+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62
  1. #51
    IAHRS Recommended Hair Transplant Surgeon Dr. Glenn Charles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    If the Neograft device is really making the FUE procedure that much easier and saving so much time then the prices should reflect this. We would get a better idea if this was true if the physicians who are using/promoting this device would share with everyone what they are charging their patients per FUE graft.
    Dr. Glenn Charles
    Member, International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons
    View my IAHRS Profile

  2. #52
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default NeoGraft Response to Spencer Kobren

    Quote Originally Posted by SpencerKobren View Post

    Mr. Kobren, Hudson is an amalgam of ideas from different individuals that represent, are affiliated with or work with the NeoGraft Company. Our group includes those in management , investors, techs, doctors who have purchased the NeoGraft device, and patients. We came together to address the many false, misleading assumptions, conjectures and incorrect statements, that were posted about the NeoGraft device.

    Here is our position. We do not ascribe to the notion that because someone is visible, or makes their identity public, that this means that person is more honest, credible, accountable and responsible than someone who is not visible. Facts are not any more true or false, when stated by someone who is visible or anonymous. The facts speak for themselves. It was never our intention to post on any forums. However, we were very disturbed about the wrong, misleading information being disseminated about the NeoGraft device and felt the public had a right to know the real facts about the NeoGraft Company, the real facts of the NeoGraft technology, and the benefits to the patients that can be achieved with the use of the NeoGraft device. This is what motivated us to address forums discussing NeoGraft.

    As for Dr. Feller, We do not find it reasonable to have more interaction with him than we already have, given his antagonistic position to us. We are not looking for him to “give us the benefit of being acknowledged,” nor are we looking to “debate our position,” two things he mentions in his post. We are simply looking to clarify false assumptions and misleading information stated about the NeoGraft device. It is our belief that falsely maligning the NeoGraft device, as Dr. Feller has done, without evidence or experience on the machine is not reasonable behaviour. Dr. Feller would have the reader believe that he had seen and used the NeoGraft machine before he began maligning it.

    It is obvious that Dr. Feller had never worked with the NeoGraft device before he began maligning the NeoGraft machine since his posts referred to the NeoGraft device as a motorized “spinning punch.” Dr. Feller then attributed to NeoGraft all the negative effects of a motorized “spinning punch”, including the killing of grafts. Since the NeoGraft is not a motorized “spinning punch” his negative remarks about NeoGraft were therefore based on pure conjecture and speculation, not on any technical knowledge of the NeoGraft device. The NeoGraft device is not a motorized “spinning punch.” NeoGraft only does about two rotations before going under the skin. In fact, the NeoGraft does less rotations than a manual FUE punch.

    Dr. Feller’s false negative posts were written as though his speculations and conjectures about the NeoGraft were absolute facts, but they were really his conjectures. You addressed this issue Mr. Kobren, when you stated in one of your posts that until there is evidence to the contrary some of the [ false, misleading] words used to describe the technology of NeoGraft are just “theorizing.” However we feel you did not go far enough in addressing this problem and Dr. Feller has continued maligning the NeoGraft machine, as though his maligning statements are facts.

    Even after several very lengthy posts by us pointing out Dr. Feller’s false misleading conjectures and assumptions, Dr. Feller has not only stuck by his erroneous statements, but escalated the maligning of NeoGraft in his latest post. In his latest post Dr. Feller wants the reader to believe that his latest round of maligning the NeoGraft is based on his knowledge of physics. Dr. Feller writes in his post: “They [his ideas about NeoGraft] are not subjective viewpoints, they are facts based on physics.” Maybe these facts are true of “ motorized spinning punches” but NeoGraft’s technology is different.

    As I have stated previously in response to Dr. Feller’s conjectures about NeoGraft, our research and development team, and our engineers, do not understand the physics Dr. Feller is referring to when he is describing the NeoGraft. It might be interesting to know that we are working with a major University that is known for their plastic surgery program in order to develop an accredited training program for NeoGraft. The University has seen the NeoGraft device perform in their facilities and based on their knowledge of physics and assessment of the NeoGraft machine they want to work with us and accredit this program. Obviously the University disagrees with your assessment of the NeoGraft device. We will release more information as soon as the details have been finalized.

    Dr. Feller launched his hand held device about the same time we did the NeoGraft. Might this have influenced his negative posts about the NeoGraft device? I will leave it to reader to speculate about this. As I pointed out in other posts and this is very important Mr. Kobren and not to be taken lightly, we have never maligned or stated false, negative comments about any doctor’s device if we had not had experience with that device. We would not do so because we are accountable and ethical and if we have never used a device we would not make wrong destructive comments, like grafts dying, about any doctor’s device, as Dr. Feller did with the NeoGraft.

    In his latest post Dr. Feller, again speaks negatively of the NeoGraft. He does not give up. Dr. Feller states: “The presence of a few results posted [on the web] by the company itself is not "proof" of efficacy in my view.” I need to remind you Dr. Feller, that our focus is the doctors. We do not deal with the patients. Doctors will not purchase a device from pictures on the web, so we only have a few cases shown on the web. Perhaps you do not remember that in my prior posts I wrote that the NeoGraft company made the decision to be very transparent and interactive with the doctors who were interested in acquiring the NeoGraft device and we decided to do live demonstrations around the country several times a month so that doctors could visually see and experience firsthand the efficacy of the NeoGraft device. Many doctors come to more than one demonstration to satisfy themselves of the efficacy of the NeoGraft. Because of our live hair transplant demonstrations we only posted a few examples of NeoGraft cases on the web, mostly for the readers that come on our site.

    Our proof of efficacy comes from the substantial number of NeoGraft machines that are now doing FUE procedures in doctor’s offices, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well where we are actively promoting the NeoGraft device. These NeoGraft machines are collectively harvesting many, many thousands of grafts every day and through our contact with our doctors we hear they are very happy with the performance of the NeoGraft device. Based on the growing reputation of the NeoGraft’s “efficacy” which is being established by the doctors using the NeoGraft device we now have a backlog of orders, not only in the U.S. but with our International distributors as well. Since we do not do surgical procedures, we mostly leave it to the doctors to post their own pictures, and as their cases build up they will be posting more pictures.

    The doctors who have acquired the NeoGraft device feel that this device offers many important benefits to their patients such as a ‘no cut, no stitch’ procedure compared to the STRIP invasive surgical procedure. NeoGraft FUE is less painful that a STRIP procedure, requires less down time than a STRIP procedure, and offers the patient the ability to have short hair because large elliptical scarring is not a problem as it can be with the STRIP method. The NeoGraft device also greatly reduces the transections of grafts of a manual FUE procedure and shortens the time of the manual FUE procedure. All evidence, Dr. Feller, shows you are alone in your inaccurate misleading assessment of the NeoGraft device at this late stage of the game.

    We think your program Mr. Kobren, does a very good job in general educating readers and bringing out important issues. For some reason your good formula has had mixed results for NeoGraft as many issues discussed about NeoGraft have not been honestly or fairly presented. At first your program appropriately questioned the ability and value of the NeoGraft device and had a ‘wait and see respectful attitude.’ That was a fair position to take. Yes, you did work with Dr. Bauman and the NeoGraft device to have the Greg Benson live demonstration on the internet. We were very appreciative and thankful (see Neografters where we thank you) of your efforts to let the viewers know about NeoGraft. We were not looking for an automatic stamp of approval of the NeoGraft machine. We believed NeoGraft would be judged on its good results, and good performance and this is what happened with the doctors buying the NeoGraft device. But, strangely this did not happen on this forum.

    Instead, somewhere along the way, on your forum, the atmosphere towards NeoGraft shifted. In addition to Doctors like Feller who are hosted on this forum writing wrong misleading, not evidence based information about NeoGraft, you invited doctor Dr. Bauman, who came on your show with ridiculous, hyped up headlines, like “NeoGraft Warning.” The Bauman interview was a false portrayal of Dr. Bauman as a NeoGraft Guru, which he is not, who was self appointed to “warn” patients to stay away from doctors buying the NeoGraft because some of them were not experienced in hair restoration. This warning was very misleading and greatly self serving for Dr. Bauman.

    As I pointed out in another post, all doctors training on the NeoGraft start out inexperienced, whether they were hair restoration doctors or not because this device is different from other devices and all doctors need to be trained on the NeoGraft. In that sense Dr. Bauman was inexperienced too when he began less than two years ago, and no one was posting on Forums to stay away from him. It is rude to do so now to other doctors who have trained on the NeoGraft already, like him or are presently training. These doctors have a right to train on medical devices like NeoGraft, just like Dr. Bauman did. Dr. Bauman is playing double standard, as he was a Newbie not so long ago with NeoGraft, and he is stepping outside of ethical boundaries warning patients to stay away from doctors who are doing the same as he did when he trained on his medical devices. We hear the doctors he has warned against are very agitated by his behaviour and most of them are more highly accredited surgeons than Dr. Bauman is and entitled to train on new devices as he is.

    Dr. Bauman may make the case that he has more experience than some of the doctors buying the NeoGraft device who have never done hair restoration. Okay, we could accept that, in the area of hairlines (because the rest is all newly learned NeoGraft procedure) and argue that hairlines can be learned in a reasonable amount of time, in spite of the fact that certain doctors want the public to think it is difficult to learn. But what we cannot understand is how after Dr. Bauman came on the Bald Truth Talk show and warned about how important it is for Neograft to be in experienced hands, (for hairlines) Dr. Williams was invited on the same show with Spencer Kobren to also warn patients to stay away from inexperienced doctors when Dr. Ken Williams, had never had any experience in hair restoration of any kind including hairlines before purchasing the NeoGraft device??!!

    We thought Dr. Williams would have been thought of as the kind of totally inexperienced doctor that Dr. Bauman was warning the readers about. In fact, we thought Dr. Williams should have been a Poster Boy for the NeoGraft procedure and the right candidate to refute the claims of Dr. Bauman that so much experience is needed to become proficient on the NeoGraft in order to do hair restoration procedures. First, if one looks at Dr. Williams’s hair transplant done with the NeoGraft, (go to the web) one can see the excellent results of Dr. Williams’ FUE NeoGraft hair transplant including his hair line. He is a great candidate for showing how successful a NeoGraft procedure is. Next, if one looks at Dr. Williams hair transplant cases, one can see that, even an inexperienced family doctor can learn to become proficient at doing NeoGraft FUE hair transplants in a reasonable amount of time, including doing hairlines. This makes Dr. Williams a good candidate for refuting the notion that one needs so much experience to become a NeoGraft hair restoration doctor, including learning how to do hairlines. Dr. Williams, as far as we are concerned, proves that all those hyped up “Warnings”about NeoGraft getting into “inexperienced hands” are totally unsubstantiated, as Dr. Williams was totally inexperienced when he acquired the NeoGraft device less than two years ago. This is an example of technology speeding up the learning curve.

    Some of the doctors Dr. Williams “Warned” against, may also not have had hair restoration experience like himself when they acquired the NeoGraft, but the majority of them are highly skilled board certified surgeons whereas Dr. Williams is a family practitioner who has never had any formal surgical training. What makes Dr. Williams superior to this group that he is the one “Warning” about these doctors.??!! The whole show did not make sense to us. We also do not understand Dr. Williams’ lack of loyalty and gratitude for the good work done by the NeoGraft company in helping him become trained as a NeoGraft hair restoration doctor, condsidered qualified enough to go on Spencer Kobren's show. Dr. Williams has not won any friends amongst the doctors he warned against, as for the NeoGraft company, we will not comment although we will continue to support him in every way we can.

    Also what moral right did Dr. Williams have to accuse other doctors of having improper motivation for buying the NeoGraft, stating that those doctors were only buying it to earn money, while at the same time trying to make the public believe Dr. Williams and Dr. Bauman have a different kind of moral character and a higher motive than making money for doing hair transplants and other procedures? Dr. Williams wanted us to believe he is doing hair transplants for the passion not the money. But then how come Dr. Williams began doing liposuction and fillers before hair transplants? Was aspirating fat also about passion and not a money motive?

    As for Dr. William’s comment on the interview that a doctor mentioned he does not have to be at the hair transplant procedure, this has nothing to do with the performance of the NeoGraft device or the integrity of the NeoGraft company. How doctors choose to follow the rules of their profession and the doctor’s ethics has nothing to do with our selling the device to doctors. There will always be doctors and individuals in other professions , who try to beat the system or take advantage of it. We are not a doctor police force. A doctor being present or not at a procedure is an issue for a medical regulatory body, not for a company selling devices. Why was this even a comment for a video presentation on any forum? Do you not think we could bring out a whole laundry list of rules that are not followed by certain doctor’s. What has that to do with anything, except that you seem to reach for any straw, to cast dispersions on the NeoGraft company and doctor’s buying the NeoGraft device.

    We would never have imagined that a medical device company trying to sell medical devices by following the rules, is faulted for selling these medical devices to doctors qualified by the medical profession to buy them and then accused of selling to the wrong doctors, when we are not even obligated to sell to doctors, but go out of our way to make sure a doctor is involved in the sale, while at the same time being accused of being dishonest, irresponsible, disingenuous, and only selling devices to make money! WOW. If you do not like to whom medical devices are sold to please blast the regulatory bodies that make the rules for sales. Why target the NeoGraft Company? Furthermore, YES, we agree we are in the business to make money, just like Spencer Kobren and just as all the doctors we sell to and do not believe anything to the contrary. However, it is possible to want to make money and still be an honourable, caring, honest, respectful rule following and responsible company, which the NeoGraft Company is.

    Here is a final example of why we came to the forums. On the audio tape the question was asked “Is it reasonable to sell this device [NeoGraft] to a medispa that has no physician on the premises.” The “no doctor on the premises” part was emphasized in the audio post. Then we were asked “How is this reasonable and responsible?” The way the question was stated is misleading implying that a medispa has a NeoGraft device and there is NO doctor on the premises EVER to operate this device. The next false conclusion is that the NeoGraft company is “unreasonable and irresponsible.” We think it is “unreasonable and irresponsible” to make denigrating statements without any basis about the NeoGraft company. First of all it is not true that any medispa that the NeoGraft Company has sold a NeoGraft machine to does not have a doctor working with them who operates that machine. But even if this were true we would still be acting “reasonably and responsibly” according to the rules and regulations of the medical device industry.

    Medical device companies are not obligated to sell medical devices to doctors. I would guess most medical devices are not owned by doctors. Hospitals, clinics, medispas, private investors and medical office management companies often own medical devices and even doctor’s practices. The owners of the device are responsible for having a qualified doctor use the device. When a medical device is not used properly this is not the problem of the medical device company. Once we sell a device we have no control over it and how it will be used in the future. As I stated we are not a police force for the medical profession.

    I am certain you know also Mr. Kobren that doctors have many different business arrangements for the use of machines and for being able to work in different offices. Doctors sometimes have more than one office, often in another state or even another country. They can work part time in medispa’s, they can contract with franchises to work part time for them, such as Bosley or Hair Club for Men. There are many situations when the doctor is not on the premises. This does not mean he is not on the premises when he/she has a patient. Why is this even a topic of conversation? You know this is how the cosmetic and the hair transplant industry works so why make misleading innuendos implying a medispa has a NeoGraft but no doctor to do the procedure. Furthermore you ask on the audio tape if a doctor flies in to do the transplant at the medspa as though this is a novel and not to be desired action!! Yet you know this happens very often where doctors fly in to do a procedure, especially when they work part time for large franchises or have another office. In many remote regions this is how the population gets to see any kind of a doctor – they fly in.

    We were baffled by this line of questioning and wondered why you were trying to give your readers the impression that there was only a nurse or a dentist on the premises of the medispa when, you must know a doctor can fly (drive) to the premises and this is a medical industry standard. Basically, it is not important who owns the machine or where it is parked, assuming the place is properly equipped as a surgical place, it is only important that a qualified doctor operates the machine, whether he is on the premises or comes to the premises to do his procedure. Why make a public issue about “doctors on premises” and vilify the NeoGraft company when this is how the medical industry works. The particular medspa you speak of has very qualified doctors come and do procedures offered by the medspa. If you have problems with the rules of the medical profession that allow for this, you need to talk to those in power to change the system and not attack the NeoGraft company that is following the rules.

    To conclude this lengthy post, we are not “hiding in the shadows” as you claim. Nor do we need “help with our case” by becoming public. We do not have a case, simply the need to refute false, incorrect information and we do not feel that refuting false, damaging information is a good and sound reason for us to go public. As for credibility, we are letting the NeoGraft device give us our credibility. As you stated, “the truth is the truth” and we believe this also. But truth can be distorted and get lost amidst false, inaccurate, conflicting information. This is why we answer some of the posts. We are not looking for agreement with our beliefs about FUE being the way of the future, even if Dr. Harris has stated so. We could happily debate that.

    We are open to criticism given in the right spirit based on experience with NeoGraft and accurate facts. It is this kind of criticism and sharing of information of well meaning doctors in the last few years that has spurred our engineers and developers to make the modifications that brought about this more advanced fourth generation of NeoGraft that we have introduced. It is this kind of good will and spirit we are looking for, both in posts and public interviews to promote good, honest, informative discussions that lay the fertile ground for new learning. There would have to be this kind of benefit for us to come on your program, meaning feelings of good will, or the sense there will be a fair and intelligent discussion. With the present climate surrounding NeoGraft and the Company we do not think we will receive these benefits.

    Your latest poster wrote: “Hudson is a shill and knows if he goes on Kobren’s show that he’ll have his ass handed to him.” These are the type of comments and sentiments that are unacceptable to us as they do not create the kind atmosphere that we would like for an interview. These comments are rude, hostile, and not in the spirit of sharing and learning. Statements you have made in recent and past posts such as your being “ concerned the way it[NeoGraft] is being marketed and to whom” and that “Representatives of the [NeoGraft] company are being disengenous to public and press” and that the NeoGraft company is “irresponsible” and “dishonest” are themselves disingeneous and inflammatory statements. We cannot see how a fair honest discussion could ensue, given some of the false, negative positions taken about the NeoGraft device and the NeoGraft Company.

    Let us make a conjecture about why there is this kind of tension where the NeoGraft is concerned. You are an intelligent man Mr. Kobren, and you come across as very affable on the net, and as we said we have found your other topics fairly balanced. Why is this not occurring with NeoGraft? We believe that the NeoGraft device is challenging the STRIP hair restoration doctors to make changes and incorporate the FUE procedure into their practice, in order to allow their patients a choice. We have found when patients are given a choice, and understand the benefits of FUE they will choose FUE. We have found the traditional STRIP doctors reluctant to come on board. They mostly have their STRIP method that works for them, earns them their income and it is our belief that they are not happy about having to make the necessary changes to become proficient as FUE doctors.

    History shows doctors do not accept change easily. There was the same uproar with laparoscopy with some doctors saying this procedure will kill people. Other groups of doctors like the Plastic surgeons, Cosmetic surgeons and Dermatologists are very strongly embracing the NeoGraft. Most of these doctors were not interested in doing STRIP surgery, and so did not get entrenched by the Strip routine. The new doctors can there for accept change more easily as they do not need to dismantle the STRIP routine. They see the value of the NeoGraft and are acquiring the NeoGraft . This must be causing concern for the STRIP doctors, who may be worried about losing patients to FUE hair transplants. We believe that you know and feel for these doctors and we wonder whether your compassionate feelings are influencing you to not see things as clearly or as fairly as you usually seem to do.

    On the other hand, Mr. Kobren, you are in a unique position to influence people and their beliefs and cause harm to the reputation of certain individuals like doctors and entities like NeoGraft which we believe puts you in a position of serious responsibility which calls for fair and honest reporting in order to do no harm. For example, honest and fair reporting about the medispa would have had you enquire about who uses the NeoGraft device, instead of attacking and assuming that no doctor comes to the premises and dispensing that information to the public as though the NeoGraft company is the villain. Even if there should happen to be no doctor, the responsible thing would have been not to attack the NeoGraft company but apprise yourself with the knowledge that medical device companies often sell devices to non doctors and the onus to get the doctor is on the owner of the machine. Did you ever consider that maybe there is a possibility that the NeoGraft Company which does require that a doctor be attached to a machine they sell, (even though that is not necessary in our business) could also have been deceived about a doctor attached to the NeoGraft device? Our knowledge as I said is that any medspa that has bought a machine has a doctor using it. And why the innuendoes that there is something wrong about a doctor flying in to do a procedure when this is a commonplace practice? We hope you review your actions and see our point of view.

    At this time we do not want to be caught up in an interview that gives any extra importance or credibility to some of the statements made by those that believe it is okay to make irresponsible, hostile and unaccountable statements both about our device and our company. Mr. Kobren, in answer to your audio video, the NeoGraft company and its many representatives, called Hudson, has decided to not do a live interview at this time. This does not mean we would not do one in the future. But first we would like you to understand that the kind of reporting both about the NeoGraft Device and the Company would need to change before we consider sending a representative to do an audio or video broadcast.

  3. #53
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default NeoGraft Resonse to Dr. Feller

    [QUOTE=Dr. Feller;14761]

    Dr. Feller,
    You do not give up. You repeatedly state the same erroneous points over and over regardless of how often it has been explained to you that you made incorrect assumptions and have the facts wrong about how the technology of the NeoGraft device works. You appear to need to hang on to and disseminate incorrect information about the NeoGraft device.
    I will address your comments in this latest post once again, directly after your quote.

    Dr. Feller Quote: “but I'm also glad you [spencer kobren] understand where I'm coming from when insisting that he identify himself before I give him the benefit of being acknowledged. Hey, I'm not anonymous, why should he be?”

    Hudson’s Answer: I not think a voice or being visible conveys more than the written word. Being anonymous is a choice just as you chose to be highly visible. Being anonymous does not affect what is written. I have stated facts and these facts stand on their own and can be checked out whether I am anonymous or not. I do not seek "acknowledgement", nor do I have a need to be acknowledged by you Dr. Feller or anyone else. Accountability comes not from knowing who a person is, or what he looks like but from checking out the facts. You, Dr. Feller, are not anonymous, but quite visible, yet you continue to post incorrect and inaccurate information on this site about NeoGraft. How accountable and responsible is that? The bottom line is the facts. If the facts can be acknowledged then accountability is there. Only the facts need acknowledging and this is done through research and fact finding. Having said this, we are very willing to let you know that Hudson is not any one person but a group of people who represent NeoGraft, or work with NeoGraft or have bought NeoGraft devices. The posts written by Hudson are a collaborative effort reflecting the sentiments of people affiliated with NeoGraft, including sales representatives, doctors, technicians, hair tech trainers and even patients. Here are more quotes taken from your last article and Hudson’s answers.

    Dr. Feller Quote: “ he [Hudson] has made materially false statements about me in prior posts that he should stand accountable for. Throwing out accusations and criticism is easy when you're anonymous, but people tend to be more civil and responsible when their identity is known to all.”

    Hudson’s Answer: Dr. Feller, we have not made any false statements about you. In all our posts we quoted your inaccurate and misleading statements that you made about the NeoGraft machine and then we corrected these incorrect statements with our knowledge of how the NeoGraft device works. In spite of your visibility you are not, as I said being accountable or responsible when you make inaccurate statements and continue to do so even when the NeoGraft Personnel have many times written to point out your incorrect statements. I will quote these inaccurate statements of yours again here. In March of 2009, before you had ever seen the NeoGraft device do a procedure you stated:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “Any new FUE device will get my full attention……..it [NeoGraft] utilizes a spinning punch… it also subjects the grafts to TORSIONAL forces which are detrimental to FUE grafts…..the largest concern I have, is the chance for transection and trauma as the splayed out follicles come in contact with the spinning punch as it gets sucked down the entire length of the punch. If this device, as described, scores down to a certain point with the spinning punch and then relies on suction to pull the graft free from the bottom, then any part of a splayed graft is going to get cut off or at least nicked pretty significantly by the spinning punch. And even though the graft may not APPEAR to be damaged, it may well be dead.”

    Hudson’s Answer: Your statement that the NeoGraft device is a SPINNING PUNCH is a totally incorrect description of the technology NeoGraft uses to extract follicles. You mention four times in that last quote that NeoGraft is a SPINNING PUNCH. NeoGraft is not a SPINNING PUNCH. Because it is not a SPINNING PUNCH there are no high speed motorized rotations which is how you have described spinning punches. Since NeoGraft is not a spinning punch, therefore no DAMAGING heat, torsion or traction occur. Countless doctors have attended our live demonstrations and there is no evidence of damage as you describe to the follicles. They are robust, moist, and in excellent condition. These live demonstrations also show a low transection rate of the follicles. You obviously do not understand how NeoGraft is engineered and it is obvious you did not do research on how the NeoGraft works before incorrectly ascribing the damaging effects of a motorized SPINNING PUNCH to the NeoGraft device which has a totally different mechanism for harvesting grafts. I have explained the mechanism NeoGraft uses on other posts and will not repeat these here. It will suffice to say that the NeoGraft device rotates less than a device used for manual FUE procedures.

    The point, which you choose to ignore Dr. Feller, for what reason I do not know, is that the doctors buying the NeoGraft machine are as intelligent as you are, and many of them have good technical knowledge as well. Since they are an intelligent group, they do their due diligence. The majority of the doctors who purchased NeoGraft for their practice came to multiple live NeoGraft demonstrations to assure themselves that any one procedure they saw performed by the NeoGraft device was not just a “fluke,” something you allude to about the NeoGraft. So far most doctors have taken anywhere from eight months to one and a half years investigating NeoGraft before they purchase a NeoGraft device from when they are first exposed to the NeoGraft device. In spite of posts like yours denouncing the NeoGraft device, the majority of the doctors who have come multiple times to see the NeoGraft machine purchase the NeoGraft, telling us that each time they come they are more impressed with the machine. During their visits to demonstrations, they get to see the grafts, look at them under a microscope. Many doctors get to see a grown out NeoGraft FUE hair transplants with patients who are having a second transplant. Most of the time if a doctor does not purchase the machine, it had to do with being unable to get financing. Here is another incorrect, wildly off track quote written in March of 2009:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “ suction means “air-flow” and that’s deadly to a graft. It doesn’t matter if the air-flow is toward or away from a graft, flow in any direction WILL desiccate the graft. No ands, ifs, or buts. It will do it every time. I personally believe graft desiccation is the number one cause of poor growth in hair transplants of any kind. Again, once such grafts are rehydrated they may LOOK alive, but are long dead.”

    Hudson’s Answer: We have repeatedly explained that there is constant misting and moisture in the tube and receptacle of the NeoGraft. Therefore there is no desiccation. The suction is very minimal and more gentle to the grafts than pulling out the grafts with tweezers which both STRIP and manual FUE procedures do. Perhaps you should let the readers know that when a doctor does STRIP surgery, the piece of excised scalp is cut up into many sections, and handled by many technicians (2-5 or more). The sections of scalp are then further sliced up under hot microscopes. There is always a chance of the follicles drying out and dying unless misted by a technician. Misting the follicles is important in both procedures and the NeoGraft device has a mechanism for misting the follicles. There is not one ounce of truth to your speculations about desiccation and dead grafts, with NeoGraft. We could write the same thing about a STRIP procedure if we wanted to mislead the public.

    Again, the doctors coming to our live demonstrations which are done 4-5 times a month, would not be buying machines that are killing grafts. You must think your fellow physicians as a group are really quite unintelligent. By sticking with your inaccurate comments you make it appear you are the only one who has these insights about the NeoGraft device and the doctors who are doing their homework and checking out the NeoGraft carefully are an ignorant lot buying a device that makes grafts “dead”. We have loaned many doctors the NeoGraft machine for up to three months and of the large group we allowed use of the machine there were only two that did not purchase the machine and the reasons had nothing to do with NeoGraft’s performance but other kinds of issues which will remain confidential.

    In another post in March 2009, before you had ever seen the NeoGraft do a procedure you wrote again:
    Dr. Feller Quote: “ If the three main detrimental forces of FUE are:
    1. Torsion
    2. Traction
    3. Compression
    Which of these forces does this machine [NeoGraft] address?
    Definitely not numbers one and two. Perhaps number three since there is less compression required due of the use of suction, but this gain is more than outweighed by new losses due to desiccation and the grafts gauntlet ride as its sucked down the tubing.”

    Hudson’s Answer: Once again you attribute Torsion, Traction and desiccation to NeoGraft. But all the evidence from our live procedures, as I mentioned before, viewed by many doctors shows that NeoGraft technology produces very robust, moist, intact grafts which are extracted with a very small transaction rate. The evidence and facts do not back up your claims and yet you persist in continuing to hold on to your false position. Why is that Dr. Feller? Even Spencer Kobren tried to have you understand that your comments needed clarification. On March 17, 2009 Spencer Kobren wrote:
    Kobren Quote: “ until it’s proven that the the Neograft machine damages grafts, terms like “detrimental forces”, “torsion” and “desiccation”, are simply words used to make a theoretical point.”

    Hudson’s Answer: I could not agree more. All your false claims were assumptions and conjectures not based on any evidence or experience with NeoGraft, in other words they were theories which were based on a lack of knowledge of NeoGraft technology. But instead of recognizing that you are theorizing you turned your theories into facts. In spite of Spencer Kobren’s comment you continued with your inaccurate charges against NeoGraft. In March 22 2009, before you had seen the NeoGraft perform a procedure you answered Gil in a post and wrote:

    Dr. Feller Quote:
    “Gil, in the end, as you've already eloquently noted, it's all about RESULTS.
    The device [NeoGraft] is described as making extraction FASTER, but not a word was said about extracting grafts SAFER. I do not see where this mega-machine improves graft safety by lowering graft trauma. In fact, I see the opposite with respect to that spinning punch and the gauntlet of suction tubing the graft must travel through. This is why I am so adament about articulating and describing the forces working against us: Torsion, Traction, Compression. Any proposed FUE advance must address either one or ALL of these forces to be of any use.”

    Hudson’s Answer: Dr. Feller, you claim that in the end it is all about RESULTS. Yet, when numerous results of NeoGraft procedures have been demonstrated for almost two years, and recently at the live surgery workshop in April, 2010 where there was a packed room full of doctors, and the results were EXCELLENT, you choose to ignore these results and you continue to stick with your inaccurate facts as shown by your latest post. Amazingly, while the NeoGraft company was continuing to travel around the country demonstrating that the NeoGraft machine was harvesting very good quality grafts, the next day of the prior quote, on the March 23, 2009 you raised the bar even more with even stronger inaccurate speculations and posted:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “Do you want to know why the FUE results from motorized spinning FUE punches are poor to moderate? It's not just the destruction secondary to the three detrimental FUE forces, but simply because such devices COOK the grafts.
    During use, the inside wall of a standard punch rubs right up against the graft. This close approximation often results in a significant cohesion force that causes the graft to dangerously twist within the punch as it spins.
    As the punch continuously rubs against the graft at high speed, a huge amount of heat is produced secondary to friction-the result is similar to an indian "rub-burn" which will not only cook the graft, but dry it out as well. To get around this problem I designed and patented the first Feller Punch manufactured specifically to reduce friction between the inside wall of the punch and the graft. Decreased contact with the graft means less twisting force, less trauma, less heating, and less desiccation.
    This is just one reason why motorized spinning punches for FUE are non-starters and shouldn't be used IMO.”

    Hudson’s Answer: By accusing the NeoGraft machine of “cooking grafts, extracting dead grafts, and dessicating grafts, because it is a motorized spinning device, you show us that you frankly do not know anything about the NeoGraft device and how it works. As I stated you are also dismissing the good intelligence of your peers, who see the value of the NeoGraft device and are purchasing this device. You have not acted in good will by making false claims about how the NeoGraft works, especially since when you made those comments you had never performed any procedure with the NeoGraft device. We have evidence of this. As I explained in an earlier post the NeoGraft group, including our engineers, scientists and developers, have never once made any comment about your device, nor would we ever attempt to, because we had never used your device. We have a strong sense of ethics and are accountable about what we say about other people’s devices. We do not want to cause anyone harm or attempt to damage their reputation with wild conjectures. Now that you have sold your device, you continue with your campaign against NeoGraft. Your latest post continues to affirm your false hostile stand. You state:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “As for my views on the Neograft machine, I stand by them firmly. They are not subjective viewpoints, they are facts based on physicis and 8 years of actually studying and performing FUE in my practice. I have also seen and used the Neograft machine in person, contrary to false reporting by "Hudson". This experience only confirmed and supported my position to stay away from it.I state again that no matter the method used, all FUE surgery suffer from the following detrimental forces:
    1. Torsion
    2. Traction
    3. Compression
    And Neograft is no exception. In fact, to my mind and observation, Neograft introduces even more detrimental forces in addition to those just listed. It's just a plain fact of the physics of the mechanism they chose to utilize.”

    Hudson’s Answer: Standing firmly by false inaccurate information is your choice Dr. Feller. I do not know where you got your physics training, but our engineers, scientists, and developers, do not agree with any of your conclusions. The results produced by NeoGraft at our live demonstration, which have been many all over the country, with numerous doctors attending, have time and time again proven you to be wrong in your facts. The doctors see very excellent quality grafts harvested and implanted. As for your having seen and used the NeoGraft machine, that may be so , but we have it on record, that your mistaken, false, comments were made before you had ever seen the machine do a procedure. Your comments were therefore based on speculation and conjecture which ended up feeding the public false facts.

    Now that you claim you have used the machine, I cannot understand why you need to stick to your false position. The doctors who use NeoGraft , once trained sufficiently, are able to get very good results. There is no reason why, assuming someone gave you proper training that you would not get the same excellent results our other doctors get. We agree that even though the NeoGraft simplifies the FUE procedure, it is still a tool in the doctor’s hands. Since the doctors we train become proficient and harvest and implant very good quality grafts, I think you need to check out and adjust what you are doing in order to be able to achieve the quality of harvesting other doctors are able to achieve. You wrote in your latest post:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “NeoGraft introduces even more detrimental forces in addition to those just listed”

    Hudson’s Answer: This comment is an example of your need to continue to bash the NeoGraft. You are not convincing anyone. More and more doctors are contacting us every day wanting to see the NeoGraft in a live demonstration based on the good reports from other doctors who are using it. We are starting to see more and more referrals with doctors now contacting us whereas when we started we were contacting the doctors. And we are working with a University to accredit a course for the NeoGraft device and FUE training. They have worked with the machine and are excited by it and going to accredit our course. Your next point about a machine not having a reputation is something I do not agree with. You state:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “Another issue that Spencer Kobren brings up is a good one. In essence, it seems that the company is attempting to sell the reputation of the machine, and in doing so is trying to put the emphasis on the tool instead of the human practitioner.” You continue “But a machine can't have a reputation. Nobody speaks of the reputation of Andre Agasey's tennis racket, Reggie Jackson's baseball bat, or Paul Jr.s tool kit in making a new custom chopper. It's the PERSON that builds and earns the reputation, not the tool. Ever.”

    Hudson’s Answer: A machine can have a reputation. This means that some machines have abilities other machines do not, just like doctors who get a reputation. We now have airplanes that fly automatically and those that do not (flying visually). Computers (calculators) can do calculations in a second that would take humans hours to calculate. The calculator has the reputation for this ability not the human. There are so many automated devices that have taken over from humans such as bank money dispensing machines, bottling plants, and other robotic machines. Some machines or devices have reputations for doing things better than other devices in their category. Apple, I phone and other devices have won those reputations. Even cars have reputations for performance and features other cars do not. These machines have the reputation for what they do, not the humans.

    These machines are a collaborative effort of many humans, but the machine does the work. Those machines have earned their reputations. Sometimes the machine does everything, sometimes there is a partnership as between a human and a machine as with NeoGraft and the doctor. But like it or not, technology simplifies many procedures and makes them less reliant on the skill of the operator. This is what NeoGraft does. It is not our job to sell the doctor and let people know how great one or another doctor is. Our job is to sell a good quality, efficient machine and let others know that the machine makes it easier to do FUE than if done manually. In that sense a machine can have a reputation. Finally you state:

    Dr. Feller Quote: “So if Mr. Kobren is issuing a warning about the way the machine has been marketed, I agree such a criticism is prudent, valid, and necessary”.

    Hudson’s Answer: Mr. Kobren has wrong information about how the machine is being marketed. The most important fact is that it is not important who purchases the machine but who uses it. There are many different arrangements that doctors make in order to have access to a medical device. Some doctors purchase the device outright. Some doctors have management companies that own and purchase the device but the doctor does the procedure. We have seen situations where doctors rent devices, and for most doctors finance companies finance the device. Technically the doctor does not own the device until it is paid for. As for doctors flying into different locations to perform hair transplant surgery, this happens with regularity. Many doctors have multiple offices, sometimes even outside of the U.S. and they fly out to these locations to do a procedure. Many doctor’s in addition to their own practice fly out to the large hair transplant companies (with multiple locations) to do hair transplants for them.(Hair Club for Men is one example)

    I cannot understand the protest on Spencer Kobren’s audio tape about a doctor flying in to a medspa to do a procedure. Just like some management companies, who own medical practices and have doctors do the procedures, med spas can make their own arrangements with doctors to come and do procedures for them. Many doctors in aesthetic medicine have medspa’s and many medspa’s have doctors affiliated with them who come in to do procedures such as botox fillers and liposuction. It does not matter how they get there -plane, bus etc.

    The NeoGraft company did not establish the rules for how doctors can partner with others who may own the machines to do procedures. These were set down by the medical community. We stringently follow those rules that apply to us. We are not responsible for whether the medical community allows or disallows a doctor to fly to an office to do a procedure. Finally, Mr. Kobren is critical that NeoGraft is sold to doctors with no experience in hair restoration. NeoGraft is a tool. Any doctor can go and get training to become a hair restoration doctor. That is what our doctors are doing. This is the same as the STRIP doctors are doing only instead of using the NeoGraft, they are trained to use a scalpel and tweezers. No one is making warnings to not go to these doctors and that the scalpel and tweezers are going to the wrong hands.

    Mr. Kobren did not really do his homework to learn the responsibilities of a medical device company and he is not addressing the rights of doctors to train on devices. Mr. Kobren needs to know that a medical device company does not need to sell to doctors and most medical machines are not sold to doctors. He has also missed the point that all doctors are newbies when they start out. I cannot figure out why Dr. Bauman came on the show to "Warn" about doctors, most of who are overqualified to train on the NeoGraft machine and who have the right to train on this device. I also cannot understand why he put Dr. Williams on the interview as he is a doctor with no prior hair restoration experience before he bought the NeoGraft device, and yet Mr. Kobren stresses NeoGraft should be sold to experienced doctors. This is doubletalk. He is out of line calling us irresponsible, dishonest and unreasonable. We believe that he is being irresponsible, and unreasonable and that his judgement does not seem to be as sound with the whole NeoGraft story as we have found him to be with other kinds of threads.

  4. #54
    Administrator SpencerKobren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    402

    playsound

    Quote Originally Posted by hudson View Post
    Mr. Kobren, Hudson is an amalgam of ideas from different individuals that represent, are affiliated with or work with the NeoGraft Company. Our group includes those in management , investors, techs, doctors who have purchased the NeoGraft device, and patients. We came together to address the many false, misleading assumptions, conjectures and incorrect statements, that were posted about the NeoGraft device.
    Spencer Kobren
    Founder, American Hair Loss Association
    Host, The Bald Truth Radio Show

    I am not a physician. My opinions and knowledge concerning hair loss and its treatment are based on extensive research and reporting on the subject as a consumer advocate and hair loss educator. My views and comments on the subject should not be taken as medical advice. Always seek the advice of a medical professional when considering medical and surgical treatment.

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    68

    Default

    I read through the whole thing just now and found hudson's response very odd. Spencer are you ever going to have hudson or anyone from Neograft on your show?

  6. #56
    Administrator SpencerKobren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    402

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Jkel View Post
    I read through the whole thing just now and found hudson's response very odd. Spencer are you ever going to have hudson or anyone from Neograft on your show?
    Hey Jkel,

    While I appreciate your interest and your participation in this discussion, I don’t think it’s necessary to attempt to “smoke Neograft out,” so to speak. I know your intentions are good, but “Hudson” made it crystal clear that Neograft has no interest in presenting its case on The Bald Truth so I think we need to respect their position.
    Spencer Kobren
    Founder, American Hair Loss Association
    Host, The Bald Truth Radio Show

    I am not a physician. My opinions and knowledge concerning hair loss and its treatment are based on extensive research and reporting on the subject as a consumer advocate and hair loss educator. My views and comments on the subject should not be taken as medical advice. Always seek the advice of a medical professional when considering medical and surgical treatment.

  7. #57
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Feller View Post
    Gil,
    You make some good points, but I don't agree that the HT industry needs to be regulated. I find the cry for regulation to be a knee-jerk reaction that does far more harm than good. When has the gov't EVER done a better job than the free market in ANY arena? Any time the gov't sanctimoniously regulates an industry it NEVER gets better, just the opposite, and the cost of doing business skyrockets. Think gun control and car-seats for infants.

    In the end, gov't regulators are nothing more than people who couldn't get a premium job in the private sector and attempt to regain self-esteem by assuming an air of self-righteousness by bullying around their betters in the name of "the public good". My foot.

    -Dr. F
    Dr Feller

    Under that logic the situation that the Miners in Chile went through should happen again in the near future, the safety regulations before the accident did not exist, or several Countries that have reached major developments with a strong State and Goverment regulations in the economical arena should leave their current model and so on. It all depends on the context. I believe in the Free Market for the American Society, but I also know that this Liberal or Neoliberal concept has not worked in poor countries were 95% of the GDP is in the hands of a couple of families while the rest is starving. In this situations I would definetly aim for a stronger, more regulated and social focused gov. Did you know that several State own Companies around the world produce higher revenues than the Private ones in the same country and sector and respect workers right and pay ethical salaries? That for me is a clear example on how the Gov has done better.
    I graduated second of my class in Economics and decided to work for the Goverment because I believe in making my country a better place and by doing this I lost big time in the income spectrum to the extent that I need to safe for a long time before I can have an HT with you =)

    Coming back to the main topic, I agree with you regarding the neograft and I woudn't have a procedure done with this "technique" after reading your statement so I thank you very much for taking the time on putting your valuable opinion on here. I have been promoting you big time in the Spanish forums and people are impressed with your results.

    ps: I apologize for my english.

  8. #58
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    "in my view, work to convince your leaders that less gov't is best gov't. BREAK the unions, free private enterprise, and watch your country's GDP skyrocket and along with that enjoy a prosperity that only the U.S. has enjoyed up until fairly recently"

    Ok, now this is a very powerful statement and imo a very wrong one. As I said in my previous post we have to put things into CONTEXT.

    Let me tell you a little story ( hope you are not bored already ! ). In 1977 an American Economist called Milton Friedman travelled to Chile to have a chat with Mr Pinochet, a right wing Dictator that had been in power for the last 5 years. The economy was sick, Friedman and his Chicago boys told Pinochet that there were 2 ways to get it healthy again, there was a slow and gradually one and a fast and schocking one. They went for the second one, basicly an all around Neoliberal political and economical Policy. They axed 200.000 goverment jobs, reduced the general budget saving millions and most improtant of all, they privatised 750 State own companies for 10% their real value ( One of the people that took advantage of it and bought everything is the current president Piner).

    Now what happened, the first 6 months were horrible, unenploytment rates and inflation was higher than ever and the country was still in recession, but then, BOM, the miracle of this model, the country started growing and growing up to 8% for the next 4 years until finally it stoped.

    Chile became the most uneven Country in income distribution of Latin America, with the richest people of all and the poorest at the same, this social bridge between calsess caused criminal rates to go very high, differential education for children and 65% of the pople in debt with banks etc..

    Now you mention the US, which with this same sustained model have had the major economical crisis since 1930 that has affected the entire world, this is the way it is, the financial world fluctuates but you canc ertainly prevent this with a bigger, not smalle, state. The us has has a shocking poor's rate of 17% living below that line, that is around 40 million people, 3 times the population of the Netherlands or Chile or 80% of the United Kingdom.

    Now countries with big goverments like Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, were you pay up to 65% in tax have virtually no pooverty at all. Its a concept brought by Keynes after the war names the Wealthfare State, whicch was born under the necessity to provide care and basic needs to soldiers coming back home from the frontline, back in that day there was no National Insurance, no Public Hospitals or any kind of benefits.

    I have mentioned the examples of Chile, a mixed economy, with low taxes to the private sector, neoliberal constitution but a lot of social care, the US, quite strong in the first one, not so much in the second and the Wealthfare State that we have in Europe ( I am half Dutch half Chilean ) which provides and guarantees basic needs such as education and health to all their Citizens. Now there is a 4th way, which is strng socialismt

    Please don't say that Comunism and Socialism are the same, It's a very common mistake that people make, you are the smartest guy and I am very pleased to exchange this thoughts with you, Communism is a criticism to the means of production that keep man Alinated and without emancipation. Socialism is way of Goverment, Marx and Engel who wrote the Communist Manifest and "The Capital" said the state should be abolished, but never gave a clue on what to do after that. Socialism, which comes in the hand of Neo Marxist an usually wrong interpretators of the Theory fills that gap and invented a way that they thought it was right with the principles and values of the movement.

    Now there is 2 big reasons why socialism didn't work, one is the violence desviations particulary in the Eastern European States which caused suffering, killing and violation of human rights. The second one is that ALL Socialist/Communist ( with the Political Party names Comunist) Goverments arised from a revolution and were not politicly elected, all but one case, Allende 1970 in Chile, who was actually voted.

    I don't agree with this paritcular model, where the big central state controlls and planifies all aspects of the economy, like the Neoliberal one, it has never achived sustainable growth either and I usually all big names in the goverment are their for political favours, instead of being professionals in their fields, another reason for it to Fail. But don't Forget the The Soviet Union, once the poorest country in Europe, became the largest steel producer and exporter, defeated germany in the second world war and became a superpower to rival the US in the 70ties with a Socialist Goverment. At the cost of 10 million peoples lives obviolsy, not a good example to follow.

    Just fo finish, I am sorry for the long post and as I said, for me mix Goverment is the Key, I support and will never try to convince the authorities above me to change what we have and take public health aid away or cutting funds for childs benefits or a better Education. Not everybody has money and some people have major needs, the world is unfair and we have a responsabilty , utleast to provide them with the tools and support to change their circunstances, in my viw, not having a public free health sector in the XXI century is a social crime.

    Look forward hearing from you

  9. #59
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    883

    Post Hair Loss Sucks, But Not with This Vacuum

    For years, men worried about thinning hair, or going bald have turned to hair plugs, toupees and transplants.

    Now, there's a procedure being done in the Phoenix metro area that uses vacuum technology.

    No, it's not the "Flowbee!" It's called Neograft.

    http://www.kpho.com/valleynews/26951628/detail.html

  10. #60
    Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    895

    Default

    You know i see another potential in stuff like this way beyond FUE. If hair plucking and acell works this could be used to make hair plucking less time consuming :-)

    But what do i know iam only a member in the baldness club

Similar Threads

  1. How Can I Correct My Hair Transplant Scar and Make It Less Visible?
    By tbtadmin in forum IAHRS Info Center Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-16-2009, 08:18 PM
  2. How Do You Know If You Make A Good Candidate.
    By Jkel in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 11:39 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

1800 graft repair case results by Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
Yesterday 08:38 AM
Navigating the German Job Market as a Kenyan Citizen
11-04-2023 06:31 AM
Last Post By Keegan212
Yesterday 03:51 AM
DR HAKAN DOGANAY/ 4500 GRAFTS / Implanter Pen+FUE
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
Last Post By Hakan Doganay, MD
03-26-2024 04:15 PM
The Mane Event for Thursday, June 15th, 2023
06-15-2023 02:59 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
03-26-2024 08:05 AM
Sun Exposure after Hair Transplant
02-26-2009 02:36 PM
Last Post By gisecit34
03-25-2024 08:24 PM