Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

ICX-TRC Success Rates: Over 90% of Us Will Have Regrowth


#1

Hey all,

I’ve been thinking… based on the ICX-TRC results so far, what can we reasonably expect in terms of efficacy across the population? This will be some (extremely) fuzzy math, for sure, but it should be interesting.

Before we begin, let’s start with two assumptions. First, let’s assume that the results of ICX-TRC follow a bell curve (i.e., a Gaussian or normal distribution). This is based on the idea that events occur by chance and that some people will naturally be better responders than others. Second, let’s further assume that the 13-105% is the range plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. This is based on the idea that we can be fairly confident that the subjects receiving ICX-TRC in the Intercytex Phase II trial are more like the average subject than not. This second assumption implies that 59% regrowth is the average expected regrowth, with the standard deviation at 46% regrowth.

Based on these assumptions, we can calculate the expected regrowth from ICX-TRC: 2% of the population will have absolutely no regrowth, 13.5% will have between 0-13% regrowth, 34% will have 13-59% regrowth, another 34% will have 59-105% regrowth, another 13.5% will have 105-151% regrowth, and a lucky 2% will have 151-197% regrowth.

Not so bad, eh?

Best,
BB


#2

» Hey all,
»
» I’ve been thinking… based on the ICX-TRC results so far, what can we
» reasonably expect in terms of efficacy across the population? This will be
» some (extremely) fuzzy math, for sure, but it should be interesting.
»
» Before we begin, let’s start with two assumptions. First, let’s assume
» that the results of ICX-TRC follow a bell curve (i.e., a Gaussian or
» normal distribution). This is based on the idea that events occur by
» chance and that some people will naturally be better responders than
» others. Second, let’s further assume that the 13-105% is the range plus or
» minus one standard deviation from the mean. This is based on the idea that
» we can be fairly confident that the subjects receiving ICX-TRC in the
» Intercytex Phase II trial are more like the average subject than not. This
» second assumption implies that 59% regrowth is the average expected
» regrowth, with the standard deviation at 46% regrowth.
»
» Based on these assumptions, we can calculate the expected regrowth from
» ICX-TRC: 2% of the population will have absolutely no regrowth, 13.5% will
» have between 0-13% regrowth, 34% will have 13-59% regrowth, another 34%
» will have 59-105% regrowth, another 13.5% will have 105-151% regrowth, and
» a lucky 2% will have 151-197% regrowth
.
»
» Not so bad, eh?
»
» Best,
» BB

BB, your assumptions - based on a population of 5 subjects - are INSANE.


#3

Hi,

As usual theres been a huge amount of speculation regarding last weeks results. I think we can all agree that the second group acheived far better results, but these are only based on the 6 and 12 weeks data! Remember ICX said it would be three months before any regrowth was apparent. A HT doesn’t acheive it’s full result at 3 months and I’d wager neither does HM.

Anyway consistency is more important than numbers. If they could get 30% for everyone distriubuted evenly across the scalp, I’d prefer that than 80% regrowth that comes through erratically.


#4

lets say you have a bald area

it is about 4 inches by 4 inches
it has 20 hairs on it…

200percent regrowth, which you say is the best HM has shown, would be 40 new hairs in this area

hardly worth getting excited about

most guys are expecting total regrowth from HM

if you had an area of this size and went to a hair transplant surgeon he would probably implant about 2000 new hairs, at least , in this area

so your ICX wonderful results with 200 percent regrowth would put 40 new hairs in this area

see anything wrong with this picture?


#5

» lets say you have a bald area
»
» it is about 4 inches by 4 inches
» it has 20 hairs on it…
»
» 200percent regrowth, which you say is the best HM has shown, would be 40
» new hairs in this area
»
» hardly worth getting excited about
»
» most guys are expecting total regrowth from HM
»
» if you had an area of this size and went to a hair transplant surgeon he
» would probably implant about 2000 new hairs, at least , in this
» area
»
»
» so your ICX wonderful results with 200 percent regrowth would put
» 40 new hairs in this area
»
» see anything wrong with this picture?

if you look at it like that then you should just be able to divide the 40 hairs (assuming the 200% regrowth from HM) against those 2,000 HT injections and you have the same result EXCEPT you have 50 injections with HM versus however many injections it takes with an HT to get 2,000 hairs.

also this is from a patch of hair like 150 donor hairs versus getting stuck in the back of your head 2,000 times.


#6

» » lets say you have a bald area
» »
» » it is about 4 inches by 4 inches
» » it has 20 hairs on it…
» »
» » 200percent regrowth, which you say is the best HM has shown, would be
» 40
» » new hairs in this area
» »
» » hardly worth getting excited about
» »
» » most guys are expecting total regrowth from HM
» »
» » if you had an area of this size and went to a hair transplant surgeon
» he
» » would probably implant about 2000 new hairs, at least , in this
» » area
» »
» »
» » so your ICX wonderful results with 200 percent regrowth would
» put
» » 40 new hairs in this area
» »
» » see anything wrong with this picture?
»
» if you look at it like that then you should just be able to divide the 40
» hairs (assuming the 200% regrowth from HM) against those 2,000 HT
» injections and you have the same result EXCEPT you have 50 injections with
» HM versus however many injections it takes with an HT to get 2,000 hairs.
»
» also this is from a patch of hair like 150 donor hairs versus getting
» stuck in the back of your head 2,000 times.

so you are saying each injection produces 200 percent regrowth, this is not the impression i have

its the sum total of all the injections

where on the results ICx Produced does it say there is this perentage regrowth PER INJECTION

thre were hundreds of injections per patient


#7

“someday you will learn that HM is bullcrap
even if it works it wont work on everyone, THERE IS NO CURE FOR BALDNESS
EINSTEIN, and there never will be”

In the verbiage above, Hangininthere has revealed his editorial position on the subject of gene-therapy, wnt-wounding techniques, ACELL injections, Aderans, Intercytex, Phoenixbio (Japanese), and Shishedo’s (Japanese) research into the area of male pattern baldness and its treatment and further prevention.

If one really thinks “there never will be” anything effective to grow hair in balding areas other than manual transplantaion…the HM forum should be a pretty moot place to even read or visit.

A word on the people working on HM and other would-be therapies:

Here is the research team of follica (of which Kurt Stenn and George Costarialis are also involved):

http://www.puretechventures.com/content/team.asp?mainPage=team&subPage=all#

You can click on the peoples pictures and read their credidentials like this man:

Dr. John Zabriskie
Co-Founder, Partner

Dr. Zabriskie, a co-founder and Partner of PureTech. He is past chairman of the board, CEO and president of NEN Life Science Products, Inc., a leading supplier of kits for labeling and detection of DNA. At NEN Dr. Zabriskie led the successful turnaround and sale of the company in a transaction that generated 20x return for the investors that backed him. Prior to joining NEN, Dr. Zabriskie was President and CEO of Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company formed by the merger of Pharmacia AB of Sweden and the Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan. As Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Upjohn Company, Dr. Zabriskie led the Upjohn project, which resulted in the $12 billion merger of equals. Prior to joining Upjohn in 1994, Dr. Zabriskie was Executive Vice President of Merck and Co., Inc. Dr. Zabriskie was a member of the US Healthcare Leadership Council, and has served on a number of boards for healthcare and academic institutions including being one of the founding investors and board members of Momenta. He currently serves on the boards of the Kellogg Co., Cellicon Biotechnologies, Protein Forest, Array BioPharma, and ARCA Discovery. Dr. Zabriskie is a native of Aurora, NY and received his AB in chemistry from Dartmouth College in 1961 and his PhD in organic chemistry from the University of Rochester (NY) in 1965.

or this man:

Dr. Shapiro is a Partner of PureTech. He was most recently Executive Vice President, Worldwide Licensing and External Research for Merck. He joined Merck Research Laboratories in September 1990 as Executive Vice President, Basic Research, Merck Research Laboratories. In this position he was responsible for all the basic and preclinical research activities at Merck worldwide. Dr. Shapiro led the research program that resulted in FDA registration of approximately 20 drugs and vaccines -including Vioxx and Arcoxia (Cox 2 inhibitors) and Emend, going back as far as the A2 antagonist Cozaar, hepatitis A vaccine VACQTA, and many others. From 1999-2003 Shapiro oversaw all in-licensing activities for Merck. Previously, he was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Washington. He is the author of over 120 papers on the molecular regulation of cellular behavior and the biochemical events that integrate the cascade of cellular activations at fertilization. He has served on many institutional advisory boards and scientific review panels, and is currently a member of the board of VBL, Protein Forest Inc., Momenta, Elixir, and Ikaria and serves on the Harvard - MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology Advisory Committee

or this man:

Dr. Langer is a co-founder and Partner of PureTech Ventures. Dr. Langer is known for his groundbreaking discoveries in the fields of polymer chemistry, controlled drug delivery, and tissue engineering. He is one of 13 Institute Professors (the highest honor awarded to a faculty member) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Langer has written over 950 articles and also has more than 600 issued or pending patents worldwide, one of which was cited as the outstanding patent in Massachusetts in 1988 and one of 20 outstanding patents in the United States. Dr. Langer has received nearly 150 major awards.

In 2007, he received the 2006 United States National Medal of Science. In 2002, he received the Charles Stark Draper Prize, considered the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for engineers and the world’s most prestigious engineering prize, from the National Academy of Engineering. He is also the only engineer to receive the Gairdner Foundation International Award; 68 recipients of this award have subsequently received a Nobel Prize. Among numerous other awards, Dr. Langer has received are the Dickson Prize for Science (2002), Heinz Award for Technology, Economy and Employment (2003), the Harvey Prize (2003), the John Fritz Award (2003) (given previously to inventors such as Thomas Edison and Orville Wright), the General Motors Kettering Prize for Cancer Research (2004), the Dan David Prize in Materials Science (2005) and the Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research (2005), the largest prize in the U.S. for medical research. In 2006, he was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. In 1998, he received the Lemelson-MIT prize, the world’s largest prize for invention for being “one of history’s most prolific inventors in medicine.” In 1989 Dr. Langer was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and in 1992 he was elected to both the National Academy of Engineering and to the National Academy of Sciences. He is one of very few people ever elected to all three United States National Academies and the youngest in history (at age 43) to ever receive this distinction.

Forbes Magazine (1999) and BioWorld (1990) have named Dr. Langer as one of the 25 most important individuals in biotechnology in the world. Discover Magazine (2002) named him as one of the 20 most important people in this area. Forbes Magazine (2002) selected Dr. Langer as one of the 15 innovators world wide who will reinvent our future. Time Magazine and CNN (2001) named Dr. Langer as one of the 100 most important people in America and one of the 18 top people in science or medicine in America. Dr. Langer has served, at various times, on 15 boards of directors and 30 Scientific Advisory Boards of such companies as Wyeth, Alkermes, Mitsubishi Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert, and Momenta Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Langer has received honorary doctorates from Yale University, the ETH (Switzerland), the Technion (Israel), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel), the Universite Catholique de Louvain (Belgium), the University of Liverpool (England), the University of Nottingham (England), Albany Medical College, the Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University and Uppsala University (Sweden). He received his Bachelor’s Degree from Cornell University in 1970 and his Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974, both in Chemical Engineering.

Im not even going to go into Dr. Paul Kemp, the man who created the world’s first organ from cells, or Ken Washenik, or Kurt Stenn, or George Costarailis, or Angela Christiano, etc.

Who are YOU going to believe?
These EMINENT scientists and researchers, or some guy on the internet who takes saw palmetto and a hair vitamin?


#8

Does the ability of HM to regrow hair directly depend on the number of existing growing hairs in a bald area? If not, then it makes no sense to talk about growth due to HM as a percentage of existing hair when referring to HM. We might as well be talking about hair growth as a percentage of a person’s number of shirts in his closet. Isn’t HM supposed to create new follicles or revive dormant ones? So what do existing growing hairs have anything to do with this?


#9

who said anyone took my word for anything,if you guys do you have rocks in your head

Im just saying there is a significant portion of this board HOLDING OUT for HM

to me thats nuts

live your life…enjoy your life…shave your head

it may come someday, but it will be a long time coming, why obsess your life over WAITING FOR HM

guys on all the hairsite boards are overly concerned about their appearance

go out do some good for the world, help a poor person, plant a tree
stop with the me me me mentality

nobody cares about our hair, strangers etc
it is a mental disorder to worrry about your own hair too much


#10

» Does the ability of HM to regrow hair directly depend on the number of
» existing growing hairs in a bald area? If not, then it makes no sense to
» talk about growth due to HM as a percentage of existing hair when
» referring to HM. We might as well be talking about hair growth as a
» percentage of a person’s number of shirts in his closet. Isn’t HM
» supposed to create new follicles or revive dormant ones? So what do
» existing growing hairs have anything to do with this?

when they give PERCENTAGE REGROWTH
how else would they determine this without first counting the previous existing hairs?

this is why percentages, are bull , you have to give HAIR COUNTS, which ICX refuses to do


#11

If it is creating brand new follicles only, then it doesn’t matter. But if it is rejuvenating some hair, then I would think that you would have a better chance of regrowing some if you already had hair in that area. If I have lost 50% of my hair within the last 5 years, and another person has lost 100% of his hair over 20 years ago, I would think that the person that has 50% hair has a better chance at regrowth if it is partly rejuvenation. I don’t really have anything to back that up, other than that’s how most baldness treatments tend to work.


#12

» If it is creating brand new follicles only, then it doesn’t matter. But if
» it is rejuvenating some hair, then I would think that you would have a
» better chance of regrowing some if you already had hair in that area. If
» I have lost 50% of my hair within the last 5 years, and another person has
» lost 100% of his hair over 20 years ago, I would think that the person that
» has 50% hair has a better chance at regrowth if it is partly rejuvenation.
» I don’t really have anything to back that up, other than that’s how most
» baldness treatments tend to work.

agreed 100 percent, my hair in my thinning areas responds a million times better to my topical and internals

n the baldish area, is lucky to get peach fuzz


#13

Hair transplantation has been in practice for 50 years and counting. It is still expensive, still invasive and still does not cater to everyone’s needs. It is a treatment option, but hardly a solution. Even when combined with propecia and minoxidil results are “undetectable” to the average person, at best!

Hair multiplication has been in study for roughly 10 years. If we were still alive when HM had been on the market for 50 years, people would laugh if you even mentioned a hair transplant. This research is proven to work. And many studies have been published, it is also common to hear these topics discussed in Universities across the United States. Much like the DHT resistant transplanted hairs you rave about, when these same follicles are cloned, they take after their parenting cells.

Efficacy is being worked out as we speak. Yes it’s not available to the public at the moment and could take some time, however that is the only valid arguement you have. Which is really not an arguement considering the fact that i realize (and everyone else here should) that it will take time and more funding for Intercytex to sort out an acceptable and marketable protocal.


#14

» Hair transplantation has been in practice for 50 years and counting. It is
» still expensive, still invasive and still does not cater to everyone’s
» needs. It is a treatment option, but hardly a solution. Even when combined
» with propecia and minoxidil results are “undetectable” to the average
» person, at best!
»
» Hair multiplication has been in study for roughly 10 years.
» If we were still alive when HM had been on the market for 50
» years, people would laugh if you even mentioned a hair transplant. This
» research is proven to work. And many studies have been published, it is
» also common to hear these topics discussed in Universities across the
» United States. Much like the DHT resistant transplanted hairs you rave
» about, when these same follicles are cloned, they take after their
» parenting cells.
»
» Efficacy is being worked out as we speak. Yes it’s not available to the
» public at the moment and could take some time, however that is the only
» valid arguement you have. Which is really not an arguement considering the
» fact that i realize (and everyone else here should) that it will take time
» and more funding for Intercytex to sort out an acceptable and marketable
» protocal.

the DHT resistant…follicles…depends on where you harvest them

most of the NW7 guys, lose about 60 to 70 percent of the hair in this occipital region…in the later stages…and this is the exact hair that is thought or you would think would be classified as…DHT resistant

so to say that this hair is the hair that is harvested by HM and that it wont fall out is a fallacy

the HM docs face the exact same barriers in the future as the HT docs do when they implant this …supposedly DHT resistant …hair

there is no way to determine if this hair will fall out or not, depends on the future thinning pattern of that patient

oh and for all you smart asses who say i just pop some vitamins? I take internal DHT blockers as well as the best hair vitamins on the market and nizoral topical cream

ever tried it? let me guess. NOPE

That is why most of you are balding quickly

self appointed experts on hair loss who have no regimen no success story, and are forced to wait for HM because your hair looks so bad

gee i will seek your advice in the future


#15

» so to say that this hair is the hair that is harvested by HM and that it
» wont fall out is a fallacy
»
» the HM docs face the exact same barriers in the future as the HT docs do
» when they implant this …supposedly DHT resistant …hair

Not quite so:

  1. Many people do have hair that’s quite DHT resistant. Some don’t, but many do, so for them this won’t be a problem.
  2. Those that don’t have hair that’s 100% DHT resistant will get HM and then use your “vitamin” DHT blockers to perserve the new hair. HT moves hair that’s already been exposed to DHT, while HM creates new hair that hasn’t, so it can be preserved.

#16

» If it is creating brand new follicles only, then it doesn’t matter. But if
» it is rejuvenating some hair, then I would think that you would have a
» better chance of regrowing some if you already had hair in that area. If
» I have lost 50% of my hair within the last 5 years, and another person has
» lost 100% of his hair over 20 years ago, I would think that the person that
» has 50% hair has a better chance at regrowth if it is partly rejuvenation.

» I don’t really have anything to back that up,
» other than that’s how most
» baldness treatments tend to work.

But none of those baldness treatments use the same mechanism as HM. HM can create new follicles or rejuvinate ones in which visible hair does not grow. Current treatments can almost exclusively only strengthen existing growing hairs, and that’s why you get 1 chance in hell to gregrow hair on a completely bald scalp with existing treatments.


#17

HT moves
» hair that’s already been exposed to DHT, while HM creates new hair that
» hasn’t, so it can be preserved.

FF- are you sure about this one? If this is true this would be the good news I have been looking for.:slight_smile:


#18

Again, if it is generating a new follicle, I agree. But if it is rejuvenation, even in part, then hair counts do matter. Current baldness treatments rejuvenate existing follicles. They don’t create new follicles. As has been stated by Intercytex (I think) HM is probably a combination of both. If HM can grow the same number of hairs in a completely bald area as one that already has a fair amount of hair, then that is amazing information. If it is harder to grow hair in a completely bald area, then that is not good news. But we don’t know which it is. Which is why hair counts are important.


#19

Not all of us are sitting around doing nothing for our hair. I have pretty damn good hair, with recessed temporal points-------

I use finasteride, nizoral, prox-n, and a topical I make myself from peppermint oil/purified water (anti-androgen). Im also considering adding t-gel a couple of times a week. Ive kept what Ive had since about 01’ and indeed have darkened my hair and even thickened it up a tad (and it is thick).

Diet and hair------------my uncles have full heads of hair in their fifties, are both overweight and eat fast food diets and dont excercise.

Hair is genetics, period. Very few men lose ALL of their hair in the back and at least have a wreath----this is where HM cells will be taken from, your “best” hair–if you stay on finas this hair certainly should not go.

Hell, the HM test subjects only got one round of injectsand over time could go back and get more in addition to useful things like finas, peptides, nizoral, emu oils, etc. Future is bright for hair. :wink:


#20

HM is only shaping up to be the biggest MPB progress in the history of mankind to date. Nothing more than that.