Take a look at these two excerpts from the report:
"In the first sub-group 2 patients out of 5 showed substantial increases in hair count . . . . "
"In the second sub-group (5 patients in total) injected more recently, all patients showed substantial and visible increased hair counts . . . . "
You think that after learning from the first sub-group, they tweaked the procedure a little, and that adjustment accounted for the dramatic improvement–i.e., all 5 in the second group gowing substantial hair?
If that improvement indeed resulted from one adjustment, imagine after a few more adjustments how much things might improve.
» Take a look at these two excerpts from the report:
»
»
» "In the first sub-group 2 patients out of 5 showed
» substantial increases in hair count . . . . "
»
» "In the second sub-group (5 patients in total) injected more
» recently, all patients showed substantial and visible increased
» hair counts . . . . "
»
» You think that after learning from the first sub-group, they tweaked the
procedure a little, and that adjustment accounted for the dramatic
improvement–i.e., all 5 in the second group gowing substantial hair?»
»
» If that improvement indeed resulted from one adjustment, imagine after a few more adjustments how much things might improve.
When I had that quite long conversation with Lesley from the Farjo Clinic around last Christmas period.What she said is roughly what you are saying they will get it right,at that time things was on hold due to some tweaking in the lab.So yes that is what they do then - YES I THING YOU HAVE GOT IT!
» Take a look at these two excerpts from the report:
»
»
» "In the first sub-group 2 patients out of 5 showed
» substantial increases in hair count . . . . "
»
» "In the second sub-group (5 patients in total) injected more
» recently, all patients showed substantial and visible increased
» hair counts . . . . "
»
» You think that after learning from the first sub-group, they tweaked the
» procedure a little, and that adjustment accounted for the dramatic
» improvement–i.e., all 5 in the second group gowing substantial hair?
»
»
» If that improvement indeed resulted from one adjustment, imagine after a
» few more adjustments how much things might improve.
Good observation. This is something I alluded to in an earlier thread. Plus, another thing that has been repeatedly overlooked is the term “substantial and visible increase in hair counts” I don’t think ICX would intentionally mislead current or potential investors by misrepresenting their results.
The problem is “substantial and visible” is open to interpretation. What is “substantial” to you may be nothing to me. Perhaps growing 2 new hairs is substantial to the scientist. I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m just saying vague terminology doesn’t tell us anything. We really need actual before and after hair counts. Also the size of the treatment area. Basically we need actual figures to know what is going on here. Percentages and unclear terminology don’t really provide the necessary data to make any judgments, good or bad.
» The problem is “substantial and visible” is open to interpretation. What
» is “substantial” to you may be nothing to me. Perhaps growing 2 new hairs
» is substantial to the scientist. I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m
» just saying vague terminology doesn’t tell us anything. We really need
» actual before and after hair counts. Also the size of the treatment area.
» Basically we need actual figures to know what is going on here.
» Percentages and unclear terminology don’t really provide the necessary
» data to make any judgments, good or bad.
I appreciate your point, but I think the standard of reference (at least with respect to the point I was trying to make about misleading investors) would be how a reasonable person interprets “substantial” (not necessarily how you, or I, or a scientist would). The information was posted on a public forum for the general public, including would be consumers, investors, etc. If the example you site above (2 hairs) was actually the case, how would a reasonable person feel, based on the representation that a substantial increase in hair counts was shown?
» You think that after learning from the first sub-group, they tweaked the
» procedure a little, and that adjustment accounted for the dramatic
» improvement–i.e., all 5 in the second group gowing substantial hair?
Sure, wouldn’t it be possible that some of the trialists were given a placebo solution? I believe this is what’s termed as control group in clinical trials.
PLACEBO: A placebo is an inactive pill, liquid, or powder that has no treatment value. In clinical trials, experimental treatments are often compared with placebos to assess the treatment’s effectiveness. (See Placebo Controlled Study).
PLACEBO CONTROLLED STUDY: A method of investigation of drugs in which an inactive substance (the placebo) is given to one group of participants, while the drug being tested is given to another group. The results obtained in the two groups are then compared to see if the investigational treatment is more effective in treating the condition.
You raise an important issue… recall there were two subgroups: one received the DP cells, the other DP cells plus epidermal stimulation. While there’s no “placebo”, the former is the control group while the latter is the treatment group. It’s obvious ICX-TRC works (more people really should be overjoyed by this), especially compared to the control group.
Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. I check in here from time to time, but as George Costanza might say, I’m out of the loop. Pretty sure I read where clinical trials in North America absolutely require a control group or “double blind” study when testing new drugs for efficacy. The Brits are likely in the same boat.
Some countries, for example, do clinical research which are generally not recognized for their medical contributions, like Cuba. And I did read where the Cubans don’t believe in doing double blind studies for what they claim are ethical reasons. And so if they do happen to come up with a drug or vaccine that works, our medical standards people up here will require a new round of clinical trials for the sake of scientific objectivity and whatnot. Just sayin’ I didn’t realize they could use DP cellular solution for the randomized or otherwise control group end of it. We’d have to know how they designed the trial and who was given what. I’ll bet it’s hush-hush and on the QT at this stage?
cheers
» Hey WB,
»
» You raise an important issue… recall there were two subgroups: one
» received the DP cells, the other DP cells plus epidermal stimulation.
» While there’s no “placebo”, the former is the control group while the
» latter is the treatment group. It’s obvious ICX-TRC works (more people
» really should be overjoyed by this), especially compared to the control
» group.
»
» Best,
» BB
» Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. I check in here from time to time, but as
» George Costanza might say, I’m out of the loop. Pretty sure I read where
» clinical trials in North America absolutely require a control group or
» “double blind” study when testing new drugs for efficacy. The Brits are
» likely in the same boat.
»
» Some countries, for example, do clinical research which are generally not
» recognized for their medical contributions, like Cuba. And I did read
» where the Cubans don’t believe in doing double blind studies for what they
» claim are ethical reasons.
WB my old socialist nemesis, how have you been? Even though we disagreed politically in the past I sincerely hope you are doing well. I myself have gotten tired of the bickering and speculation of this board so like yourself I only check in now and then, but I must say it’s nice to see a seasoned veteran poster like you back on the board again. The term Double-blind study describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor. In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data are recorded and analyzed, do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results. Experiments done prior to the double blind method were proven to have incorrect results from the recording scientist’s personal unconscious bias (Similar to the NBC,ABC and CBS evening news) LOL By the way I may be incorrect but it was my recollection that even in the brutal communist peoples paradise of Cuba, that their scientists and researchers had adopted the standard scientific method and even used the same standard Phase I –III trails adopted for prescription drugs used here in the west. Unfortunately they also do experiments on humans in pre trial experiments and when the results are fatal, neither the government doctors nor the Cuban government is liable. What did Marx say? “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet!” LOL
Semper Fi my old friend
» » Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. I check in here from time to time, but as
» » George Costanza might say, I’m out of the loop. Pretty sure I read
» where
» » clinical trials in North America absolutely require a control group or
» » “double blind” study when testing new drugs for efficacy. The Brits are
» » likely in the same boat.
» »
» » Some countries, for example, do clinical research which are generally
» not
» » recognized for their medical contributions, like Cuba. And I did read
» » where the Cubans don’t believe in doing double blind studies for what
» they
» » claim are ethical reasons.
»
» WB my old socialist nemesis, how have you been? Even though we disagreed
» politically in the past I sincerely hope you are doing well. I myself
» have gotten tired of the bickering and speculation of this board so like
» yourself I only check in now and then, but I must say it’s nice to see a
» seasoned veteran poster like you back on the board again. The term
» Double-blind study describes an especially stringent way of conducting an
» experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate
» subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the
» experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to
» achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor. In a double-blind
» experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs
» to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data
» are recorded and analyzed, do the researchers learn which individuals are
» which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to
» lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on
» the results. Experiments done prior to the double blind method were
» proven to have incorrect results from the recording scientist’s personal
» unconscious bias (Similar to the NBC,ABC and CBS evening news) LOL By the
» way I may be incorrect but it was my recollection that even in the brutal
» communist peoples paradise of Cuba, that their scientists and researchers
» had adopted the standard scientific method and even used the same standard
» Phase I –III trails adopted for prescription drugs used here in the west.
» Unfortunately they also do experiments on humans in pre trial experiments
» and when the results are fatal, neither the government doctors nor the
» Cuban government is liable. What did Marx say? “You have to break a few
» eggs to make an omelet!” LOL
» Semper Fi my old friend
Not too bad and same to you Bill. I check in but haven’t had much to say about it all. It looks good with ICX so far.
I was aware of the double blind and thought it must be the answer to BB’s and HairSite poster’s question regarding the 2 in 5 response for subgroup one.
LOL By the
» way I may be incorrect but it was my recollection that even in the brutal
» communist peoples paradise of Cuba, that their scientists and researchers
» had adopted the standard scientific method and even used the same standard
» Phase I –III trails adopted for prescription drugs used here in the west.
» Unfortunately they also do experiments on humans in pre trial experiments
» and when the results are fatal, neither the government doctors nor the
» Cuban government is liable. What did Marx say? “You have to break a few
» eggs to make an omelet!” LOL
» Semper Fi my old friend
Hmmm, sounds like when Pfizer was caught red-handed experimenting on Nigerian children under the radar in 1996.
How’s my favorite Canuck doing up there? How’s the NDP?
From what I hear, Stephen Harper’s days are numbered. But I’m not sure if there’s anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to excite people. Maybe you need an Obama.
Pretty good thanks. And you? We’re still Uncle Sam’s faithful northern colony up here. I dunno about Obama, JTR. I think the Yanks need an anti-war party, Or something. Great constitution you have, but you need democracy same as here. I think central banks have more power than Warshington or its colonial outpost, Ottawa.
The Liberals are an embarrassment to us all. Layton’s more popular than Dion in Quebec. Canada is a phony G8. We just had a referendum on fair voting in Ontario, and it didn’t go very well at all. They didn’t put enough effort into it. 52% voter turnout and looking more like American participation rates. Struggle for democracy continues.
cheers
»
» How’s my favorite Canuck doing up there? How’s the NDP?
»
» From what I hear, Stephen Harper’s days are numbered. But I’m not sure
» if there’s anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to excite
» people. Maybe you need an Obama.
» hey JTR,
»
» Pretty good thanks. And you? We’re still Uncle Sam’s faithful northern
» colony up here. I dunno about Obama, JTR. I think the Yanks need an
» anti-war party, Or something. Great constitution you have, but you need
» democracy same as here. I think central banks have more power than
» Warshington or its colonial outpost, Ottawa.
»
» The Liberals are an embarrassment to us all. Layton’s more popular than
» Dion in Quebec. Canada is a phony G8. We just had a referendum on fair
» voting in Ontario, and it didn’t go very well at all. They didn’t put
» enough effort into it. 52% voter turnout and looking more like American
» participation rates. Struggle for democracy continues.
»
» cheers
»
»
» »
» » How’s my favorite Canuck doing up there? How’s the NDP?
» »
» » From what I hear, Stephen Harper’s days are numbered. But I’m not
» sure
» » if there’s anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to excite
» » people. Maybe you need an Obama.
This is a HM forum - A place to talk about,yes,Hair Multiplication,hair cloning - Thats what its called!
Off topic would be a place for this.Remember World wide Web means just that.Americans would be interested in whats happening in America,not the rest of us!
Lets talk British politics - that would bore you,wouldn’t it!
» This is a HM forum - A place to talk about,yes,Hair Multiplication,hair
» cloning - Thats what its called!
»
» Off topic would be a place for this.Remember World wide Web means just
» that.Americans would be interested in whats happening in America,not the
» rest of us!
»
» Lets talk British politics - that would bore you,wouldn’t it!
Right on B42. Ever since I’ve been posting on the HM Hairsite forum some of these guys always find a way to inflict their politics into the discussion. I get sick and tired of it. A lot of you guys get tired of bickering. Well I get irritated by the “drive by” political innuendos. I come here to find out about HM progress. I don’t want to listen to peoples PERSONAL political ideology. I love debating politics but this is not the place for it. If you get bored go to the off topic forum. Peace out.
Guys since it is not considered a drug do they need a placebo in the clinical trials?
I mean lets say Lazercomp for example… when they did trials did they treat one group with the lazercomp and another with a lazerpointer :).Who knows maybe the trials are different,icx is not a pill.
furthermore for sure the technology works but we must pray that they are lucky also, many things can go wrong suddenly, they have problems with making it work right thats for sure or else they would proceed faster…as long as they dont give up on it we can always hope and be carefully optimistic
» You think that after learning from the first sub-group, they tweaked the
» procedure a little, and that adjustment accounted for the dramatic
» improvement–i.e., all 5 in the second group gowing substantial hair?
The first group was not provided pre-stimulation of the epidermis; thus, the results were not nearly as good as the second group that used pre-stimulation. Pre-stimulation helps to improve the signaling environment and results in much better hair growth (numerous HM studies confirm this).
So what we are left with is that 100% of all patients respond to the treatment when the pre-stimulation is used. Thus HM appears to have a consistency between about 13 and 105% and will work for nearly all people.
» If that improvement indeed resulted from one adjustment, imagine after a
» few more adjustments how much things might improve.
This is exactly what the rolling protocol is designed to do. However, there is no guarantee that the next adjustment will result in as large of an improvement as the last adjustment. Right now, ICX is capable of getting results near where Dr. Gho plateaued and left off. Thus, there is still a lot of work to be done before this is able to be offered as a commercial treatment. It would be nice to get the minimum response rate up to about 50% before the treatment is rolled out. So far, things are looking good, and the results of the latest studies bring lots of reason for optimism.
You’re right Ahab, and I think there are more significant improvements yet to come. Also, I think we’ll find that there is a positive correlation between the number of injections over a single area, and the eventual amount of new hair that will grow there. In other words, repeat, serial injections in the same place will be very beneficial and will have the ability to grow substantial amounts of hair.
Now, mind you that’s not coming from official sources at ICX – that’s coming from me. But I feel very confident about this.
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.