More Follica News

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

» This situation, in my opinion, make an hypotetical release of a trc, the
» famous small scale commercialization, in 2009… they need a product for
» stop the competitor and have a little slice of market…

small scale comercialization reference has been deleted from ITCX FAQ web page.

22

As far as I Know Cotsarelis experiment was done on human skin transplanted into a Mouse´s back. Please correct me if I am wrong.

23

» » This situation, in my opinion, make an hypotetical release of a trc, the
» » famous small scale commercialization, in 2009… they need a product
» for
» » stop the competitor and have a little slice of market…
»
» small scale comercialization reference has been deleted from ITCX FAQ web
» page.

References to commercialization have been removed, Farjo doesn’t even mention their own research on their site. ITCX no longer seems very promising. Follica is our best hope.

24

» You forgot that reputation is money too.

The University of Pennsylvania has a 5 BILLION dollar endowment. Its not about money for that school, its about what new discoveries, theories, and breakthroughs they can lay claim to. Academics, contrary to what you may think, are really not that interested in money. As the OP stated, getting published and colleague recognition is paramount to them. They aren’t hyping - they must really think they are on to something. Time will tell, but I think its very safe to assume that they aren’t just looking for a few bucks.

25

Where’s JT revealer and J bond and HAIRSITE on this:-|

26

» » » This situation, in my opinion, make an hypotetical release of a trc,
» the
» » » famous small scale commercialization, in 2009… they need a product
» » for
» » » stop the competitor and have a little slice of market…
» »
» » small scale comercialization reference has been deleted from ITCX FAQ
» web
» » page.
»
» References to commercialization have been removed, Farjo doesn’t even
» mention their own research on their site. ITCX no longer seems very
» promising. Follica is our best hope.

Intercytex mentioned small scale commercialization somewhere else,I’ll find it.

Farjo Clinic still have ICX-TRC on their website,see link below

http://www.farjo.net/page.asp?id=203

27

» » You forgot that reputation is money too.
»
» The University of Pennsylvania has a 5 BILLION dollar endowment. Its not
» about money for that school, its about what new discoveries, theories, and
» breakthroughs they can lay claim to. Academics, contrary to what you may
» think, are really not that interested in money. As the OP stated, getting
» published and colleague recognition is paramount to them. They aren’t
» hyping - they must really think they are on to something. Time will tell,
» but I think its very safe to assume that they aren’t just looking for a few
» bucks.

You know, i am on your side, guy :wink:

28

» » » » This situation, in my opinion, make an hypotetical release of a trc,
» » the
» » » » famous small scale commercialization, in 2009… they need a
» product
» » » for
» » » » stop the competitor and have a little slice of market…
» » »
» » » small scale comercialization reference has been deleted from ITCX FAQ
» » web
» » » page.
» »
» » References to commercialization have been removed, Farjo doesn’t even
» » mention their own research on their site. ITCX no longer seems very
» » promising. Follica is our best hope.
»
» Intercytex mentioned small scale commercialization somewhere else,I’ll
» find it.
»
» Farjo Clinic still have ICX-TRC on their website,see link below
»
» http://www.farjo.net/page.asp?id=203

Intercytex mention small scale commercialisation in their Preliminary results for the year ended 31 December 2006 released on 23rd March, 2007,on page 3,see investors page on their website,under
Annual & Interim Reports, Presentations & Other Documents

We are investigating whether there are opportunities to initiate the small scale commercialisation of
ICX-TRC in 2008. This will depend on the outcome of the ongoing Phase II trial and further regulatory
review.

See link

http://www.intercytex.com/icx/investors/rep/

29

»
» You cant say that Follica is far ahead of ICX because theres no results
» in humans yet…

Munich,

If the “race” is about who releases a product first, then I’d have to agree that Follica may be well ahead of ICX. As has been pointed out, Follica’s procedure does not appear to be subject to the usual FDA (or similar agency) approval process. Everything involved in their procedure is already in use and on the market. It appears they simply wish to fine-tune their technique to develop the most effective response rate for the greatest number of people before releasing it. Given the glacial pace at which ICX (or any other HM-research company) has been progressing, I’d be surprised (albeit, pleasantly) if any HM-type procedure was released before Follica’s.

Regards,

30

debris you are the most negative loser on any hairloss forum ive seen. plz do us all a favor slit ur wrists already you know you want to so badly. put urself out of misery. its so annoying reading posts then seeing your lil i hate life rant after with treatment wont work, blah blah.

31

Yes, but this is on the .pdf released months ago. Obviously they are not going to modify a .pdf document released months ago. But he FAQ page has changed:

http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc/

“2. When will ICX-TRC be on the market?
ICX-TRC is classified as a medicine by the regulatory authorities and hence has to undergo a series of clinical trials before it can be offered on the market. We currently estimate that the earliest that ICX-TRC would be available on the market is 2010 although we don’t know in which country it will be launched first.”

32

But you’re forgetting the BIG motivation for scientists and professors: prestige. For most academics their prestige is more important than their money, at least beyond a certain level (which I have no doubht Cotsarelis surpasses with his UPenn appointment). I really doubt Cotsarelis would go on the Today show without having a substantial degree of confidence in his and his colleagues’ work.

» I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and investors
» attention. They want money. That’s all.
»
» Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have
» government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want to
» face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just bills
» to pay.

33

s1cfuc:

You didn’t have to hide behind this fake user name, hero!

I do agree that I am often negative about things, but so far every single time I was right.

I’m not negative because I like it or want to put you all here down. All I’m saying is that I don’t believe in anything that does not have logical evidence behind and I especially do not believe in things that violate most probable logical outcomes made on the evidence known so far.

I also kinda wish someone would be able to give some logical reasoning to why I am wrong.

I strongly separate wishful thinking from facts and I try to make predictions based solely on the fact, no matter how much it hurts. I am on the same boat as you all here. I want something to success and I do believe one day it will happen. But the cure will not violate existing knowledge (DHT sensitivity, evolutionary principles, …).

34

you know what? that reminds me, maybe the fact it grows gray hair is good fact. I always believed that ppl who go gray early for some reason do not bald so much afterwards.

I haven’t seen any evidence for this statement though so It may be just wrong belief of mine.

35

» Yes, but this is on the .pdf released months ago. Obviously they are not
» going to modify a .pdf document released months ago. But he FAQ page has
» changed:
»
» http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc/
»
» “2. When will ICX-TRC be on the market?
» ICX-TRC is classified as a medicine by the regulatory authorities and
» hence has to undergo a series of clinical trials before it can be offered
» on the market. We currently estimate that the earliest that ICX-TRC would
» be available on the market is 2010 although we don’t know in which country
» it will be launched first.”

No the facts page as not changed,it never said it on there,in the first place.

If you put in small scale commercialisation into google,theres a few different site that have a copy of it on their websites.They altered theirs to,doubt it!

36

Perhaps there is a correlation, but it certainly is not 100%. I went gray early (got my first gray hair at 17). Started losing my hair at 18. Was noticeably gray and thinning by my early twenties (got many comments on both).

I am now 43 (been coming here since I was 32), have a bit of recession, and very diffuse thinning on top. Probably lost 80% of my hair on top. I have 1 hair where 5 should be basically. And the remaining hair there is probably 75% gray now. And I certainly have areas that were gray that are no longer there.

Also, my Dad was almost totally gray by the time he was 50. He is now 70, and all the gray hair he had on top is now gone. His sides are fine though. My hair and pattern are actually different from my Dad, but there’s definitely some similarities.

37

I remember reading it on the FAQ, but probably you are right and they never put it there.

38

» I remember reading it on the FAQ, but probably you are right and they never
» put it there.

In the video it flashes AZT the AIDS drug twice. So he is basically wounding the scalp and applying AZT? You know he has tried it on a few people already, thus his optimism.

39

Perhaps, but from a PR prospective Hairloss is not Cancer…they are not claiming they are on to something big for a fatal disease. While a lot of people suffer from Hair loss not all of us care as much as we do and cling on to new break throughs. Half the people with hairloss that watched that show will forget about it in a couple weeks, but will still have a good taste in their mouth about Penn Medical Research because they are making efforts. They really had nothing to lose by going public…

» » I’m sorry mate, but all it means is that they want publicity and
» investors
» » attention. They want money. That’s all.
» »
» » Today all scientists do similar things. They work on cancer (and have
» » government funding) or they exagerrate and advertise unless they want
» to
» » face situation where they have no money, no project, no wage, just
» bills
» » to pay.
»
» I’d agree with you if this work wasn’t connected to the University of
» Pennsylvania. That is an Ivy League, top five university. They protect
» their reputation. They would not allow their name to be used like this
» unless those conducting the research could ensure that it would not
» negatively impact the school’s integrity. Follica may be looking for
» investors, but Penn is not; they have a multi-billion dollar endowment
» that is so great that the vast majority of their students don’t pay a dime
» in tuition (free-rides, not loans). If not for Penn’s involvement, I
» wouldn’t be nearly as excited. As mentioned by the OP, Penn is meticulous
» in their vetting of their research programs. They’ve done their dilligence
» on Costeralis and his study, and have clearly given him the green light to
» not only continue to use their labs, but their name as well. That is a
» very, very big deal.

40

» Perhaps, but from a PR prospective Hairloss is not Cancer…they are not
» claiming they are on to something big for a fatal disease. While a lot of
» people suffer from Hair loss not all of us care as much as we do and cling
» on to new break throughs. Half the people with hairloss that watched that
» show will forget about it in a couple weeks, but will still have a good
» taste in their mouth about Penn Medical Research because they are making
» efforts. They really had nothing to lose by going public…
»

UPenn and Costeralis are not looking for PR, they’re looking for recognition from fellow institutions and researchers. They couldn’t care if the public does or does not remember what they were attempting to do, what they care about is their credibility among colleagues. To that, they had a lot to lose by going public. Look at the scandal surrounding the Korean clone researcher. He went public, only to be humiliated later, discredited by his own colleagues and drummed out of the scientific community, his career ruined. There is a tremendous amount of credibility to be lost by going public with something only to have it fail later. Institutions of this level do not tolerate failure or empty promises.