| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
a lot of people are over-analyzing the percentages and just failing to look at the basic math & marketing tactic: “if you don’t have good numbers turn them into percentages to make 'em look good”
Initial Count: 20
New Count: 41
Increate: 105%
Total New Hair: 21
It seems the main reason Intercytex put up the percentages instead of hair increase count like phase I (60 hairs per 100 injections) means that the figure wasn’t good enough.
I don’t see why getting 21 new hairs for 60 injections is such a bad deal.
We’re currently paying about a dollar per hair with traditional HTs, and that’s for a very invasive/scarring procedure with limited potential.
» I don’t see why getting 21 new hairs for 60 injections is such a bad deal.
»
»
» We’re currently paying about a dollar per hair with traditional HTs, and
» that’s for a very invasive/scarring procedure with limited potential.
I just made up arbitrary figure, the point I was trying to make was that if the growth was really good they would have given the actual hair count and not percentages because the percentages can be misleading.
» » I don’t see why getting 21 new hairs for 60 injections is such a bad
» deal.
» »
» »
» » We’re currently paying about a dollar per hair with traditional HTs,
» and
» » that’s for a very invasive/scarring procedure with limited potential.
»
»
» I just made up arbitrary figure, the point I was trying to make was that
» if the growth was really good they would have given the actual hair count
» and not percentages because the percentages can be misleading.
goata, your example is good. I agree that not giving the initial density AND giving the percentage respect initial hair could be a way to hide poor results.
I think that at IHRS convention, dr. Kemp will not be able to escape from the question.
» a lot of people are over-analyzing the percentages and just failing to look
» at the basic math & marketing tactic: “if you don’t have good numbers turn
» them into percentages to make 'em look good”
»
» Initial Count: 20
» New Count: 41
» Increate: 105%
»
» Total New Hair: 21
i do not see why this is bad. they stated several times that icx would initially be used in younger men who are at an earlier stage of baldness. so if i am balding and i still have let’s say 150 hairs in 1 inch area, i will have more than 300/inch… i think that’s great, for me that would be the solution. so the technology for now will benefit people who still has some hair to rejuvenate, along with the neogenesis process that, as sayd by icx, would be more difficult to obtain.
» » a lot of people are over-analyzing the percentages and just failing to
» look
» » at the basic math & marketing tactic: “if you don’t have good numbers
» turn
» » them into percentages to make 'em look good”
» »
» » Initial Count: 20/cm^2
» » New Count: 41/cm^2
» » Increate: 105%
» »
» » Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
»
»
» i do not see why this is bad. they stated several times that icx would
» initially be used in younger men who are at an earlier stage of baldness.
» so if i am balding and i still have let’s say 150 hairs in 1 inch area, i
» will have more than 300/inch… i think that’s great, for me that would be
» the solution. so the technology for now will benefit people who still has
» some hair to rejuvenate, along with the neogenesis process that, as sayd
» by icx, would be more difficult to obtain.
indubitably, it could be a way to hide poor results.
In fact, if injections were 100/cm^2:
the percentage per hairs is 105, the percentage per injections is 21!! poor!
» » » I don’t see why getting 21 new hairs for 60 injections is such a bad
» » deal.
» » »
» » »
» » » We’re currently paying about a dollar per hair with traditional HTs,
» » and
» » » that’s for a very invasive/scarring procedure with limited potential.
» »
» »
» » I just made up arbitrary figure, the point I was trying to make was
» that
» » if the growth was really good they would have given the actual hair
» count
» » and not percentages because the percentages can be misleading.
»
»
» goata, your example is good. I agree that not giving the initial density
» AND giving the percentage respect initial hair could be a way to hide poor
» results. “OH GOD NICK WHAT PROPAGANDA CAN GET US OUT OF THIS”
»
» I think that at IHRS convention, dr. Kemp will not be able to escape from
» the question.
» » » a lot of people are over-analyzing the percentages and just failing to
» » look
» » » at the basic math & marketing tactic: “if you don’t have good numbers
» » turn
» » » them into percentages to make 'em look good”
» » »
» » » Initial Count: 20/cm^2
» » » New Count: 41/cm^2
» » » Increate: 105%
» » »
» » » Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
» »
» »
» » i do not see why this is bad. they stated several times that icx would
» » initially be used in younger men who are at an earlier stage of
» baldness.
» » so if i am balding and i still have let’s say 150 hairs in 1 inch area,
» i
» » will have more than 300/inch… i think that’s great, for me that would
» be
» » the solution. so the technology for now will benefit people who still
» has
» » some hair to rejuvenate, along with the neogenesis process that, as
» sayd
» » by icx, would be more difficult to obtain.
»
» indubitably, it could be a way to hide poor results.
» In fact, if injections were 100/cm^2:
»
» the percentage per hairs is 105, the percentage per injections is 21!!
» poor!Everyone visiting Hairsite must email INTERCYTEX to get them to tell the massive amount of potential clients about this NOW…
» » » a lot of people are over-analyzing the percentages and just failing to
» » look
» » » at the basic math & marketing tactic: “if you don’t have good numbers
» » turn
» » » them into percentages to make 'em look good”
» » »
» » » Initial Count: 20/cm^2
» » » New Count: 41/cm^2
» » » Increate: 105%
» » »
» » » Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
» »
» »
» » i do not see why this is bad. they stated several times that icx would
» » initially be used in younger men who are at an earlier stage of
» baldness.
» » so if i am balding and i still have let’s say 150 hairs in 1 inch area,
» i
» » will have more than 300/inch… i think that’s great, for me that would
» be
» » the solution. so the technology for now will benefit people who still
» has
» » some hair to rejuvenate, along with the neogenesis process that, as
» sayd
» » by icx, would be more difficult to obtain.
»
» indubitably, it could be a way to hide poor results.
» In fact, if injections were 100/cm^2:
»
» the percentage per hairs is 105, the percentage per injections is 21!!
» poor!
ok true. but…
you just said
Initial Count: 20/cm^2
New Count: 41/cm^2
Increate: 105%
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
now you’re talking about % of injections. anyway i do not say you are wrong. but:
as they state in their faq sheet, the treatments are repeatable. so these are some of the possible interpretations and what they would mean.
first interpretation: where % is the percentage of hair produced per injections. assuming what pat said: 21% chance for an injection to produce hair.
Initial Hair: 20
100 injections = 21hairs/cm2
400 injections made in 4 repeated treatments = 84hairs/cm2 - that’s good
result: supposing 3 months between treatments in 1 year you got 84 dht-immune hairs/cm2 + previous 20 = 104h/cm2
second interpretation: where % is the percentage of actual hair regrowth, assuming the initial count was 20 hairs/cm2, and assuming it will always produce the same amount of hair.
Initial Count: 20/cm^2
New Count: 41/cm^2
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
second treatment:
Initial Count: 41/cm^2
New Count: 62/cm^2
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
third treatment:
Initial Count: 62/cm^2
New Count: 83/cm^2
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
fourth treatment:
Initial Count: 83/cm^2
New Count: 104/cm^2
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
Results: after 1 year you have 104h/cm2, supposing 1 treament every 3 months.
third interpretation: where % is the percentage of actual hair regrowth, assuming the initial count was 20 hairs/cm2, and assuming it will always produce always produce 105% of the initial hairs.
Initial Count: 20/cm^2
New Count: 41/cm^2
Increate: 105%
Total New Hair: 21/cm^2
second treatment
Initial Count: 41/cm^2
New Count: 82/cm^2
Increate: 105%
Total New Hair: 41/cm^2
third treatment:
Initial Count: 82/cm^2
New Count: 164/cm^2
Increate: 105%
Total New Hair: 82/cm^2
after 9 months you could have 162h/cm2. this seems to be too optimistic.
logically, we assumed initial count to be 20h/cm2, if it was 1 or 2… we would be pretty f.ed.
indubitably,
icx says that the treatments are repeatable. But is the efficacy the same for the repeated treatments?
Look at the possibility that:
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
This is an advertising site for paid advertisers 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, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.