» » 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