Intercytex Group plc Results for year ended 31 December 2008

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

» years ago hair transplants weren’t as good as today,that’s the same for
» HM.these are just the first experiments with these type of procedures,it’s
» all relatively new so experience would bring in better ways of using HM
» and thus better results,the simple fact that they are able to see some new
» growth and hair improvement with this procedure is already a good sign

You are right, I don’t think we’ll see something useful in 15/20 years

22

I always say, just dermabrade your scalp 2-3x a year.

You’ll probably get more actual results from that after 5 years than ICX’s TRC project has been able to grow during the last 5 years.

23

You know that sinking feeling you get when you know you’re about to ask a really stupid question? Well I’m having it right now… Here goes…

Given that:

» · 65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded
» to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded
» to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter

how can it be that there are more sites latter group? The group (or set) of sites that grew hair of any size must be larger than the group of sites that grew hairs over 30 u? Surely the latter group is a subset of the former? Aren’t hairs over 30 u considered a “hairs of all sizes”? Am I having a blonde moment?

The same goes for the stats below.

» · 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter

I’m reading the above to say that EVERYONE grew “large” hairs, but only 78% grew hairs of any size. That doesn’t make sense! What am I missing?

24

Talks on Intercytex future
Kevin Feddy

March 26, 2009

BOSSES of Manchester University spin-out Intercytex are in talks with several parties interested in buying the company.

Intercytex announced plans for a merger or sale earlier this year after its lead drug Cyzact, a wound healing treatment for leg ulcers, failed to met key target in a trial involving 400 patients.

Development of the treatment has ended. In a stock market update, Intercytex said losses for 2008 were £11.53m, down by £100,000 on 2007, adding that staff numbers had been cut from 76 to 50. It was in discussions which may led to an offer for the business.

Shares climbed 6.45 per cent to 4.125p. The company, floated in 2006, is developing treatments for wrinkles, baldness and wounds.

25

The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the stimulated areas
was
o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
<<

According to this, 40% of injections yields a hair, and just 18% of injections yields a hair thicker than 30um.
According to this, it would be a matter of repeating the procedure, until you get a full head of hair.

But guess what? I don’t believe it. Why don’t they publish a single photo?

edit/add: you need 5 injections to get one thick hair (>30um) and one thin hair (less than 30um) . If true, I think this is pretty acceptable. It would be just a matter of repeating over and over.

26

» >>
» The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the
» stimulated areas
» was
» o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
» o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» <<
»
» According to this, 40% of injections yields a hair, and just 18% of
» injections yields a hair thicker than 30um.
» According to this, it would be a matter of repeating the procedure, until
» you get a full head of hair.
»
» But guess what? I don’t believe it. Why don’t they publish a single
» photo?
»
» edit/add: you need 5 injections to get one thick hair (>30um) and one thin
» hair (less than 30um) . If true, I think this is pretty acceptable. It
» would be just a matter of repeating over and over.

maybe after the next injections these 40 small hairs(less then 30um) will become thicker. Its not so bad :stuck_out_tongue:

27

» edit/add: you need 5 injections to get one thick hair (>30um) and one thin
» hair (less than 30um) . If true, I think this is pretty acceptable. It
» would be just a matter of repeating over and over.

I don’t think we can conclude that it works exactly like that

28

» » edit/add: you need 5 injections to get one thick hair (>30um) and one
» thin
» » hair (less than 30um) . If true, I think this is pretty acceptable. It
» » would be just a matter of repeating over and over.
»
» I don’t think we can conclude that it works exactly like that

yes, we can, I think…
Lets see again:

The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the stimulated areas
was
o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
<<

so, 100 injections will give us:
-18 hairs over 30micron
-22 hairs under 30 micron

I think its pretty clear.

29

» maybe after the next injections these 40 small hairs(less then 30um) will
» become thicker. Its not so bad :stuck_out_tongue:

sorry, 22 small hairs

30

I was talking about :

" … It would be just a matter of repeating over and over … "

No, it doesn’t have to be that way

31

» I was talking about :
»
» " … It would be just a matter of repeating over and over … "
»
» No, it doesn’t have to be that way

of course not!! if that would have been so easy, ICX would be publishing photos and stocks going above the sky. the reality is much darker.

32

» » I was talking about :
» »
» » " … It would be just a matter of repeating over and over … "
» »
» » No, it doesn’t have to be that way
»
» of course not!! if that would have been so easy, ICX would be publishing
» photos and stocks going above the sky. the reality is much darker.

Didn’t Histogen publish photo a couple weeks ago? That didn’t mean all that much either, many couldn’t tell what actuall grew in the photos. Since Intercytex only treated a small area, whatever photos they have will be like Histogen’s anyway. Dont get me wrong, I want to see photos, but now i realize that even if they publish photos it can still be very vague as to how effective the treatment really is, these small scale trials will never have photos like a hair transplant before and after showing clear increase in density and coverage.

33

· 65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
· 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
· 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
· 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
· The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the stimulated areas
was
o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter

they say that guys responded to the treatment either by:
A) "increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes"
B) “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter”

now notice that A) has lower pecentages than B). What does that mean? why “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter” was more likely than “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”?

34

» o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
» o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
»
»
» they say that guys responded to the treatment either by:
» A) “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”
» B) “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter”
»
» now notice that A) has lower pecentages than B). What does that mean? why
» “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter” was more likely
» than “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”?

A is 40%, and B is 18%

35

I swear to God, this is starting to remind me of Lucy yanking Charlie brown’s football as he tries to kick it!

COME ON, guys!

How many times does ICX have to avoid releasing pics & concrete hair numbers before we all wise up?

They’re supposed to be done with phase#2 now.

Phase#1 primarily just proves that the procedures & substances involved won’t leave anyone’s health worse than they started with. Phase#3 is more about dosages & efficency of the details. The phase#2 that they just finished is the stage where they’re supposed to get the meat of the project’s raw hair growing capability demonstrated. AND THEY’RE STILL SITTING ON THE RESULTS WHILE THEY TRY TO RAKE IN SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY TO CONTINUE.

IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD EVIDENCE OF ICX-TRC BEING COMMERCIALLY VIABLE AT ALL, NOW IS THE TIME TO WHIP IT OUT. AND YET THEY’RE CONSPICUOUSLY NOT SHOWING ANYTHING CONCRETE.

36

» Didn’t Histogen publish photo a couple weeks ago? That didn’t mean all
» that much either, many couldn’t tell what actuall grew in the photos. Since
» Intercytex only treated a small area, whatever photos they have will be
» like Histogen’s anyway. Dont get me wrong, I want to see photos, but now i
» realize that even if they publish photos it can still be very vague as to
» how effective the treatment really is, these small scale trials will never
» have photos like a hair transplant before and after showing clear increase
» in density and coverage.

Yes, Histogen published high quality photos and I praise them for that. The problem is that the before and after photos were difficult to compare because hairlength was different and there was an offset between the two photos. Also, the improvement in hair numbers was low, and it was tested on a hairy area. Anyway, photos were very high quality, and are much more valuable than those crappy ICX pieces of cryptic text in the reports. Sorry, but ICX is crap. Histogen has a different attitude, although I am afraid the results so far are poor.

37

Agreed, this is ridiculous.

» I swear to God, this is starting to remind me of Lucy yanking Charlie
» brown’s football as he tries to kick it!
»
»
»
» COME ON, guys!
»
» How many times does ICX have to avoid releasing pics & concrete hair
» numbers before we all wise up?
»
»
»
»
»
» They’re supposed to be done with phase#2 now.
»
» Phase#1 primarily just proves that the procedures & substances involved
» won’t leave anyone’s health worse than they started with. Phase#3 is more
» about dosages & efficency of the details. The phase#2 that they just
» finished is the stage where they’re supposed to get the meat of the
» project’s raw hair growing capability demonstrated. AND THEY’RE STILL
» SITTING ON THE RESULTS WHILE THEY TRY TO RAKE IN SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY TO
» CONTINUE.
»
» IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD EVIDENCE OF ICX-TRC BEING COMMERCIALLY VIABLE AT
» ALL, NOW IS THE TIME TO WHIP IT OUT. AND YET THEY’RE CONSPICUOUSLY NOT
» SHOWING ANYTHING CONCRETE.

38

Good point debris. I also noticed this paradox.
The only explanation I have is this:
some guys gained numbers of thick hairs, but lost a lot of thin hairs, resulting in an overall loss of hair numbers. This is why when you consider only thick hairs, these guys appear as “improved”.

This is very weird… supposedly TRC should rejuvenate thin hairs…but we see that this is not the case.

» · 65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to
» the treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded
» to the treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» · 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» · The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in
» the stimulated areas
» was
» o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
» o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
»
»
» they say that guys responded to the treatment either by:
» A) “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”
» B) “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter”
»
» now notice that A) has lower pecentages than B). What does that mean? why
» “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter” was more likely
» than “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”?

39

» Good point debris. I also noticed this paradox.
» The only explanation I have is this:
» some guys gained numbers of thick hairs, but lost a lot of thin hairs,
» resulting in an overall loss of hair numbers. This is why when you consider
» only thick hairs, these guys appear as “improved”.
»
» This is very weird… supposedly TRC should rejuvenate thin hairs…but we
» see that this is not the case.
»
»
» » · 65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded
» to
» » the treatment by
» » increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» » · 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group
» responded
» » to the treatment by
» » increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» » · 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to
» the
» » treatment by
» » increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» » · 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to
» the
» » treatment by
» » increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» » · The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections)
» in
» » the stimulated areas
» » was
» » o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
» » o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» »
» »
» » they say that guys responded to the treatment either by:
» » A) “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”
» » B) “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter”
» »
» » now notice that A) has lower pecentages than B). What does that mean?
» why
» » “increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter” was more
» likely
» » than “increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes”?

how is this paradox? 40% had an increase in hairs of all sizes while only 18% had increase of hair with >= 30 microns. And not vice versa as i understand it.

40

doh thats rly exhausting. read it again please from the start, not from the end. what “take rate” means is complete different story, I dont want even start talking about it yet.,

65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
· 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
· 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
· 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by
increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter