ICX-TRC in 2008 as destiny implied

» That 2-4K goal is not really aiming very high when you consider what
» percentage of the total lost hairs that is.

Exactly! Human head has about 100,000 hair follicles, lets assume NW6 has half of those - so 50,000 miniturized follciles. Now if ICX-TRC is only effective on 10% of the follicles thats 5,000 follicles. For NW6+ that is a lot of difference! At least people like us would have something to hold onto until the next generation of TRC.

» » That 2-4K goal is not really aiming very high when you consider what
» » percentage of the total lost hairs that is.
»
» Exactly! Human head has about 100,000 hair follicles, lets assume NW6 has
» half of those - so 50,000 miniturized follciles. Now if ICX-TRC is only
» effective on 10% of the follicles thats 5,000 follicles. For NW6+ that is
» a lot of difference! At least people like us would have something to hold
» onto until the next generation of TRC.

nw6 would be lucky to have 25 percent of those
do not forget that the side and back hair, remaining, is not thick and healthy as it once was…it is about half as dense as it once was

Now you’re just trying to shoot down HM on principle again, Hangin.

You know as well as I do that ICX’s work isn’t gonna act on just a NW#6’s remaining 20,000 hairs alone, but rather the 100,000 follicles that were once on the whole head. Not counting any new follicles that the procedure also creates.

You could theoretically respond by saying, “We don’t have proof that it will actually bring back the follicles that are already dead!”

But the assumption that ICX can revive a decent percentage of the formerly “dead” follicles (not to mention creating new ones) underlies the entire work they’re doing.

If we’re not assuming that basic principle works, then there is little point even assuming we’re gonna get a single follicle back. That’s a whole different discussion from this one.

DO U THINK THAT INTERCYTEX SEEM MORE INTERESTED IN WOUNDCARE PROGRAM

OF course because they have success in this field and not in the growing hair field :smiley:

» DO U THINK THAT INTERCYTEX SEEM MORE INTERESTED IN WOUNDCARE PROGRAM

» Now you’re just trying to shoot down HM on principle again, Hangin.
»
» You know as well as I do that ICX’s work isn’t gonna act on just a NW#6’s
» remaining 20,000 hairs alone, but rather the 100,000 follicles that were
» once on the whole head. Not counting any new follicles that the procedure
» also creates.
»
»
»
» You could theoretically respond by saying, “We don’t have proof that it
» will actually bring back the follicles that are already dead!”
»
» But the assumption that ICX can revive a decent percentage of the formerly
» “dead” follicles (not to mention creating new ones) underlies the entire
» work they’re doing.
»
» If we’re not assuming that basic principle works, then there is little
» point even assuming we’re gonna get a single follicle back. That’s a
» whole different discussion from this one.

i dont base my life on assumptions

go ahead and plan your future on the assumption that their method works, me I live in the real world

I will believe it when I see it

i dont base my life on assumptions

go ahead and plan your future on the assumption that their method works, me I live in the real world
I will believe it when I see it
surely it can’t be planet earth… it must be some sort-of magical fantasy world where everybody’s an online jackass.

Here on planet earth we go by: research, educated guesses, testing, trail&error, and even a little blind luck. Regardless, I wish you the best of luck on your planet. Say hello to Xenu’s relatives for me.

.


Living in “the real world” does not mean disbelieving anything until it’s absolutely proven. It means believing in the most likely scenario given the available information. Be it one way or the other.

The “most likely scenario” is no longer that HM is decades away. At this point it is a bigger stretch to believe that ICX has been lying to their stockholders for the last decade than it is to believe that they’re just gonna be selling a primitive form of HM on the market within the next 2-7 years.

Do we have concrete evidence that the ICX treatment will work yet? No.

We don’t have concrete evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning either. And yet most of us would lay good money on the idea that it will.

» Living in “the real world” does not mean disbelieving anything until it’s
» absolutely proven. It means believing in the most likely scenario given
» the available information. Be it one way or the other.
»
» The “most likely scenario” is no longer that HM is decades away. At this
» point it is a bigger stretch to believe that ICX has been lying to their
» stockholders for the last decade than it is to believe that they’re just
» gonna be selling a primitive form of HM on the market within the next 2-7
» years.
»
»
» Do we have concrete evidence that the ICX treatment will work yet? No.
»
» We don’t have concrete evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning
» either. And yet most of us would lay good money on the idea that it will.

the best predictor of future events is past history, the sun has risen every day for millions of years, not hard to prove

there is no history of ICX HM working

so comparing ICX and the sun rising tomorrow , is a fools game

I have never said that ICX is lying, or that HM will never ever work,

I state that HM is unproven, and it may NEVER come to fruition

You guys cannot provide FACTs that show ICX has ANY verifiable data, that shows that they are on to something

yet somehow this reality eludes you

as i said before…get real

when someone comes up with facts or data that proves ICX’s methods are producting real hair, thats a different story, and who could argue with success

surely none of us on the board would be disappointed if HM really worked, myself included. I am just not going to jump on the bandwagon , with a lot of assumptions, and HOPE and speculation

» I have never said that ICX is lying, or that HM will never ever work,
»
» I state that HM is unproven, and it may NEVER come to fruition
»

First you say that ICX is not lying then you say its unproven…if you really believe they are not lying then why don’t you believe in the trial data they have released so far???

Also, as mentioned earlier even if it doesn’t return full head of hair back. Still there are a lot of NW5+ out there that would love to get At Least Some hair back - includig me. Thats why we check on HM so often. Maybe you are lucky enough to still have good amount of hair on your head so first generation of HM won’t be of any use to you. But please at least don’t ruin our hope.

» » I have never said that ICX is lying, or that HM will never ever work,
» »
» » I state that HM is unproven, and it may NEVER come to fruition
» »
»
» First you say that ICX is not lying then you say its unproven…if you
» really believe they are not lying then why don’t you believe in the trial
» data they have released so far???
»
» Also, as mentioned earlier even if it doesn’t return full head of hair
» back. Still there are a lot of NW5+ out there that would love to get At
» Least Some
hair back - includig me. Thats why we check on HM so often.
» Maybe you are lucky enough to still have good amount of hair on your head
» so first generation of HM won’t be of any use to you. But please at least
» don’t ruin our hope.

I have not said that they are lying, but I have said there is a strong possibility that they do not have viable data, and they are intentionally releasing fuzzy results

ie not releasing hair COUNTS, but releasing …percentages

what is 30 percent regrowth?, 30 percent of what?

how many hairs regrew, and were these hairs just velous hairs or did they turn terminal

these are critical questions that are not answered in their “data”

lets say they had a guy with a bald spot, he had 100 hairs there and when they were finished he had 1000 hairs there. That would be significant, In that instance releasing the actual hair counts would be very impressive

There would be absolutely no reason to not release the actual hair counts

lets say you have some guy who has 20 hairs, to start with in a bald area

at the end of the testing this guy has 26 hairs. This could almost as easily be attributed to random hair growth cycles as ICX results. In this instance it would make ICX appear foolish to release hair counts, they would be laughed at

but they could interpret this guys results as…30 percent regrowth, THAT SOUNDS IMPRESSIVE

This is why releasing results without actual hair counts is meaningless, and this is exactly what ICX is doing

There’s more to the HM effort as a whole than a couple of fuzzy regrowth percentages.

Too much money involved. Too much research on a basically viable method of hair regeneration. Too much clinical trial work already done (and started many years ago). Too many respected figures in the hair restoration, cosmetic, and biotech industries are consistently coming away sold on this stuff.

It’s true that HM efforts have been a lot of disappointments in the past. But that’s not an entirely useful indicator for the current operation. It’s useful only to the extent that the current effort is like the previous efforts. The ICX effort is “similar” only in the sense that they still want regrown hairs like the previous efforts. After that, the current effort isn’t very similar. We’re talking a different scientific method entirely (cell therapy rather than true cloning), a larger & more powerful operation, several years of clinical trials (read: money invested), etc.

ICX still might not ultimately pull this off without some setbacks, but the basic faith doesn’t seem misplaced at all. Equating this DP cell therapy operation with half a dozen small-time follicle cloning efforts from 15 and 25 years ago is not valid.

I am sure there is a ton of money and brain power involved

it is just not that inconceivable that they would be at a point where they do not yet have a viable product and they are just hoping to soon find the missing link
nothing wrong with that…It just that this does not mean they will find it anytime soon

they will probably come up with a cure for baldness, in the next 50 years, through some method , be it genetic manipulation, some type of inoculation, or
who knows.

But if you take a look at the last 40 years of progress, it seems that based on history, this problem will be extremely difficult to find a solution or cure for .

Lets hope HM comes soon and is viable and cosmetically acceptable and affordable

however, the fact that even ICX is trying to cover their ass by saying it would need to be combined with a hair transplant, does not give me any strong hope that their current results are too promising

HanginInThere, 08.02.2008, 17:00
i dont base my life on assumptions
go ahead and plan your future on the assumption that their method works, me I live in the real world
no assumptions.

HanginInThere, 09.02.2008, 00:08
they will probably come up with a cure for baldness, in the next 50 years, through some method , be it genetic manipulation, some type of inoculation, or who knows.
assumptions

HanginInThere, 09.02.2008, 00:08
they are just hoping to soon find the missing link
You’re the missing link. Donate yourself to science.

.

» HanginInThere, 08.02.2008, 17:00
» i dont base my life on assumptions
» go ahead and plan your future on the assumption that their method works,
» me I live in the real world
» no assumptions.
»
»
» HanginInThere, 09.02.2008, 00:08
» they will probably come up with a cure for baldness, in the next 50 years,
» through some method , be it genetic manipulation, some type of inoculation,
» or who knows.
» assumptions
»
»
» HanginInThere, 09.02.2008, 00:08
» they are just hoping to soon find the missing link
» You’re the missing link. Donate yourself to science.
»
»
»
» .

living proof that some mothers should have used birth control

Kemp must look at his icx-trc homework only on a sunday last thing before monday morning on his way to the office;-)

living proof that some mothers should have used birth control
In her defense, I’m sure your mom didn’t expect to raise a reject.

.

» living proof that some mothers should have used
» birth control
» In her defense, I’m sure your mom didn’t expect to raise a reject.
»
»
» .

she raised a genius…as opposed to your mom, who crys herself to sleep every night

she raised a genius…as opposed to your mom, who crys herself to sleep every night
… only when I call her and, read your gibberish.

.