

I would like to give my testimonial regarding the new instrumentation developed by DrAllan Feller.

 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Dr. Feller in his private clinic, in Great Neck, and to witness to a 950 grafts FUE surgery. I had also the privilege to use the extractor on about fifty grafts.

 

First of all, let me specify that I have a good practice of the FUE technique. I regularly perform sessions of 1200 grafts per day.

 

I generally perform this surgery manually but for some months, I have been developing a new motorized system connected to a dentist handpiece. There is an alternative rotation (just like the movement obtained when it is done manually). That is why I am particularly interested in every motorized system for the FUE. I know four systems:

 

Dr. Cole's one, which is like a drill and the patient should be sit.

The calvitron invented several years ago by Dr. Pascal Boudjema and updated by the use of punches of small diameter. In New York, Dr. Reed and his assistant Larry Leonard are using it.

There is also a new FUE-Extractor system developed by Pascal Boudjema, commercialized by Leadm.co.kr (http://www.youtube.com/hairscience).

Finally, there is the Feller Motorized F.U.E device.

 

Dr. Feller explained me, step by step, how he reached the actual result. A whole series of details like the position of the punch which is not centered the use of a pile rather than a wire, the internal system of rotation??¦ no doubts that the final version is the result of a long reflection. I also had the opportunity to see the previous prototypes. Dr. Feller's system is extremely well thought. The handpiece is entirely alimented by an internal battery, which avoids cumbersome wire, and it is possible to make a complete sterilization, which is not the case of the Korean system. The realization is neat and precise.

 

The punch turns perfectly in its axis. The punch is carried out in a way so to reduce the frictions to the minimum (the internal diameter of the punch is slightly larger than the diameter of the sharp part). It is very handy. During the tests, I obtained beautiful grafts from the start even without wearing the Zeiss Loops that I usually use.

 

In conclusion, Doctor Feller's device is a superb instrument; probably many surgeons will love it. Nevertheless, it is possibly better to learn how to extract grafts manually, before switching to this motorized version. In fact, the manual skills really permits to 'feel' the work carried out. It allows us to use and begin with this technique which is of course very charming but very time and energy consuming.

 

I can only recommend the use of this new design, of course it is not miraculous so to let any doctor to practice a FUE correctly, but it remains definitively as an advance in the field of the Hair Transplant.

 

Moreover, I really appreciated the philosophy of Dr. Feller as he does not seek via this instrument to increase the number of grafts obtained per day but to make the procedure lasts the less possible, in this way, both the patient and the doctor will be less tired.

 

Finally, I liked the concern of Dr. Feller who accepted to share his experience and his skills.

 

It is a shame to note that very often the FUE techniques and skills are jealously kept secret by their inventors. Probably they have the illusion of being and remaining the only ones that deserve to use those techniques.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Devroye, thank you very much for such a kind and thorough review of my new FUE instrument as well as your overall visit with us yesterday. It was likewise a privilege and pleasure to have your company and I look forward to visiting your clinic in the future.

 

I would like to state to the community that in my opinion Dr. Devroye is a world-class HT doctor whose knowledge and passion for HT are second to none-this pertains to both strip and FUE alike. Just from the surgery he did with us yesterday it is obvious that he is highly proficient and conscientious of what he does in the operating room.

 

Dr. Devroye has some new and original ideas as to how an HT should be performed and I hope he will find the time someday to post them on this forum. They will no doubt make for interesting conversation.

 

All the best Dr. Devroye and thanks again for the enjoyable and educational visit.

 

Dr. Alan S. Feller

[Dr. Alan Feller]

New animation GIF for FUE with Perforation:

 

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I am happy to report that the following doctors have recently utilized this new FUE instrument with very positive reviews. My thanks to them:

 

Dr. Scott Alexander- Arizona

Dr. Jean Devroye-Belgium

Dr. Thomas Law-New York City

Dr. William Lindsey-Virginia

Dr. Ron Shapiro-Minnesota

Dr. Steve Gabel-Oregon

[the B spot]

We like it Dr. Feller.

 

It should be noted that your willingness to share your tools and not shroud them in secrecy is the exception to the norm.

 

The tool works well and reduces hand fatigue.

 

I know Dr. Shapiro will be sharing his thoughts soon, as others have--(He can do all the heavy lifting technical talk =)

 

Thanks Again,

Jason

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Feller,

 

A big kudos to you for being so transparent in the interest of advancing the hair restoration profession instead of veiling your tool in secrecy. The only advantage of keeping true advancements hidden is for doctors to gain a competitive edge. In the meantime, it's the patients who suffer.

 

Thanks for working hard to advance not only your own surgical technique, but for helping other doctors advance theirs for the benefit of the patients.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Dr. Alan Feller]

B and Bill,

 

Thank you for commenting.

 

All true inventors enjoy sharing their ideas. It is in a very real sense a valuable payoff for having put in so much work and effort.

 

Claiming to have created a practical technical advancement in an effort to gain a competative edge without ever presenting proof is hollow and suspect. It has been done several times by several clinics over the years-most of which have discredited themselves.

 

I think the hype created by false prophets of the FUE industry has stunted the industry by making newbie doctors interested in joining the FUE ranks feel hopelessly behind. Well, that's simply not true, and with tools like these I believe just about any HT doctor could become a competent FUE doctor in just a few cases.

[Mr. GQ]

with tools like these I believe just about any HT doctor could become a competent FUE doctor in just a few cases.

if that is the case than i'm sure many of us here are very grateful for that (and to you Dr. F) and i truly hope that other established and new and up-n-coming clinics get with the program. only then would FUE be viewed as a main stream and would probibly be much more affordable to an average Joe like myself. $5/6 is fair and acceptable range imo.

few years ago i bought my HDTV for 5Gs and now i could buy that same TV even better one for 1G. i'm hoping the same will be true for FUE.

[jandaman]

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:

I am happy to report that the following doctors have recently utilized this new FUE instrument with very positive reviews. My thanks to them:

 

Dr. Scott Alexander- Arizona

Dr. Jean Devroye-Belgium

Dr. Thomas Law-New York City

Dr. William Lindsey-Virginia

Dr. Ron Shapiro-Minnesota

Dr. Steve Gabel-Oregon

 

Dr. Feller,

 

You stated that the above Doctors used your tool with Positive results. Did these doctors actually purchase the tool or did you give them away on a trial basis.

 

It would be nice to know if the postive reviews was more of a "thanks but no thanks" or if they actually purchased the tools, in that case a positive review carry's more weight.

 

Thanks

 

Jan

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Jandaman,

 

Obviously you are not who you pretend to be or you wouldn't be asking such a detailed and oddball question.

 

You have only two other posts to your name and they both involve me, so your agenda is clear.

 

Tell you what. You PM me your actual identification, address and phone number. And if they check out as being real,I will answer the questions you possed here.

 

How's that sound? Should be no problem for someone with honerable intentions, right?

 

Who do you think you're kidding.

 

By the way, if you are who I think you are, you will be found. I hired a law firm and a private investigator this week to find you.

 

Have a nice day.

[jandaman]

Wow,

 

Someone is wound a little tight.

 

Seeing how you are all over the internet and one of the primary doctor's on this hair loss site, odds can be pretty good that I direct questions to you.

 

I saw a rather long article which you posted about laser therapy and just asked if you still held the same views as when the article was posted (2007), you answered and that was it.

 

And my above question is a pretty basic question. Sorry if it struck a nerve. I will not ask you any more questions, your response was a little on the strange side.

 

Good day.

[desirehair]

Dr. Feller,

I am affiliated with NeoGraft. On March 30, 2009 in this forum you wrote:

 

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

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

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

 

You wrote those criticisms of NeoGraft before you had ever seen a procedure done with NeoGraft. Your post above was written on March 30, 2009, but I believe you did not see a procedure with NeoGraft until several months later, around June, 2009 one month before the ISHRS meeting in Amsterdam. How were you able to offer such harsh criticism about a machine and a procedure you had never seen? When I wrote to this site about your negative comments you answered : 'My comments about the negatives of your product were made in good faith, are colorable, and justified.' How could this be so when these comments were made several months before you had ever seen a NeoGraft demonstration! In that case your comments were pure speculation and not evidence based. This is not good faith.

 

Furthermore, at the NeoGraft demonstration you attended, which as I said was a few months after your critical comments, our tech did not use the full suction method but an alternate method which NeoGraft is able to perform. Therefore you never saw the grafts move through the tube to the reservoir and have never seen the technique you criticized performed till today. As I explained in an earlier post, the tech was not following company policy by not demonstrating both methods because the tech was disgruntled due to personal demands the tech was making that NeoGraft could not support. He is no longer with NeoGraft.

 

Your comment in one of your posts that you believed the technician ' was in good standing with your company not only up to the time I saw him perform a procedure, but well beyond as he was in the product booth right next to mine during the Amsterdam scientific meeting' is totally inaccurate. At the time you spoke with our tech he was our only tech and we needed to work with him. The fact you believed we were having okay relations with the tech during that period of time simply attests to the good front we put up in order to hide our situation. (Like married couples do while preparing to divorce). The fact that our former tech and the NeoGraft group were able to work together for a certain amount of time before parting, attests to the complexity of human beings and shows that many things are possible in human relationships. We now have four techs working with us and are training others as well. The comments our former tech made to you about NeoGraft are not supported by any of the other highly skilled techs that work with us now, nor the doctors using our machine. We mainly demonstrate the full pneumatic method, the one you have never seen. We teach doctors both methods. I will leave it to your imagination why our former tech made any comments to you about NeoGraft during the very difficult time we were having with him. Our current techs have many years experience working with other doctors, both in FUE and in Strip and can attest to the quality of the grafts harvested by NeoGraft's full pneumatic pressure method.

 

The following information may help you understand why your comments do not apply to NeoGraft. With the NeoGraft device the doctor controls the pneumatic pressure and uses just the right amount of pressure for each individual so that the grafts are gently harvested and transported to the reservoir. No hands touch, pull, yank or push the grafts during harvesting or implanting as with all other FUE tools. The grafts are kept moist because the doctor or tech has the ability to suction some saline solution into the tubing to keep the tubing, the reservoir and the grafts moist. Hence no dessication occurs. The notion of the 'grafts getting clipped by the punch' is incorrect. NeoGraft has one of the lowest transaction rates we have seen. We record the number of transections in all live demonstrations attended by many doctors. How many doctors do you know willing to put themselves under such scrutiny? There are many technical reasons for the low transaction rate and one of them is the suction. Your comment that 'this suction serves no useful purpose and is indeed a danger to the graft' is incorrect. It is the assistance of the suction that produces the excellent quality of grafts harvested with NeoGraft.

 

As you know we do about 4-5 live demonstrations a month for doctors around the country and every doctor is welcome to come and see for themselves the excellent grafts harvested by NeoGraft. The demonstrations are free to doctors. The grafts require no trimming. We post the demonstration dates and locations on neografters.ning.com The NeoGraft group will also come to any doctors office to do a live demonstration. I believe our demonstrations show complete transparency. We expose everything. We have done enough live hair transplant demonstrations around the country at this point with NeoGraft that many doctors have seen the quality of a NeoGraft procedure.

 

Members of the forum suggested we post pictures of NeoGraft patients. Dr. Williams, who is on our neografters site, is the first doctor who received a NeoGraft hair transplant. You can see the excellent results of the before and after pictures of him on our neografters.ning.com web site. He has since had his second NeoGraft transplant and we are waiting for more pictures. Dr. Williams also offers transplants using the NeoGraft device. What better verification can you ask for than a doctor using his own device on himself. He is very happy with the results of his hair transplant. There are other pictures of NeoGraft procedures on our neografters web site as well. Kevin Nalty the former director of the drug Propecia for Merck, chose NeoGraft for his procedure which was done live on the internet. He could have chosen any doctor for his procedure as he was closely connected with many of the hair restoration doctors but he chose NeoGraft. His friend Greg Benson, an actor also had a live NeoGraft transplant done on the the internet. These live internet procedures drew the largest one time internet audience ever. We are very proud of the work we are doing to be very open and public with NeoGraft.

 

You also refer in your post to NeoGraft as being just another "spinning punch." This is inaccurate criticism as well. NeoGraft is not a spinning punch. NeoGraft does not spin when doing a hair transplant. It rotates in an arc, just enough to gently score the follicle. The rotation is controlled by the doctor as is the pneumatic pressure. One of the benefits of NeoGraft, as I pointed out before, is that no human hands pull, twist and yank the grafts with tweezers, actions that can damage the grafts, and could be called 'torturous and traumatic' ??“ the words you chose to describe a NeoGraft procedure. NeoGraft also has a tool that uses reverse pressure to implant the grafts, avoiding once again human hands tweezing, pushing, and shoving the graft in order to implant the graft, all actions that can damage the grafts. With NeoGraft, there are less chances for buried grafts and popping grafts.

 

One more thing needs to be said, if we are to be honest. The NeoGraft group, like others, wants to protect and preserve every graft. However, in reality the grafts are more robust than some doctors would have one believe. If they were so fragile, then very few follicles would survive either the FUE or STRIP method. With the Strip method for example, many technicians sit under the hot lights of their microscopes cutting the strip of hair that has been excised from the scalp. These lights are very drying to the follicles and could cause dessication. The strip is cut further into smaller sections and given to several techs, who then cut the strip into follicles. All this happens under these hot lights. Both the strip and follicles are often not in any moisture for a while, only getting misted by the technician intermittently, putting them in danger of drying out, and they are handled quite a bit by the technicians leaving them prone to damage. No one writes about that. Of course a caring technician will assure the grafts are kept moist,and gently handled, but there are cases where this does not happen. Nonetheless, most of those follicles will grow again once transplanted. In NeoGraft's case as I pointed out the doctor draws liquid into the tubing to moisten the grafts and the reservoir is emptied very often to prevent drying. I have been told that when someone dies and the moisture is removed from their body for embalming, the hair follicles continue to grow for up to ten days! This shows the robustness of the follicles.

 

Furthermore, no one mentions that with the Strip method many follicles are damaged when the strip is excised and more follicles are at risk for damage every time the strip is cut up into smaller pieces for the techs, as well as when the tech tries to separate follicles from the strip. With manual FUE there is damage possible also as mentioned above because there is a high transaction rate generally with manual FUE. Furthermore, as stated, grafts can be damaged when they are 'tweezered' during harvesting and implanting. NeoGraft offers important advantages. One is speed, which reduces the cost of what is usually a very expensive manual FUE procedure, the way NeoGraft is engineered allows for a low transaction rate, there is no touching or tweezing of the grafts, there are less complications, reduced down time than with the Strip method and more patients are qualified for an FUE procedure with NeoGraft due to the use of pneumatic pressure. As I stated above, I am affiliated with NeoGraft.

[hairthere]

desirehair, If you are going to convince anyone of the efficacy of your machine you had better provide some photographic evidence. The pictures on the web site are severely lacking.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Here we go again with NeoGraft appearing out of nowhere...

 

Honestly, whether or not the NeoGraft machine is credible is much less of an issue for me than how they've been promoting it and their argumentative demeanor against anyone who offers an honest critique of the machine.

 

The bottom line is, a tool is just a tool and a machine is just a machine. Attempts at automation have come and gone and have largely proven much less effective than a skilled and experienced surgeon using various tools to perform a procedure.

 

Since you mentioned live demonstrations I should point out that some time ago, one of your associates sent me an email inviting me to see a live demonstration of the machine. However, when I inquired about when and where a demonstration was being presented in my area, nobody ever got back to me.

 

Desirehair, I do appreciate your explanation of the machine and I am not anti-NeoGraft. It may be a very capable machine and appropriate for some patients. However, I have problems with anything that claims a single approach is the perfect solution for all. Unless NeoGraft can adapt to individual patient characteristics, then I will remain skeptical for now.

 

Truthfully, if you want to prove NeoGraft is a viable solution (and not even necessarily superior to other FUE tools), then put your money where your mouth is. This community is not one to buy into hype. Substantial proof comes from providing pictorial evidence (before, surgical, and after photos) showing dozens of patient results.

 

Furthermore, you are in violation of our terms of service since you (like other NeoGraft representatives) have not added a disclosure in your forum signature. If you'd like to continue to post here, please disclose your affiliation with NeoGraft in your forum signature.

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill

[phil mascallpen]

Originally posted by desirehair:

One more thing needs to be said, if we are to be honest....I have been told that when someone dies and the moisture is removed from their body for embalming, the hair follicles continue to grow for up to ten days! This shows the robustness of the follicles.

 

 

 

 

You are supposed to be someone associated somehow with a surgical/medical company and you actually believe this? If someone is DEAD please tell me the incredible process that keeps tissue growing AFTER they are DEAD.

 

Really this tells me all I need to know about NEOGRAFT. "We can leave your follicles out in the sun for a week if you want to be honest about it."

[mattj]

Who determines the "right amount of pressure"? The machine? Considering the amount of pressure needed varies from patient to patient, how does the machine change or adapt to the individual to determine how much pressure is needed?

 

Bill, the answer was in the quote. The doctor has that control and can vary it depending on the individual. I have no ball in this game but I wanted to point that out.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Matt,

 

You're right...I misread it that the machine itself controlled the pressure.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

However, the rest of my comments/concerns remain.

 

Bill

[desirehair]

I want to correct a statement I made about follicles growing after death. It seems this is a strongly held belief by many, including people in the medical community, however after investigating, I found out that the hair growth is an illusion based on the fact that as the skin dries out it pulls away from the follicle making it appear the follicle has grown. Sorry for this bit of misinformation.

 

Bill,

I am addressing my next comments to you. We feel that this forum has not been behaving in a respectful, scientific and information sharing manner when it comes to NeoGraft. Nor is there openness to learning truths about NeoGraft and how it operates. We feel our posts fall on deaf ears as we try to explain that false negative information about NeoGraft has been generated on this site. I suppose our 'demeanor' reflects our frustration and disappointment with this site. Here is our experience with this site. As soon as NeoGraft arrived on the scene in the U.S. Dr. Feller posted very harsh non- evidence supported negative comments about NeoGraft. I say non-evidence supported because he has never to date seen NeoGraft perform a full Pneumatic Pressure procedure. If he had seen the procedure he so harshly criticized he would have seen very robust, intact grafts harvested by NeoGraft with a low transaction rate. The full Pneumatic Pressure method is our primary procedure that we teach doctors and is the one Dr. Feller so harshly criticized, never having seen this procedure!!

 

The day Dr. Feller came to one of our demonstrations he saw a second type of procedure which NeoGraft performs that is similar to the one Dr. Feller does with his tool. The grafts were scored and harvested with tweezers during this procedure. On that day we did not demonstrate the full Pneumatic Pressure method. We teach doctors both methods. The grafts harvested with this procedure were excellent according to the doctor and tech who did the procedure. Why did Dr. Feller not mention this in his post, instead of making negative comments about a procedure he had never seen? This type of reporting amounts to speculation and does not belong in a forum as this. Furthermore Dr. Feller's speculative, non- evidence supported negative comments have been accepted as 'truths by himself and by yourself it seems since you mention in your post and I quote:

 

'Honestly, whether or not the NeoGraft machine is credible is much less of an issue for me than how they've been promoting it and their argumentative demeanor against anyone who offers an honest critique of the machine.'

 

Bill, which 'honest critique' are you referring to? The one Dr. Feller made? We have tried several times to post and explain that Dr. Feller has never seen our device do the procedure he critiqued and yet you still speak of 'honest critique' and Dr. Feller replied when I pointed out the same thing to him that his negative comments were 'made in good faith.' What good faith is there in what amounts to speculation, since his negative comments were not based on any evidence or experience with NeoGraft's full Pneumatic technique? The level of negative comments Dr. Feller generated can only hurt us in the public domain and this is not fair, especially since his comments are absolutely and totally inaccurate and show he has never had experience with NeoGraft. This has been very disturbing to us. We would never do this to his tool - attack his tool in the same way based on no evidence and on no experience with his tool. This would be unfair to him as false negative information has a way of embedding itself in the minds of those who could benefit from a device and causes the image of the device to be unnecessarily harmed. So if you and others insist on accepting 'false truths' about NeoGraft and calling them 'honest critiques' or 'good faith comments', I suppose it will be difficult for us to change our demeanor.

 

Next, I want to comment on another statement you made. You stated and I quote:

 

'However, I have problems with anything that claims a single approach is the perfect solution for all. Unless NeoGraft can adapt to individual patient characteristics, then I will remain skeptical for now.'

 

It is comments like this that makes us question your site. You seem to use a different yardstick for NeoGraft than for others. First of all we do not 'claim a single approach.' NeoGraft is a tool in a doctor's hand that helps simplify and improve the FUE procedure. Every doctor who has a NeoGraft device can still do a manual STRIP procedure or anything else he deems more beneficial to the patient. The STRIP procedure may be useful for a patient who has a small donor area for example. NeoGraft however, increases the number of patient who can have an FUE procedure done, such as people of colour, and many of those who would not pass the FOX test as with NeoGraft there is a low transection rate. (Ask our techs, or the doctors who perform the demonstrations by e-mailing them through our (promotional link removed) site.

 

Before the FUE method came along, which was not too long ago, all the doctors were doing transplants using the STRIP method. Is this not a single approach? Are you skeptical of this approach? Most STRIP doctors use only STRIP and do not do FUE. What about those patients whose characteristics would be more suitable for FUE and yet they are with a doctor who only does STRIP? It is NeoGraft's position FUE is a less invasive and less painful procedure with fewer complications, no elongated scars, fewer complications and less downtime. For those that are candidates for FUE this procedure is therefore the more beneficial procedure for the patients. If these patients however go to a STRIP doctor they will get a STRIP procedure, which is definitely a single approach but I have never read this is a problem before.

 

NeoGraft simply does the same kind of FUE procedure as other tools do but with the assistance of Pneumatic Pressure. We are not restricting the doctors to only the FUE approach as the only 'single approach'. Therefore it is inaccurate to say we are a single approach tool. Do you question whether doctors who do not use NeoGraft 'adapt to individual patient characteristics'? It makes no sense to claim we do a 'single approach.' Comments like this stick in the minds of those who read them and once again cast unnecessary and not reality based negative shadows on NeoGraft. We are feeling bruised and have not earned the bruises. I think it would show good will to NeoGraft if more questions were asked and less absolute negative comments made about NeoGraft, that are not based in in any reality at all. We are very willing to share all of our knowledge and information openly about NeoGraft. But we do not want to be defending ourselves against false speculations in so many of your posts. The whole exercize is ridiculous, and frankly a waste of our time because all we are doing is damage control. NeoGraft either works or it does not. Check it out before posting such damaging comments. That is the only fair and proper thing to do.

 

Now let me address pictorial evidence. NeoGraft has been in existence for over 10 years in parts of Europe and parts of Asia. The version we have in North America is the latest third generation of this device. We have excellent pictures of transplants from Europe and Asia but we are not posting these as we want to post pictures done with this newer version of NeoGraft and also we want to post pictures of procedures done in the U.S. This is our company policy. We are in the process of building up our picture base, since we are new to the U.S. Some of our pictures are posted on our Neografters.ning.com site and many of our pictures are posted on Dr. Bauman's site. We have many more pictures to post and will shortly do so. For now it is best to view pictures on those sites. As I mentioned on this site before, we do live demonstrations for doctors every month all over the country. Our live demonstrations are open to any doctor and many come to see our demonstrations. We are trying to be as transparent as possible. I am sorry Bill that you were not informed about any demonstrations in your part of the country, but we have not demonstrated yet in your area. We do four to five demonstrations in cities a month so it will take us a long time to work our way through the U.S. However, I believe we are trying to schedule a demonstration in PA. fairly soon. Keep in touch with our NeoGrafters web site as we post our demonstration dates and places on that site. I can also contact you when a demonstration comes to your State. I changed my signature, as I see that my former one did not meet your guidelines and I hope this one follows your guidelines.

[hairthere]

Keep in touch with our NeoGrafters web site as we post our demonstration dates and places

 

Here is your problem desirehair: you come onto this forum, which is admittedly, and deservedly full of skeptics. You pitch a product none of us know much about, sans pictorial proof, and then get some negative criticism from a very respected HT surgeon. You then cry foul, post some silly facts about follicle strength, and give us a web site with very little evidence of your product's efficacy. The cherry on top is your pitch man, Bauman, has been having some really poor HT results pop up here, and he was a promo guy for another sham product, LLT.

 

If I were you I would re-think your strategy to "win" this forum over. In order to be taken at all seriously you NEED to post dozens of pics and video of pre, intra, and full-grown post-op. The burden of proof is on you and your company. Yes, this is a lot of work, but it is what's necessary to make believers of most of us. Good luck.

[phil mascallpen]

Originally posted by desirehair:

I want to correct a statement I made about follicles growing after death. It seems this is a strongly held belief by many, including people in the medical community

 

I don't know what medical community you are referring to because I would be shocked if there were a single doctor outside of Transylvania who thinks tissue grows after death. But thanks for the clarification Bela Lugosi.

[Bill - Seemiller]

DesireHair,

 

I've said several times already that I'm not anti-NeoGraft and while I'm skeptical, I'm willing to keep an open mind. However, the patient and physician members of this community are naturally skeptical of any and all new treatments, tools, devices and techniques - especially those who try hard to promote their product without any real pictorial evidence. I do not begrudge them this, and neither should you.

 

It is you who have come to this forum to promote the NeoGroaft machine. Thus, the burden of proof that NeoGraft is a viable tool for FUE, is ultimately on you. Perhaps the response you've received from this community has to do with your approach to promoting an unknown product without substantial proof.

 

You claim that in 10 years, NeoGraft innovated 3 generations and variations of the NeoGraft machine. Yet to date, you hardly have any pictorial evidence available on the web. I understand as the hair transplant industry advances, improvements and innovations are made however, if you have no evidence that the previous generation NeoGraft machines worked, how can you expect us to blindly trust their successor? 10 years is a long time to develop a strong following of believers by providing substantial proof.

 

I have no problem with you debating Dr. Feller regarding the use of your machine. But whether you agree with it or not, he has provided a genuine and honest critique of your devise. You're now upset about it because a well respected physician isn't standing behind your machine 100%.

 

No device, tool, or machine is without flaws. Learning to take genuine and constructive criticism by reputable hair restoration physicians is the basis for further innovation and development of your machine. Clearly you must believe this to some degree since NeoGraft felt it necessary to develop a 2nd and 3rd generation of the machine.

 

NeoGraft may be great device, but it's just another option for FUE physicians to consider. Some may find it's the greatest invention in the world while others may be partial to their own tools and get equally good growth.

 

I'm going to say this again, and I don't see how anyone can dispute me. No tool, device, or machine can beat or match the experience of a skilled surgeon. Some surgeons will prefer certain tools over others. Some may use NeoGraft and others may not.

 

The problem I have is when a particular name or device is promoted as if its superior to all other devices. God forbid prospective patients start saying "I have to have a NeoGraft hair transplant" instead of "I have selected an outstanding hair transplant surgeon". Because even if you put the best tool in the hands of an unskilled surgeon, poor results are inevitable.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Desirehair,

 

I also want to address a few comments you made that are nonsensical:

 

NeoGraft however, increases the number of patient who can have an FUE procedure done, such as people of colour, and many of those who would not pass the FOX test as with NeoGraft there is a low transection rate. (Ask our techs, or the doctors who perform the demonstrations by e-mailing them through our (promotional link removed) site.

 

On what basis do you make the above claim? NeoGraft increases the number of potential candidates for FUE compared to what...previous generation NeoGraft machines?

 

You've already claimed for example, that you have no experience with Dr. Feller's new FUE tool. I also suspect you haven't compared the NeoGraft machine to all other FUE tools in the world. Thus, there's no way you can make the above bold claim in comparision to tools you haven't evaluated. And since you haven't listed what you're comparing NeoGraft to, this claim makes no sense.

 

Before the FUE method came along, which was not too long ago, all the doctors were doing transplants using the STRIP method. Is this not a single approach? Are you skeptical of this approach?

 

I'm not referring to each type of procedure as an "approach". I'm referring to the multiple approaches and methods used to perform each step of each procedure. With FUT for instance, there's varying "approaches" to harvesting the donor strip, slivering and dissecting follicular units, storing the grafts outside of the body and for how long, making recipient incisions and inserting the grafts into recipient sites. With FUE, there's multiple approaches to extracting the follicles, whether or not they require further trimming, making recipient sites, inserting the grafts, etc.

 

The claims I've seen from various NeoGraft affiliates are seemingly different. Your company appears to be promoting the the NeoGraft machine as a single "do it all" and seemingly flawless approach to FUE. I'm not disputing these claims, but such bold claims need to be backed up with substantial proof.

 

I recognize that some of my statements above are conclusions not solely based on just your input, but claims I've read about NeoGraft from here and elsewhere by your associates. Thus, if the above statements are incorrect, now is the time to set the record straight.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[desirehair]

Bill,

This will be my last post about NeoGraft to your forum for a while. Perhaps if things change??¦.. then maybe I will post again. As I said before in several former posts any information given does not seem to get taken in and you return to your original position regardless of the facts or any explanations given to the contrary. There is also speculation and jumping to conclusions about things never said. I cannot see how we can have fruitful dialogue in this forum under these conditions. For example, your comment in your last post and I quote:

 

'I have no problem with you debating Dr. Feller regarding the use of your machine. But whether you agree with it or not, he has provided a genuine and honest critique of your devise. You're now upset about it because a well respected physician isn't standing behind your machine 100%.'

 

I have pointed out in about 3 or 4 posts in different sections of this forum that Dr. Feller has never seen NeoGraft perform a hair transplant using our full Pneumatic Pressure technique, yet he chose to make negative comments (critique) about NeoGraft without ever having seen our device in action. His critique was based as I said before on pure speculation as his comments were totally incorrect. I keep pointing out over and over again that negative comments made about NeoGraft without ever having observed NeoGraft perform the procedure criticized is not something done in 'good faith' nor is the critique 'genuine' or 'honest ' as you want your readers to believe. Regardless of how many times I have pointed this out in other posts you continue to ignore the real facts that Dr. Feller has never seen NeoGraft do a procedure using the full Pneumatic method and you continue to claim his negative comments were 'honest, and genuine'. Furthermore, you want your readers to believe there is a healthy debate going on with Dr. Feller about NeoGraft. How can we have a debate about a procedure he has never seen? The purpose of my posts has been to point out these facts, not to debate, but I cannot seem to make this clear to anyone. We are going around in circles here as though there is some kind of dialogue to be had about NeoGraft under these circumstances. No dialogue is possible in this framework.

 

Your next comment and I quote: 'It is you who have come to this forum to promote the NeoGraft machine. ' This comment is not accurate. I never came to promote the NeoGraft machine. A doctor who is using our NeoGraft device and is very happy with it discovered Dr. Feller's harsh negative comments about our device on your site and pointed these comments out to me. I came to your site to explain that Dr. Feller had never seen our machine and so his negative comments were not based on any facts. This doctor also pointed out to me Dr. Feller had recently launched his own device. I have no interest in promoting the NeoGraft machine on any forum. My interest is for doctors to come and see the machine do live procedures so that the doctors can judge NeoGraft for themselves. That is why we are doing 4-5 live demonstrations every month throughout the United States. However, no one on this site wants to address the fact that negative comments were made about NeoGraft before seeing Neograft do a procedure. This fact is ignored and then as I have so many times pointed out the negative comments about NeoGraft are classified as 'honest, and genuine' comments.

 

Your next comment and I quote: 'if you have no evidence that the previous generation NeoGraft machines worked, how can you expect us to blindly trust their successor'? This comment is an incorrect assumption . What was there in my previous comments about NeoGraft that makes you think we do not have evidence that the previous generation of NeoGraft worked? The previous generations worked very well and continue to work and be used by their owners. It is like an older model car. They continue to work, but there are always some improvements that can be made to newer models. Your comment and I quote: 'Learning to take genuine and constructive criticism by reputable hair restoration physicians is the basis for further innovation.' We are willing to take constructive and genuine criticism, however, although Dr. Feller is a reputable hair restoration physician and he does excellent work with patients his criticism was not 'genuine' nor 'constructive', because as I said, he had never seen the NeoGraft device when he made his harsh negative comments. He made his comments in March 2009 and he did not see our machine till several months later, and then he saw a totally different procedure than the one he criticized. The procedure he saw worked very well. (These comments I am making I have said over and over again in this post and in other posts.)

 

This back and forth dialogue has gone on for too long. It is a simple matter of clarifying with Dr. Feller the dates of when he wrote his comments and when he first observed NeoGraft. Why not ask him to give you the timeline. That should settle this discussion once and for all and put an end to it.

 

In answer to your question:

'NeoGraft increases the number of potential candidates for FUE compared to what...previous generation NeoGraft machines?......... there's no way you can make the above bold claim in comparision to tools you haven't evaluated. And since you haven't listed what you're comparing NeoGraft to, this claim makes no sense.'

 

In the comment I made you are referring to, I was not comparing NeoGraft to other tools or previous machines but to the manual FUE technique. In general, I have not been comparing NeoGraft to other tools in the posts on your forum or anywhere else, but only to the manual FUE technique. Our goal with NeoGraft was to improve the outcome of a manual FUE and not to compare NeoGraft to other tools. We will leave that to the doctors. When something is unclear in my posts there is no need to call my comments 'nonsensical.' I am happy to clarify anything which was not clear in my post. In giving information about NeoGraft we have stated that NeoGraft uses positive and negative pneumatic pressure, allowing a "no touch, no handling, no use of tweezers" method for the grafts. This is also stated as a comparison to the Manual FUE technique and not in comparison to other tools. I cannot speak of other tools I have not seen and I do not think Dr. Feller should have commented about NeoGraft, until he had seen NeoGraft do the procedure he commented on.

 

I do agree with your comment 'Because even if you put the best tool in the hands of an unskilled surgeon, poor results are inevitable.' NeoGraft is a tool in a doctor's hand. However it is a tool which considerably improves the quality of work compared to doing a manual FUE procedure. Transections are greatly reduced and the process is speeded up, compared to manual FUE. At our demonstrations doctors are personally able to view the grafts which are harvested, including any that were transected. They also view the grafts being implanted. As I said in other posts we are doing everything to be open and transparent. Finally, as I explained in my previous post we are working hard to grow our pictorial portfolio. This takes time, as we are new to the U.S. and do not want to publish results from doctors in other countries, but from doctors that Americans can contact in their own country. This is why we do live demonstrations. We believe this is as good as or maybe better than any pictures. Doctors can follow up on the patients to see the progression of the results of the NeoGraft procedure as the demonstrations are done in the same location where the patients and the doctors reside .

 

As I said, I am signing off for a while. I cannot continue to repeat the same information over and over again and keep getting the same unresponsive response. Hopefully we can discuss another topic at a later date.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Desirehair,

 

Why you operate under the assumption that nobody can have or express an opinion or concern about NeoGraft prior to seeing a live demonstration is beyond me. Don't scientists form educated opinions (hypotheses) before conducting experiments? These opinions are then either reinforced or changed based on the data of an experiment. Similarly, someone may form and express an opinion of NeoGraft based on the knowledge of how it works and later have it reinforced or changed after seeing a live demonstration of your machine. So who cares if Dr. Feller presented his honest critique of your machine prior to seeing it live? In my opinion, you would have done far better to address Dr. Feller's concerns head on rather than attempt to discredit and call them "harsh" based on some faulty notion that his initial educated opinion is invalid.

 

You said:

 

"What was there in my previous comments about NeoGraft that makes you think we do not have evidence that the previous generation of NeoGraft worked?"

 

Then you said:

 

"Finally, as I explained in my previous post we are working hard to grow our pictorial portfolio. This takes time, as we are new to the U.S. and do not want to publish results from doctors in other countries, but from doctors that Americans can contact in their own country. "

 

The fact that you don't (or won't) present photo evidence from physicians outside the US showing the success of NeoGraft FUE procedures is the answer to your question in the first quote above. You've had 10 years to collect and present photos demonstrating the success of your previous generation machines. I think you've had enough time.

 

You address this by claiming that you feel compelled to collect enough evidence from American doctors of success before presenting them. Why? If physicians outside of the US have had success, why not present photos? Results are results!

 

You continue to act as if I'm claiming NeoGraft doesn't work. All I'm doing is calling you out on the obvious inconsistencies and problems with your posts. You came here with an accusatory attitude wanting to dismiss Dr. Feller's opinion instead of simply addressing them head on.

 

And I apologize...perhaps YOU personally didn't come here to promote NeoGraft, but representatives of your company did several months ago. I believe the first guy's name was "Doug Monty" who initially plastered our community with promotional links in violation of our terms of service. Admittedly, he did a much better job after I called him out on it and discussed our forum policies with him privately. Nevertheless, the "you" I'm referring to is your company, whom you represent, not "you" personally.

 

I am still interested in seeing a live demonstration of the NeoGraft machine and will continue to keep an open mind (despite the fact that you keep accusing me of holding an anti-NeoGraft position).

 

Regards,

 

Bill