IMO you guys are reading way too much into that comment.
It doesn’t say a thing about being for diffuse thinners exclusively, and how can you say they are focussing on diffuse thinners because of one comment that mentions diffuse thinners? IMO they are trying to make a point that it will be good for diffuse thinners because in most cases they will not be good candidates for a transplant, i.e best current treatment.
In the puctures, you can see that ONE of the trialists is a diffuse thinner, because that is the only one that has the whole head showing.
People who are receding or followind a normal NW pattern will have a loss of density in the areas where hair loss is taking place.
“the results of our early testing indicate the potential for a phenomenal treatment option, particularly for women and men presenting with diffuse hair loss who are not good candidates for hair transplant surgery,”
Particularly = to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common.
Also another word for particularly is especially,
So he could have said,
"“the results of our early testing indicate the potential for a phenomenal treatment option, especially for women and men presenting with diffuse hair loss who are not good candidates for hair transplant surgery,”
Meaning it will give results to every one with AGA (obviously, I doubt it could work for one and not the other, because it is the same problem but with a different pattern) but those men and women with a diffuse loss will have better results than those with a slick patch.
I agree it is probably much easier to grow hair that is miniaturised than hair that was lost long ago though, but I can’t see how it can grow more for specific patterns of loss, they are both AGA after all.
Remeber that quote was made after seeing 12 week results after a single injection. At this poing we don’t know if repeat injections will give more results.
At this stage after one injection, the results probably look better on someone who has diffuse loss, grow a few hairs that are surrounded by hair already, or show a couple of hairs growing in a slick bald area.
Pase I is only safety (toxicity), baybe they will focus more on slick baldies in phase II when looking for better efficiacy.
I only have thinning along my hair line at the moment, so either way it will probably work ok for me.
Also ICX didn’t say there tratment would work best on people just starting to thin, there exact words were 'young people in the early stages of hair loss".
The thing I still don’t get is the people who say that in the pictures there is no new hair only thicker and longer hair.
They used software to count individual hairs in a pair of pics and there is clearly (albeit not much) more hair in the after pic.