Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/hairsite/public_html/hair-loss/functions.php on line 155
Hair Loss Forum -

March 2017 - Trending Topics in our new forum

 Stem cell hair restoration results - Dr. Cole vs Histogen vs RepliCel.
 Dr. Paul Kemp, CEO of HairClone answers questions about follicle banking.
 RepliCel year 2017 forecast for RCH-01 cell based hair regeneration.
 Dr. Cole to start stem cell hair restoration trial in the US.
 Dr. Umar's 6500 grafts life saving repair procedure for transplant victim.
 FUE donor harvesting, what you must know when choosing a clinic.
 Dr. Koray Erdogan raises the standard in FUE artistry skills.
 Dr. Arvind on how to formulate your own toxic free shampoo.
 Conference & FREE hair restoration consultations; cities worldwide.

This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics that you are interested in. All contents and discussions have been transferred to our new forum at
  HairSite New Forum

Log in | User | Register

To Joe Tillman (Hair Transplant)

posted by ejj, 27.05.2016, 10:12

Joe please show me were I SAID Arfy stated it was a stalemate?

I never said that Arfy used this term. I said this, as it is my opinion.

I will not allow you, to try to ram yours down my throat!

It is obvious to most (excluding you) that this was the FINAL outcome.

Please explain your comments ' I am behind a keyboard' what does this mean?

You are done 'discussing this with me'

Well you would be because you are wrong, and that is what internet bullies do when they are proven wrong, they spit the dummy out of the pram AND LEAVE

Based on your logic? Any one of the three options below.

1. I think he voiced his displeasure and was murdered.
2. I think he voiced his displeasure and was kidnapped.
3. I think he voiced his displeasure and he was abducted by aliens.




Your logic covers all three scenarios but it doesn't make any one of them more likely. You don't know, you are assuming, so don't confuse that with proof. It's irresponsible.


Earlier today I called an attorney I know that works at a fairly large multi-national firm. I asked him the following question.

"Does signing an informed consent form before hair transplant surgery give automatic rights for the hair transplant doctor to sue the patient if they speak negatively of their experience or of their results in any online format?"

His answer? "Not even close." I then asked him to send me an email with his explanation so I could share it here. The personal information is removed for obvious reasons. If any of you doubt this then call up a lawyer and ask for yourself.



Very very silly here Joe.

I am using the balance of probabilities of which none of your examples are either realistic or likely.

You are employing deflection, something you often accuse others of doing.

Please stop as you are embarrassing yourself.


On the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES I am assuming Marcos PRE CONSENT SURGICAL FORM gagged him from speaking anymore, if you think any different then

YOU also are assuming, as YOU YOURSELF do not know either, YOU yourself have NO PROOF to the contrary! Therefore please explain why my assumptions are irresponsible but yours are not?

However you are entitled to an opinion and it would be nice to hear it, NOT YOUR ATTORNEYS, YOURS! .............

Let me remind you of events in chronological order;

Marco books a date for surgery (at your ex employer) He has consulted earlier and all is ok, all explained, all is tickerty boo .....

The morning of the procedure he signs the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM all explained in great detail all is tickerty boo ....

He has a procedure goes home updates on several forums stating all is tickerty boo .......

This continues for a few months then his scalp 'dies it is necrosis' all suddenly is 'not' tickerty boo ....

He consults with his doctor and disappears after providing weekly updates ..... DISAPPEARED!!! aliens no? murdered no? kidnapped no? ...... Gagged ... could be ???

So contrary to what you say Joe it is in fact reasonable to assume ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

that the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT gagged him. LOGIC DICTATES THIS ......

What in your opinion, and feel free to ask your attorney friend for help if you are struggling with this one do YOU think happened?

As it looks to me that the PRE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM gagged him which would support Doctor Woods claims and not yours!

Any argument that a patient is publically precluded from discussing his or her experience in a truthful way as a result of receiving informed consent is simply wrong

If the above is true then why do different doctors have different levels of informed consent, ranging from two pages to thirty?

I believe the above to be vague, Doctors can add whatever they wish to a consent form, I have read and signed ten, six completely different to the others.

We must remember though Joe is attacking Doctor Woods on a technicality.

If the above is true then it suggests other methods are employed to silence the client, what are they?

Are these even discussed at the consultation stage?

Is it the industry standard to sue patients who talk either with the pre surgical consent form or with something else?

I care not for your assault on Doctor Woods over a technicality, as we all know what he meant really, Doctors silence patients Joe fact !

With what, and when, does not matter. They bargain with the client to buy their silence, a disgusting and unethical way of conducting their business, and protecting their online reputation.


So when we take this back to Dr. Woods's point about not requiring informed consent for his patients, I think that he is being disingenuous with the subject. If he really wanted to have something to brag about he would not only make informed consent with a signature standard practice in his clinic, he would also enter into a formal agreement, in writing, stating that if the patient is unhappy with their results for any reason, they are free to say as such online with no fear of legal retribution from him, whatsoever, and that this agreement supersedes any other forms the patient may have signed in the clinic that acknowledge informed consent. The patient signs, Dr. Woods signs, everyone wins.



Wow just wow! Not only does Doctor Woods provide monitors to enable the client to watch the extractions and count them, not only do they not need to sign any legal's and Joe wants more! ..............

He really does not like this guy .............

Joe no one would win.......

It is clear to me Doctor Woods does not need to hide behind legal's and attorneys, unlike many other doctors.

Doctors Woods clients are ALREADY FREE to say as much online without any legal fear of retribution from their doctor.

Please explain how this would benefit Doctor Woods and his clients?

Perhaps it may be a good idea to ask your OWN recommended doctors to adopt this practice ...... Just a thought as it may be beneficial to prospective clients

Were your plan is flawed big time Joe, is that the unhappy client may be offered a 'free procedure' or a 'refund' or 'part refund', and for them to

receive this, the doctor 'may' introduce more legal's during the negotiations, effectively silencing the client to protect his online

reputation, thus making your 'superseded disclaimer' 'null and void' ..............

highly unethical




ejj is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Complete thread:

120100 Postings in 12546 Threads, 6040 registered users
Hair Loss Forum | Admin contact

 
This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics. All contents and discussions have been transferred to
HairSite New Forum

Disclosure: This is an advertising site for our paid sponsors & advertisers. The contents, videos & photos on HairSite are provided by paid sponsors and are not endorsed by HairSite in any way. The recommendations, results, and representations made by our sponsors/advertisers do not reflect the opinions of HairSite. This site is to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations or complaint cases; comments of such nature, including external links, may be removed from the forum. Notify hairsite@aol.com any false, defamatory, misleading or inappropriate user generated contents for immediate removal from the forum. Also read Terms of Use & Privacy Statement |  HairSite advertisers: ASMED | Dr. Bhatti | Dr. Bisanga | Dr. Cole | Dr. Hakan Doganay | Dr.Epstein | Dr. Jones | Dr. Halder | Hasson & Wong | Dr. Klein | Dr. Madhu | Dr. Mwamba | Dr. Donald Ng| Dr. Poswal | Dr. Rahal | Dr. Razack | Dr. Reddy | Dr. Umar | Dr. Woods | DHI Global | HDC Clinic | |Lasercomb | Reviva Clinic | Ziering Medical|