Bad Icx-trc news

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

» If Vavelta is as ineffective as Isolagen, it’s a complete waste of time
» and money. And that’s from experience.
» I can’t say that I got ANY benefits from Isolagen. The most I can hope for
» is that it will maintain my skin condition for a few years but there is
» nothing actually tangible to support any positive claims.

Yes, I know your case. I also know that Isolagen was a total failure.
At first, I though Vavelta could be better because they were using baby-foreskins as donor. An allogenic treatment. But now I see that this is no miracle, and probably a failure too. Too bad.

What it is pityful is that they are trying to fool people with tricky lighting in the before-after photos. I think these photos have been taken by ICX themselves, because there is a photo of the back of a woman with some weird skin condition (I think they are called “contractures” ), and this case was posted before in ICX documents. So, if true, and ICX is taking these misleasing photos, that would be even more pityful, and I think could not trust any future promise they make anymore.

22


What do you think?
Even the hair looks duller in the “after” photo.
I would say this is a total manipulation.

23

» Baccy, did you get Isolagen for acne scars? did it deliver any noticable
» results?

Not for acne scars. Just for general rejuvenation. I’ve got pretty good skin anyway but there’s an odd line here and there. The Isolagen did diddly squat.
The annoying thing is that the doctor tries to tell you that there IS a difference. Always comes down to money. It’s basically bollocks.

24

» Femail | Fashion News, Beauty Tips and Trends | Daily Mail Online
»
»
»
»
» What do you think?
» Even the hair looks duller in the “after” photo.
» I would say this is a total manipulation.

A good makeup could do the trick, plus the lighting conditions are not the same berfore and after.

In the “before” photo the light appears to be directed in such a way that it hits the face of the girl in a frontal way: the ray is perpendicular to the line of the head (a vertical line). That will obviously cast shadows on the irregularities of the skin surface. Plus, the background is not white, which puts more contrast to the irregularities of the skin.

Second photo: the light appears to be directed from top to bottom, hitting the face in such a way that irregularities of the skin are poorly if not visible. The background is white and the same tone of the skin, which ads confusion.

It does indeed seems like a total manipulation.

25

Lighting:
in the first photo, the light source is very aggressive, harsh, probably an halogen spot focus. This enhances irregularities. You can see that the shadows are more agressive. I agree with Fatal, that the light source is in front of the subject, impacting perpendicularly. The perpendicular angle would normally soften details, but in this case, the harsh light is enough to enhance details. Also, the oily skin reflects this harsh light like a mirror and all the details get revealed.

In the second photo, the light source is located upwards, as Fatal says. Maybe in the ceiling. also the light is pretty diffuse, probably a fluorescent lamp or another source passed through a difussor. This soft light produces soft shadows, and details get muffled.

In the first photo the skin looks oily and reflects light like a mirror. In the second photo there is no mirror-effect. Maybe because the skin is not oily, or maybe because the light is diffuse.

In any case, this is a total manipulation.
And remember that this is a photo that ICX handed to the media (dailymail.co.uk), so it represents a “good case scenario”.

Fatal, do you remember the Vavelta .pdf document where a “artistic impression” photo of an old woman was posted?? Now that we see the real results, we see that there is no correlation between that “artistic impression” photo and the real results. So, once again, we reach the conclusion that ICX has manipulated us big time. I wouldn’t trust any promise from this company anymore, and I would never buy stocks from them even if I had money to burn.

» »
» Femail | Fashion News, Beauty Tips and Trends | Daily Mail Online
» »
» »
»
» »
»
» »
» » What do you think?
» » Even the hair looks duller in the “after” photo.
» » I would say this is a total manipulation.
»
» A good makeup could do the trick, plus the lighting conditions are not the
» same berfore and after.
»
» In the “before” photo the light appears to be directed in such a way that
» it hits the face of the girl in a frontal way: the ray is perpendicular to
» the line of the head (a vertical line). That will obviously cast shadows on
» the irregularities of the skin surface. Plus, the background is not white,
» which puts more contrast to the irregularities of the skin.
»
» Second photo: the light appears to be directed from top to bottom, hitting
» the face in such a way that irregularities of the skin are poorly if not
» visible. The background is white and the same tone of the skin, which ads
» confusion.
»
» It does indeed seems like a total manipulation.