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!
» » ICX wants its competitors to believe that it is less advanced than
» » it really is…
»
» why?
You want your competitors to underestimate you. If Aderans for example sees that ICX is making fast progress, it will re-double its own efforts and start to work twice as fast. It is much better for ICX to stay under the radar and pretend to work slowly, give Aderans a false sense of security, and then shock them by bringing out a full and complete product before Aderans knows what hit them.
» 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!
exactly what I said, the percentages mean nothing without actual hair counts
but oh my god, dont you dare say ICX is pulling a fast one on us Hangin, you just want to discredit ICX, THATS the response i get
its refreshing to see someone with a healthy dose of skepticimm on this board
» » » ICX wants its competitors to believe that it is less advanced than
» » » it really is…
» »
» » why?
»
» You want your competitors to underestimate you. If Aderans for example
» sees that ICX is making fast progress, it will re-double its own efforts
» and start to work twice as fast. It is much better for ICX to stay under
» the radar and pretend to work slowly, give Aderans a false sense of
» security, and then shock them by bringing out a full and complete product
» before Aderans knows what hit them.
nice way for you guys to justify to yourselves the lame results being posted by ICX
if they said it will be out in 2020, and they meant it, you guys would say,oh they are just saying that to fool Aderans, and they will shock them and the world when they come out with full regrowth in one year
You are stating the same lame, intolerant posts over and over again. Even if somebody on the board cares about what you have to say, he knows by now. Now please stop adding your input to every post, it is really getting annoying.
I accept your point, I am just tired of hearing it. If you don´t want to hear about ICX, then don´t come hear. People like you manage to shut down serious discussion on a forum like this. Either add to the debate in an appropriate way, or leave.
bah HanginInThere… you’re right ok?
Nobody has the proof of icx working like expected, you don’t have the proof it does not. so don’t be so sure of your brilliant intuitions, after all who are you? you have the same info as any other poster. if you’re right or not, only time will tell.
but you… you’ll never get an icx, after all your posts you’ll be ahsamed, and will probably renounce getting it, so that you can go on telling people that the new hairs they got will someday lead to cancer, or to some weird genetic monstruosity… or something like that.
» bah HanginInThere… you’re right ok?
» Nobody has the proof of icx working like expected, you don’t have the
» proof it does not. so don’t be so sure of your brilliant intuitions, after
» all who are you? you have the same info as any other poster. if you’re
» right or not, only time will tell.
» but you… you’ll never get an icx, after all your posts you’ll be
» ahsamed, and will probably renounce getting it, so that you can go on
» telling people that the new hairs they got will someday lead to cancer, or
» to some weird genetic monstruosity… or something like that.
if the technology worked and the hair direction was accurate and it would regrow my thin areas, and it was not exhorbitantly expensive, sure I would get it in a heartbeat
what makes you think I would not?
doubting a companies results, when they provide sketchy data is human nature
foregoing a proven technology to regrow hair is another issue altogether, we all want our hair back
hell with all the negatives of hair transplants i was even tempted to get one of those, i thought hey look at all these great results nowadays
the longer you stay on the transplant board though, the more you think twice
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.