Those of us who have been around 30 years will tell you that the smaller the instrument used for the removal, the more potential for follicle damage you get. That has been the history of it. The guys like Woods who are proposing an alternative method of harvest, have to scientifically show the Hair Transplant community that these are not problems for their method. Historically, this information has not been presented publicly at all.
Where is the good hard scientific data on the transection rate (follicle injury) with the Woods or Gho procedure? Conversely, what is the percent survival by these methods? And finally, they ought to also talk about the value to the patient – the cost factor per hair moved from place to place. You can do it with standard follicular unit methods for as low as $1 to $2 per unit. When I look at the prices of these alternative harvest methods, they are from 2 to 4 times more expensive.
All the entire scientific community is asking from these new physicians like Woods and Gho is: “Let’s have some science, not promotion or marketing. How about a little science?” If you’re a potential hair transplant patient, do you want someone who is doing it “fly by night”, or do you want someone who is working in the public’s eye, presenting good solid scientific fact – using reproducible research that is verifiable by multiple peers?
Until you have those things, you don’t have a scientific technique.
HairlossTalk: Our understanding is that Woods has come to the US to begin presenting his technique to the public.
Dr. Limmer: Woods just came to LA to start recruiting. He’s basically offering to sell his technique. I think its unfortunate. With the exception of the guys in the UK who originally developed the OB Forceps and held them as a secret for years before many many women died… every single Physician in this field and on the face of the earth knows: If you have anything that is new or of value to the community, you are to publish it, and present it at the soonest possible moment, so it can be evaluated by peers. If it is valuable, then it should become public knowledge. For someone to hold a technique in secret for ones own financial benefit, is totally unconscionable. It goes against every principle that we stand for as physicians in service to the welfare of the public’s health. It is completely unacceptable.
Final Thoughts…
HairlossTalk: You seem very adamant about this.
Dr. Limmer: I get irritated by people who won’t, in spite of several invitations, stand up and present their findings for peer review and peer education. That’s what it’s all about. That is what the ISHRS is all about. That is what this yearly conference is about. Sharing of scientific ideas so all the patients on earth can have the opportunity to have the most beneficial care delivered to them. Anyone who doesn’t live by those ethical characteristics… in my opinion… stands in violation of their oath as a physician.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Limmer will be presenting awards at the 10th annual ISHRS conference in Chicago, as well as performing an integral role in its execution. Once again, we would like to thank Dr. Limmer for taking the time to speak with us, and provide us with information, and his feelings and concerns.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
