News from Inside Intercytex

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
41

» For a board which is, supposedly, focused on the scientific method, there
» can be a distinct lack of critical judgement sometimes.

It’s sad really,it shows just how desperate we have all become to regrow our hair.

Rest assured the guy who started this b.s post is probably very happy that his post has received so much attention.

42

Jesus Christ ! We are all going to regrow our hair & yet some of you are still going to complain???

I don’t give a flying fizuk which direction the hairs grow!
As long as my scar & scalp is covered I will be happy. I am more then willing to wear my hair short, like Brad Pitt. I am even willing to buzz it down to a 4 or 3. I just want a full head of hair…
Beggars can’t be choosers

43

» Jesus Christ ! We are all going to regrow our hair & yet some of you are
» still going to complain???
»
» I don’t give a flying fizuk which direction the hairs grow!
» As long as my scar & scalp is covered I will be happy. I am more then
» willing to wear my hair short, like Brad Pitt. I am even willing to buzz
» it down to a 4 or 3. I just want a full head of hair…
» Beggars can’t be choosers

I think that shorter than 2 cm will look weird if the direction is not good enough. It will look very weird. Most will have to sport some kind of gelled random look.

44

» I think that shorter than 2 cm will look weird if the direction is not
» good enough. It will look very weird. Most will have to sport some kind of
» gelled random look.

I’d still take it !
Besides,they have already said that hair direction wont be an issue.

45

In my increasingly dim and distant hirsute days my hair tended to part more naturally on the left. For a while I tried parting it on the right and after a few weeks it looked perfectly natural on the right. When I went back to a left parting it regained the ‘natural’ look more quickly than when I first swapped over.
Even if hair is more inclined to hang one way rather than another it can be trained (for the want of a better phrase) to hang in most directions.
IMHO questions of direction are a very small issue indeed.
:waving:

46

» Interview with Dr. Paul Kemp,Intercytex September, 2006
»
» Hair transplant will
» still have a role to play in the beginning especially for the hairline
» design.

this isn’t good, this means we will have to spend a lot of money for HM + HT… how much will be? 20-30’000$ ? :\ i thought HM would have been the final and definitive solution :frowning:

47

It was never meant to be the final solution. Intercytex has always maintained there would be multiple releases of their product as they improved it. But if you can get a full head of hair with their HM plus some HT (which I don’t know if that will be true or not in the first iteration), it doesn’t matter how much it costs. The fact is, a solution will now exist for those willing to pay for it. And that would be great news, even if you can’t afford it. Because prices will eventually come down. Just seeing a treatment that can restore a full head of hair, no matter if HT is involved or not, will be a miracle.

48

Exactly my thoughts. Look if you have a solution for Norwood 5-7 baldness, now matter how much, it will be MIRACLE. And oddly enough I think it’ll make wigs/hairpieces more acceptable… you can just tell your wife/sig other/gf that it’s only temporary, that you’re saving up for surgery. And with FUE on the front hairline, it won’t look like plugs. God help us all… or should i say, SCIENCE help us all!

All the best,
BB

» It was never meant to be the final solution. Intercytex has always
» maintained there would be multiple releases of their product as they
» improved it. But if you can get a full head of hair with their HM plus
» some HT (which I don’t know if that will be true or not in the first
» iteration), it doesn’t matter how much it costs. The fact is, a solution
» will now exist for those willing to pay for it. And that would be great
» news, even if you can’t afford it. Because prices will eventually come
» down. Just seeing a treatment that can restore a full head of hair, no
» matter if HT is involved or not, will be a miracle.

49

» It was never meant to be the final solution. Intercytex has always
» maintained there would be multiple releases of their product as they
» improved it. But if you can get a full head of hair with their HM plus
» some HT (which I don’t know if that will be true or not in the first
» iteration), it doesn’t matter how much it costs. The fact is, a solution
» will now exist for those willing to pay for it. And that would be great
» news, even if you can’t afford it. Because prices will eventually come
» down. Just seeing a treatment that can restore a full head of hair, no
» matter if HT is involved or not, will be a miracle.

Well said, AJ!

50

» In my increasingly dim and distant hirsute days my hair tended to part more
» naturally on the left. For a while I tried parting it on the right and
» after a few weeks it looked perfectly natural on the right. When I went
» back to a left parting it regained the ‘natural’ look more quickly than
» when I first swapped over.
» Even if hair is more inclined to hang one way rather than another it can
» be trained (for the want of a better phrase) to hang in most directions.
» IMHO questions of direction are a very small issue indeed.
» :waving:

Me too Chadsman…a THICK or even fairly thick HEAD OF HAIR makes the direction issue mean very little to me. Gels mousse…Hell brother even just growing it LONG and putting it in a ponytail to have WEIGHT pull it back like a woman’s hair will make it look alrighty. Over hair cycles, when the hair sheds, the dermal papilla shrinks, migrats up…rests, then dives back down in the dermis, it would probably re-orient itself in the proper direction anyway. SO in a few years, we’d be alright

51

» » However, lately the consensus is that it’s a
» COMBINATION OF BOTH, and probably more straight-out neogenesis.
»

That’s what I believed for a while, and I posted some stuff about not having to worry about yield and density as a result. However, these days, I’m leaning back toward the stimulation camp. Maybe I’ll flip back and forth a few more times before they release the results :slight_smile:

My problem with neogenesis is mostly in my understanding of the cells they use and the techniques they use to deliver them. But, I could very easily have insufficient information, so I won’t profess to know.

Personally, I don’t believe the one-off post that kicked this thread off. But as far as stimulation vs. neogenesis, I don’t think it matters much at this point as long as it works. With a good protocol, either way, we get our hair back.

52

»
» 13. Would new hair grow in the same direction as the old?
»
» In the ICX-TRC procedure we are not transplanting hair follicles, instead
» we are implanting cells into the skin which induce new hair growth, so
» there is no reason for these hairs to grow in a different direction from
» before.
»

Actually there is a reason. Every study ever performed has shown that neogenesis results in hair emerging from the skin at varying directions. OTOH, stimuation emerges in the same direction of the original follicle.

But that might not be the end of the story, because Dr. Gho says when his FM/HST grafts grow new end bulbs, the process causes the hair to re-orient itself in a more natural direction than it was implanted at. But judging from his photos, I think once-in-a-while the grafts actually disorient themselves. However, if his grafts mostly re-orient themselves to a natural direction, it could be a good sign that ICX has figured out a way to get around the directionality problem that has plagued other researchers’ earlier studies?

53

» I’ll leave it at that.
»
»
» No, the hell I won’t.
»
»
»
» What are the chances of someone who has an “aquaintance” who WORKS AT
» INTERCYTEX, who just happens to know about THIS MESSAGE BOARD on an
» relatively obscure HM forum WHO HAS NEVER POSTED HERE BEFORE (but
» apparantly has ghosted for a while) just casually mentioning what an ICX
» employee has revealed ABOUT A TRIAL WITH PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AT STAKE
» when there are compeditors who would love to know ICX’s methods? Then this
» same aquaintance WHO HAS NEVER POSTED HERE BEFORE just looks up this
» website for the hell of it, and gives us all a heads up because he just
» knows that a bunch of guys out there in cyberspace with an exaggerated
» interest in hair would LOVE TO KNOW ICX’s success or failure in this
» trial. So this “aquaintance”, out of the kindness of his heart, goes
» through the rigamorole of creating a screename, makes up a password, types
» it twice, creates an account, signs in and starts a brand new thread out of
» sypathy HERE, but not at HairlossBALK or HairlossBelp or any of the other
» hairlosssites?
»
»
» Would the aquainted “employee” be in any trouble for releasing any info
» early to a mere “aquaintance”?
»
»
»
» Odifourous…I want a peppermint lolipop for my
» nose’s sake.

IMO, one would have to be pretty gullible to believe the post is authentic. It’s actually a little funny, because not so long ago when Nathan posted, it was an obvious ploy, so I stated it as such. But most of the posters here swore up and down he was for real and HM was coming in 2007. If people haven’t learned yet how to spot a ploy, they need to pay attention to this one, because it has all the classic attributes.

Here is the golden rule: “One-off posts claiming inside info are complete BS.” I was right about Nathan and the 25 guys like him that came before him. I’m also right about this guy.

54

» Who is JoeBobBriggs? Is it an old forum’s member? Does anyone know
» JoeBobBriggs? how many posts did Joe write?

Good question. For a good laugh, let’s take a look at his user information. Note that he registered on hairsite shortly before he posted his “inside information.” Come on you guys, you have to stop being so gullible.

User info: JoeBobBriggs

User name:

JoeBobBriggs

Name:

E-mail:

Homepage:

Location:

Registered since:

08.07.2007, 18:41

Posts:

3 [ Show posts ]

Profile:

Signature:

55

» » » However, lately the consensus is that it’s a
» » COMBINATION OF BOTH, and probably more straight-out neogenesis.
» »
»
» That’s what I believed for a while, and I posted some stuff about not
» having to worry about yield and density as a result. However, these days,
» I’m leaning back toward the stimulation camp. Maybe I’ll flip back and
» forth a few more times before they release the results :slight_smile:

If it is pure stimulation, one would EXPECT there to be no variability of direction, and that direction of the HM follicles would be perfect – i.e., the same as before the hair was lost.

If it’s just neogenesis, or a combination of neogenesis and stimulation, one would expect variability of direction – i.e., imperfect direction of the HM follicles, not the same as before the hair was lost.

I think we will see evidence that it’s a combination of both.

56

This whole post really made me think: we ARE desperate men… we don’t give a damn about hair direction, color, etc, just so we have some semi-dense strands to comb. Sigh.

» I am posting because I recently had dinner with somebody who is connected
» to Intercytex. My acquaintance tells me they are having promising results
» from Phase II volunteers. At this point it appears ICX-TRC will be very
» good for the crown and vertex, but not for the hairline. The main problem
» is that the hair direction is too unpredictable. However, I was very
» pleased with what he had to say about density. I cannot reveal too much
» because then it would compromise his identity, but my friend claims all
» volunteers have had significant (i.e., 60%) growth of the injections in a
» small area that was previously completely bald.
»
» -JoeBobBriggs

57

» » Still, i think the statement from JoeBobBriggs is weird since TRC
» » is supposed to rejuvenate hair instead of creating new follicules. All
» of
» » this is weird anyway.
»
» Fatal, this business about TRC “rejuvenating” hair is a MYTH!!!
»
» Honestly, I don’t know how or where this BS started, but they never said
» for sure they were only “rejuvenating” dormant hair follicles. I think
» this is a complete myth that was spread here on HairSite, by people
» posting here who just don’t know what they’re really talking about. They
» said it was “rejuvenation”, but that was just their own theory, and then
» the theory spread far and wide so that lots of people just assumed it was
» true. These people made a big ASSUMPTION and their assumption was
» WRONG!!
»
» Please read the post by damon, above, where he quotes Dr. Kemp.
»
» TRC is not just “rejuvenating” dormant hairs. They NEVER verified that
» they’re doing this, and more likely, according to their own admissions
» lately, TRC accomplishes a mixture of both some rejuvenation (really,
» regeneration) and some FOLLICULAR NEOGENESIS. (Most likely, in my opinion,
» it is mostly follicular neogenesis).
»
» I do however want to point out one inconsistency in what Dr. Kemp said:
»
»
» "13. Would new hair grow in the same direction as the old?
»
» “In the ICX-TRC procedure we are not transplanting hair follicles, instead
» we are implanting cells into the skin which induce new hair growth, so
» there is no reason for these hairs to grow in a different direction from
» before.”
»
» Note that the answer he gave here is not logical. He says in ICX-TRC they
» are not transplanting follicles, but injecting cells, therefore there’s no
» reason for the hairs to grow in a different direction from before. That
» does not follow logically from his first premise. On the contrary, we
» know that in HT, where follicles are transplanted, the follicles CAN be
» made to grow in the proper direction. Direction, if it becomes an issue
» anywhere, is much more likely to be a crapshoot when injecting cells, not
» when transplanting follicles.
»
» I think that Dr. Kemp was just talking off the top of his head
» (literally?) here, and not really thinking through his answer. So, I
» think that this particular answer can be written off as an impromptu slip
» of the tongue, or a mistake, by Dr. Kemp. However, Dr. Kemp’s other
» answers (posted by damon above) are much more revealing and informative,
» because he appears to be reasoning them out and speaking from actual
» knowledge.
»
» Finally, regarding Brad Pitt, I’m not talking about the “perfection” of
» his hair. Yes, his hair may be perfect, but look at how he wears it most
» of the time – cut very short, so that direction doesn’t matter so much.

i always thought HM would rather rejuvenate hair than creating new ones from scratch. Although i don’t know tissue engineering nor cells manipulation, it appears logical to me. The hair whose cycling has been affected by MPB just start over again on a regular basis when injected with cells, which constitue somehow the “fuel”. From my point of view, creating new follicles would require a more complex approach, it would require to rbe able to completly build the organic structure of an hair shaft. Considering that hypothesis, injecting the suff on someone elbow, shoulder knees or toes would gorw a tuft of hair then ? It looks much more complicated to me than just signaling the existing miniaturized hair to start cycling normally again. Also, i remember that Intercytex look for regenration first, and seemed to check if there were neogenesis optionnally. Anyway, i hope there won’t be problems with the direction, otherwise…mmmmm…

58

» » HAy guess whjat guyz! My sisters, boyfriends, cousins brother is Paul
» » Kemps paperboy and he says TRC grows all your hair back with one
» » injection, costs £10 and you get a free lollipop as well!
»
» LOL. So basically what you’re saying is that it’s too easy for someone to
» come to HairSite and make up a story like this. True, but think of the
» flip-side. It is EXACTLY as easy for a person to come to HairSite to make
» up a lie, as it is for them to come to HairSite and tell the truth about a
» real incident. No easier. No harder.
»
» Now, assuming that Intercytex has more than one employee, it stands to
» reason that these employees will have friends and acquaintances. And
» that, even if these friends and acquaintances don’t know about HairSite at
» first, all they have to do is Google “Intercytex” and they’ll come up with
» a million posts – on this forum. Then all they have to do is come here
» and post about it.
»
» We have to also assume that people are people, and that not everyone
» “connected with Intercytex” will walk around mute all day, refusing to say
» a word about the company.
»
» So, in objectively assessing the likelihood of this person’s telling the
» truth, and not knowing this guy personally, I would have to say that it’s
» premature to label it rubbish. It’s at least as likely, right now, that
» he’s telling the truth as that he’s fabricating a story.
»
» I’m not saying he’s definitely telling the truth, just that we can’t jump
» to conclusions. Sit back, don’t get your hopes up too high about this
» one post, but also keep an open mind! “TELL A BIG ENOUGH LIE OFTEN ENOUGH AND PEOPLE WILL BELEIVE YOU” NAZI PROPAGANDA.

59

Fatal, when thinking about this I always recall BioAmide’s experiments back around 2000, where they implanted donor-area cells into the non-hirsute skin behind the ears of test subjects (i.e., the post-auricular space). This is an area that never grows terminal hairs, so there is never any hair cycling there like on the hirsute parts of the scalp.

The BioAmide experiments were successful, and new terminal hairs grew. And obviously, they weren’t stimulating dormant, miniaturized follicles that were affected by MPB.

Experiments like this, along with others conducted by Jahoda and Reynolds, etc., seem to indicate that there is follicular neogenesis going on. The principal researchers don’t seem to disagree. Most of them have said that there seems to be some follicular neogenesis happening.

I see the two phenomena – follicular neogenesis and stimulation of miniaturized MPB follicles – as simply two manifestations of the same cellular mechanism. They’re not mutually exclusive. I think both are happening together. Time will tell, but even Dr. Kemp seems to agree with this hypothesis, from some of his statements.

Also, Dr. Washenik and Aderans specifically call their procedure “follicular neogenesis”. It seems they are confident that new follicles are being created.

By the way, I am not drawing any distinction between the ICX procedure and the Aderans procedure. I don’t think they’re fundamentally different. Aderans has talked about using bioabsorbable, chemical “scaffolds” to hold the cells in place (actually these are microscopic polymers which presumably are injected right along with the cells). But in most descriptions of Aderans’ procedure (where they’ve called it “follicular neogenesis” – as in the Wired magazine article a while back), there is little or no mention of the scaffolds.

In any event, the use of scaffolds indicates that the injected cells have a tendency to aggregate together to form brand new follicles. I don’t think the scaffolds are necessary to induce this phenomenon – they just ensure that it happens easier and more reliably, so that the “yield” per injection is higher.

Working backwards by induction from their use of scaffolds, we can induce that injected donor cells do have a tendency to coalesce and form brand new follicles, under the right conditions.

Thus, a valid inference from the above is that so-called rejuvenation (i.e., regeneration) of existing, miniaturized follicles, is not the exclusive means by which HM works.

60

» If it is pure stimulation, one would EXPECT there to be no variability of
» direction, and that direction of the HM follicles would be perfect –
» i.e., the same as before the hair was lost.
»
» If it’s just neogenesis, or a combination of neogenesis and stimulation,
» one would expect variability of direction – i.e., imperfect direction of
» the HM follicles, not the same as before the hair was lost.
»
» I think we will see evidence that it’s a combination of both.

As Kemp said, it very well could turn out to be both. But I do find it interesting that he also stated he can see no reason why the direction won’t be normal. As you pointed out, that is an inconsistency in his statements. Thus, I tend to believe that we have insufficient information at this point to be certain how the ICX procedure works. It is just too difficult to make a call when Kemp himself states he is uncertain how it works and then goes on to make mechanically inconsistent statements about the procedure.