I was browsing hairsite today and I find it strange that people are still asking the same questions to Woods about the results of his HT. According to Woods his technique was perfected in 1989 - see his website. Actually he says it was perfected since 1989, but that logically infers that at and after 1989 it has been perfect. So, since he also claims that it took 10 years to develop it means that there should be a large amount of information on the technique including test results. Since it was also perfected, he should not feel in any way embarrassed about showing these results (If he doesn't want to give away trade secrets then he doesn't need to).
So why are people in 2007 still totally confused about what his procedure is all about?
The other thing on hairsite which is incorrect and should really be removed is the advert on the home page claiming that the Woods Technique has been validated by a mainstream medical journal. The Woods Technique has NOT been validated by any journal or independent body. To validate anything requires some independent body to reproduce the results of a procedure or experiment, so this claim is false.
4 comments:
First off this is about bht and was verified by the British journal of plastic surgery. And they just do not publish anything and you can not just pay to get it on there. Get the facts read the website. And still your photos with the shaving hard to see what was done. Have Dr. Woods put up his pics?? So we can get the full story no flack. Just want to see everything. If he comments again just ask him to put up your pics. Simple enough.This will help the readers of this blog. I still do not know why you did not document it in full when you first made some noise about it on Hairsite? People want all the facts and for you not doing so gave a lot of people a red flag. You should have called Woods asked for your photos it is your property and proceeded from there. And the reason people are asking 2007 is because there is new posters throughout the years. There was tons of very positive posts on his results and procedures in early 2001 and on on other site. No ones perfect but I had a chance to see a lot of very nice work. Ok this xan be debated till the cows come home but if you put all the evidence up there for all to see . We can see what your saying. That is how it is done in cyberworld.
Just went to Hairsite again . What it says is . The woodstechnique inventor of Fue and bodyhair. This is the link with the verification. You can read it here and I have read it in the journahttp://www.4hair.com.au/default.asp?DocumentID=250&MenuID=164&RefMenuID=&Category=l before.
Here we go again... I was going to ask if you are so stupid that you do not understand that the words 'validated' and 'verified' mean the same thing? Validated, verified, proven true, a fact that has been verified, validated, proven using the scientific method: a method that has been used since the 17th century and a concept that every intelligent rational person, physicist, scientist, physician, biologist… etc. on this planet today understands and agrees with, but then I realized you are probably someone actually thinking about having a HT?
I know exactly how you feel, totally confused about what is going on. You do not know what is possible with current FUE/HT technology. All you can go on is what you about read and see on the forums. Isn’t that a bit sad when there are so many surgeons out there that want your money?
So why don’t you ask the HT surgeons these questions? What don’t you ask for proof of what they are claiming? Or why not go and see someone who has had a HT?
Also, if you are considering FUE (non-strip), then just go and have a few grafts done and see what you think. The procedure itself is no big deal. You can quite easily have, say, 20 grafts done in an area that is not that obvious to others. You will, of course, find it very hard to find a surgeon who will do this for you.
In answer to your question about other stuff, you have to realize that HT takes months before you see any results. I.e. at least half a year. The other thing you have to realize is that during the first year or 2 you are desperate to be on the side of the surgeon. After all, these guys are your only help. It is only when you realize that this is going nowhere do you decide whether you should just keep quiet or go public and complain.
My guess is that most patients just keep quite. I know myself it is very, very hard to go public, in fact it is so stressful that deep down inside, your body is telling you it doesn’t what you to put it through this stress. You know its going to be like being thrown to the lions. You also know it is going to make no difference to your hair whatsoever, and you will still be in the same situation.
I don’t know what you want from me. I cannot show you before photos as I have none that show my hairloss up close. I have photos I sent to Woods, prior to the surgery and I have a passport photo and also family photos, but these were not taken as up as close as the ones on this blog. In fact, from these you will see only a guy with a full head of hair. You will not be able to make a comparison at all. Anyway, I am not complaining about macro results I am complaining about the micro results, where you have a 5mm gap between hairs due to the fact that the hair in between did not grow.
Also, just because something appears in a medical journal doesn't mean it has any credence. In fact in Woods case it was merely a pointing out of a possible phenomenon whereby body hair transplanted to the scalp grew longer than it would have if left untransplanted. This is a nice phenomenon, but as far as Iam aware it has not been validated.
Let me know when it is, because I also find it interesting. It makes no difference to my situation however.
Post a Comment