Guys, I’ve just had time to read the results and the comments from people here. I see that a lot of members are focusing a lot on the percentage results but I want to caution against doing so.
The percentages (13% to 105%) mean nothing to us without further information. For instance, what if the patient who saw 13% increase only lost 13% of his hair in the target area? That would mean the 13% result is a stunning success. What if the patient who saw 105% increase only had five hairs in the target area? That would mean the 105% result is an abysmal failure. In short, these numbers mean nothing. What should be compared are statistics such as hairs/sqcm in target area before and after ICX-TRC, compared to hairs/sqcm in non-balding areas (or whatever measure which is more applicable).
Having read many such financial reports as part of my job, I can say that ICX is being deliberately opaque. Why? Because it is the best strategy for them - ICX wants its competitors to believe that it is less advanced than it really is, but at the same time it needs to reassure its investors that progress is being made. How does ICX do this? By throwing out a bunch of numbers that may fool the average Joe, but mean nothing to its competitors. The 105% number does exactly this - the average investor thinks this is a great number, but as mentioned above, it is meaningless to a scientist.
What would be very enlightening for us to track is the change in substantial shareholding of the company. If you see a lot of large funds or investors selling out, then you know ICX is in trouble (despite equal disclosure laws, the large funds always have more information than the smaller investors). I would do this on behalf of the group but I just can’t find the time anymore - I am in the middle of applying for a PhD - wish me luck!