“Scientists say the therapy could be made available to patients WITHIN FIVE YEARS.”
» “Scientists say the therapy could be made available to patients WITHIN
» FIVE YEARS.”
5 yrs take lim -> infinite
We have all read what ICX has said THEMSELVES. If no partner is found at the end of phase two…they are gonna idle the technology (put no more money into it and not research it further). That is not a ringing endorsement about what they fell about TRC. IF it was working hand-over-fist, they’d be telling the world so and petitioning for its immediate release with no phase three (its already been shown to be safe, remember).
» All that
» has happened is that someone at ICX has gotten into contact with either a
» clueless journalist, or has paid off a clueless journalist to print this
» article, probably as a way to get those stock prices for ICX back up.
I don’t think it’s random; it’s more likely Intercytex gave a presentation at the following conference: http://tinyurl.com/6ylrol, which the journalists in attendance then ran with. At the same time, I don’t dispute that the articles are crap. You could have written the same thing, word for word, in 2004.
EDIT: changed link to one that works.
journalists, they are paid to gain attention so they just make things up out of thin air.
That article sounds like a fairy tale that you might tell your kids, so they can sleep well at night.
Other than that, it’s an utterly groundless, and it barely syncs with Intercytex’s quarterly reports. How can they forecast 5 years (sheesh - yet again) without formal announcement of partnership/ funding assistance, or plans to commence phase III trials by themselves?
My verdict is simple. That company needs new management.
I tend to disagree a bit. It’s not about management or a company. It’s how journalism and PR works.
Follica articles are biased the same way as ICX articles. Mind that every time you read some newspaper hair loss breakthrough story.
It may even not be limited to journalists. I mean, every time there is a new kid that comes to this board, he just assumes that cure is near, 2 years at most, and is overly optimistic or in other words, naive. I mean it is ridiculous but these ppl really believe, that few years from now on, they will not have this hair loss problem anymore because some magic cure will come and the problem will be solved forever. They belive that they won’t even thing about it anymore, ever, no matter how obvious it is that this is just a dream. (I mean when was it the last time something inherited, was truly cured rather then treated? Never?)
Now imagine that some journalist is told to write an article about a subject he never heard about. He’s going to be the same as that hairloss board kid. A naive optimist that is not able to distinguish between real, possible, and dreamed.
What you read in newspapers are the best case scenarios. PR guy tells the best case (he’s being paid for it), the journalist exagerrates / misunderstoods / makes up the rest. Often the jouralists do not even bother to contact the company, they just recycle something they read somewhere and just add few new things they make up. Every time the story is retold, it becomes better. This is human nature. We love interesting things so much that we do not hesitate to bend the truth, just to make it more interesting.
In the end what you read is the kind of things that happen with probability 1:100000 so it’s no wonder that they never do.
This has nothing to do with management or a company, it’s PR, journalism and human nature.
» I tend to disagree a bit. It’s not about management or a company. It’s how
» journalism and PR works.
» Follica articles are biased the same way as ICX articles. Mind that every
» time you read some newspaper hair loss breakthrough story.
true. but… Those articles exist because ICX allows them to exist. Someone at their company fields answers to reporters that allows them to shape editorial in this manor - mostly misleading.
Let’s face it, the last ICX report was lackluster (most onlookers deemed it as a set-back). It’s for that very reason ICX (their PR department or otherwise) doesn’t have the right to upsell claims, or state unsubstantiated timelines to reporters until their management puts the company in order. Before you bring-up PRs involvement in stock prices, I’d like to remind you that there were/are better ways to rally financial support - more transparent/ photo backed reports would suffice most to purchase some stock.
Lastly, I think it’s unfair to group Follica with Intercytex (for the time-being). By contrast Follica has yet to disappoint us with a demoralizing company report (we presume they’re being tight-lipped to protect their technology, refine their process, and limit misinformation). They’re actually keeping reporters at bay.
Unfortunatelly these kinds of articles and the related hype are unstopable. Follica for example clearly warned us that this is going on even in their case. And what? Most guys just ignored that part and said carry on the ride.
You can not stop this. Most companies thus just ignore it.
» Unfortunatelly these kinds of articles and the related hype are unstopable.
» Follica for example clearly warned us that this is going on even in their
» case. And what? Most guys just ignored that part and said carry on the
» You can not stop this. Most companies thus just ignore it.
Forum/individual speculation is one thing (I’m as guilty of it as the next guy), but formal press is quite another. The links mell posted were the later; readers therefore expect the facts in that article were substantiated (most layman will believe that ICX will have a product for them in 5 years).
Look where this reporter got his facts. The info didn’t come out of thin air/ speculation; in fact, the timesonline.co.uk piece was using quotes directly from Dr Farjo himself. In stands to reason that he was the source of ICX part of that article (which brings me back to my original rant).
The only real voice of reason in that article was Andrew Messenger when he said “If they really have done this then that is quite an achievement, but I would like to see all the data."
WHATS NEW of THIS???I DONT SEE IT!!!:no:
I think Farjo is true when he said it could be here in 5 years. I mean, if there was a big pharma who would step in this year, and gave them couple of hundreds of millions for the trials, if the pre stimulation & their cell multiplication could be improved (I’m sure they have tons of ideas they’d like to try), and if everything went superb, … you know … if … You can not expect from a scientist to give you anything else then the very theoretical best case scenario.
All scientists do it. I’m still quite sure the journalist added something / ommited the inconvenient stuff himself as well.
So although it is all true, everyone with brains must understant, that it won’t work out like that. It just will not.
Follica is the same imho, but I’ll be happy to apologize for being wrong
Quote from that article:
The latest results of the Phase II trial, presented at a conference of leading hair replacement surgeons in Rome, suggest that the technique can increase hair count in at least two thirds of patients after six months, and four out of five if the scalp is stimulated beforehand through gentle abrasions that encourage hair growth.
Finally…that ‘stimulation’ Intercytex mentioned, which significantly increased success rate, is actually dermabrasion/chemical peel and a light one too, because the article says ‘gentle abrasion’. It’s too much of a coincidence that two fundamentaly different procedures i.e. Follica and TRC show new hair growth using gentle abrasion. Perhaps the gentle abrasion (slight damage) to the scalp is enough for the body to heal the area and start hair growth there? We may even get more growth if we perform these abrasions monthly or so.
As I mentioned before, this spate of stories is clearly due to a presentation given by Intercytex in the past few days in Rome. The same basic article is appearing across a lot of papers. Here is a link to the BBC article, which is more informative than the others:
This should be good for a nice bounce in their stock price.
It says here that only 11 of 19 people actually re-grew hair. That’s just over 50%. Not paricularly impressive if you ask me.
funny how that just 2 months ago many of u with debris leading the way were saying its over after phase 2 results were released
now this very company is announcing its results to an italian conference with reporting over 80% success rate
no one even knew that a conference was even to be held in italy