| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
Their website says Phase II results “are expected during the first half of 2007”.
People here should stop panicking that they “missed another deadline”.
This DOES NOT mean they’re behind schedule. Look at the sentence again. It indicates that they would HAVE Phase II results during the first half of 2007. It doesn’t say anything about when those results would be made public.
interesting point of view
Good point, JTR. Like I’ve said before, Intercytex is only going to release info when they have as close to a slam-dunk as possible – anything else and they’d be in danger of scaring investors away.
» Their website says Phase II results “are expected during the first half of
» 2007”.
»
» People here should stop panicking that they “missed another deadline”.
»
» This DOES NOT mean they’re behind schedule. Look at the sentence again.
» It indicates that they would HAVE Phase II results during the first half of
» 2007. It doesn’t say anything about when those results would be made
» public.
» Their website says Phase II results “are expected during the first half of
» 2007”.
»
» People here should stop panicking that they “missed another deadline”.
»
» This DOES NOT mean they’re behind schedule. Look at the sentence again.
» It indicates that they would HAVE Phase II results during the first half of
» 2007. It doesn’t say anything about when those results would be made
» public.
JTR, I do NOT agree.
The ICX strategy was “inform investors and people about the progress on projects”.
If there are no information at the moment, it would say that or ICX missed the deadline or some other reasons (the results of trial 2.1 are not good as they would want, the strategy is changed,…).
However they missed the deadline in the sense they do NOT inform -as the website would do to mean- people about progress on TRC.
» JTR, I do NOT agree.
» The ICX strategy was “inform investors and people about the progress on
» projects”.
» If there are no information at the moment, it would say that or ICX missed
» the deadline or some other reasons (the results of trial 2.1 are not good
» as they would want, the strategy is changed,…).
» However they missed the deadline in the sense they do NOT inform -as the
» website would do to mean- people about progress on TRC.
Pat, at the risk of engaging in a circular argument over semantics (which you are already doing, badly):
First, where did you get that supposed quote about ICX’s “strategy”? I’m not doubting they said something to this effect, but it just doesn’t seem like a direct quote.
Just because they haven’t yet released this particular information, doesn’t mean they have violated the doctrine of keeping investors and others (what others?) informed.
After the collection of any data in clinical trials, a certain amount of time is necessary to analyze and interpret the data, and put it into a coherent report form, and to actually write and publish the reports. This may take anywhere from several weeks to several months.
Just because people in the public (like you) are impatient and want to see the results right away, does not mean that they have violated any promises or breached any deadlines. You are looking at this from a completely SUBJECTIVE point of view: your own.
You said “if there are no information at the moment”. This is ENTIRELY WRONG. There IS information; you just don’t see it.
You’re engaging in the logical fallacy of thinking that what cannot be seen with your eyes, does not exist!
Think of it this way. Let’s say you are going on a three-week holiday to Nepal. Before leaving, you tell your family, “I will keep in touch with you so you know I’m safe.”
When you get to Nepal, you first take a ride from the airport to the hotel. You check into the hotel. You have a meal. You wash up and go to bed because you have jet-lag. You wake up in the morning and inquire about mountain tours. You have breakfast. You go into town. You shop for souvenirs. You take some photos of Katmandu. You take a ride into the mountains. You speak to a mountain guide. You go hiking in the mountains. You have lunch. You talk to some locals. You take a ride back to your hotel.
You spend 4-5 days doing things like this, which are entirely NORMAL for a tourist traveling in Nepal. Then, after 6 days traveling and sightseeing in Nepal, you finally go to a cyber-cafe and email your friends and family and inform them of your progress.
Note that you HAVE NOT VIOLATED your promise to your friends and family to keep them informed. You just had “more important stuff to do”, like seeing Nepal, before you contacted them.
Maybe from the friends’ and family’s point of view, for 6 days, you were violating your “promise”, and they became very concerned, and maybe even angry, that you weren’t in touch with them. But that’s from their entirely SUBJECTIVE point of view!
Since it was you, not they, who made the original promise, we have to look at the “four corners” of your original promise, not other people’s interpretation of it, to determine whether it’s being kept.
ICX said it would keep investors and the public informed of their results. It didn’t say they would keep everyone informed IMMEDIATELY upon collecting the data!
JTR, you can always interpret sentence the way you wanna see it. But in this case they wouldn’t have written that to the whole public if they wanted it only for themself. Their website isn’t for them it’s a website for us. Because, after that they wrote in their report that they would have preliminary data in H2 and they only forgot to change the webpage, that’s all…
What happened is the following. They wrote this sentence last automn ( 2006 ) when they started phase II. It took more time to inject people because they started in january than the premilinary data went for end H1 to H2, that’s it.
» » JTR, I do NOT agree.
» » The ICX strategy was “inform investors and people about the progress on
» » projects”.
» » If there are no information at the moment, it would say that or ICX
» missed
» » the deadline or some other reasons (the results of trial 2.1 are not
» good
» » as they would want, the strategy is changed,…).
» » However they missed the deadline in the sense they do NOT inform -as
» the
» » website would do to mean- people about progress on TRC.
»
» Pat, at the risk of engaging in a circular argument over semantics (which
» you are already doing, badly):
»
» First, where did you get that supposed quote about ICX’s “strategy”?
»
» That’s not a strategy, and just because they haven’t yet released this
» particular information, doesn’t mean they have violated the doctrine of
» keeping investors and others (what others?) informed.
»
» After the collection of any data in clinical trials, a certain amount of
» time is necessary to analyze and interpret the data, and put it into a
» coherent report form, and to actually write and publish the reports.
» This may take anywhere from several weeks to several months.
»
» Just because people in the public (like you) are impatient and want to see
» the results right away, does not mean that they have violated any promises
» or breached any deadlines. You are looking at this from a completely
» SUBJECTIVE point of view: your own.
»
» You said “if there are no information at the moment”. This is ENTIRELY
» WRONG. There IS information; you just don’t see it.
»
» You’re engaging in the logical fallacy of thinking that what cannot be
» seen with your eyes, does not exist!
» JTR, you can always interpret sentence the way you wanna see it. But in
» this case they wouldn’t have written that to the whole public if they
» wanted it only for themself.
They don’t want it only for themselves. I’m not saying that. I said that we have to be careful not to read our own wishes, hopes and desires into what other people are saying.
In my line of work, I have learned that. But it’s also the same in life. One of the most common mistakes people make in interpersonal communication is reading their own subjective wishes into what someone else is saying. That doesn’t mean you don’t hold them to their word. It just means you have to analyze what they’re actually saying in an objective, detached fashion.
»
» What happened is the following. They wrote this sentence last automn (
» 2006 ) when they started phase II. It took more time to inject people
» because they started in january than the premilinary data went for end H1
» to H2, that’s it.
All that may be very true. It still doesn’t mean they’ve violated their promise to inform anyone. They never actually put a time frame on the length of time between collecting the data and PUBLICLY reporting it, that’s all.
Show me where they said, “Upon collecting data from the Phase II trials, or any part thereof, said data will be immediately reported to the public.”
I’m just saying that it’s wrong to accuse them of breaking a “deadline”, because in this particular instance – their promise to report Phase II data – there is no hard-and-fast deadline.
Again, they said they would HAVE results by the first half of 2007. They didn’t say they would REPORT those results by that time. (And also notice, they didn’t even say HOW MUCH of the Phase II results they would have by that time… all of the results, some of the results, or just a bit of the results.)
By the way, the above statement about when they would HAVE data is not just for their own consumption. It’s to give the public, and investors, a benchmark of their expected time frame for progress. Just knowing, in advance, that they would have Phase II data by mid-2007 is, for me, informative. Sure, it would be NICE to see that data immediately after they get it, but that wasn’t part of their promise.
Read their words carefully before slamming them for having violated a deadline.
» JTR, you can always interpret sentence the way you wanna see it. But in
» this case they wouldn’t have written that to the whole public if they
» wanted it only for themself. Their website isn’t for them it’s a website
» for us. Because, after that they wrote in their report that they would
» have preliminary data in H2 and they only forgot to change the webpage,
» that’s all…
»
» What happened is the following. They wrote this sentence last automn (
» 2006 ) when they started phase II. It took more time to inject people
» because they started in january than the premilinary data went for end H1
» to H2, that’s it.
QUOTE ALL.
I believe ICX-TRC will reach the objective, but at the moment they missed a deadline.
»
»
» » » JTR, I do NOT agree.
» » » The ICX strategy was “inform investors and people about the progress
» on
» » » projects”.
» » » If there are no information at the moment, it would say that or ICX
» » missed
» » » the deadline or some other reasons (the results of trial 2.1 are not
» » good
» » » as they would want, the strategy is changed,…).
» » » However they missed the deadline in the sense they do NOT inform -as
» » the
» » » website would do to mean- people about progress on TRC.
» »
» » Pat, at the risk of engaging in a circular argument over semantics
» (which
» » you are already doing, badly):
» »
» » First, where did you get that supposed quote about ICX’s “strategy”?
» »
» » That’s not a strategy, and just because they haven’t yet released this
» » particular information, doesn’t mean they have violated the doctrine of
» » keeping investors and others (what others?) informed.
» »
» » After the collection of any data in clinical trials, a certain amount
» of
» » time is necessary to analyze and interpret the data, and put it into a
» » coherent report form, and to actually write and publish the reports.
» » This may take anywhere from several weeks to several months.
» »
» » Just because people in the public (like you) are impatient and want to
» see
» » the results right away, does not mean that they have violated any
» promises
» » or breached any deadlines. You are looking at this from a completely
» » SUBJECTIVE point of view: your own.
» »
» » You said “if there are no information at the moment”. This is
» ENTIRELY
» » WRONG. There IS information; you just don’t see it.
» »
» » You’re engaging in the logical fallacy of thinking that what cannot be
» » seen with your eyes, does not exist!
JTR is correct
Take the phase 1 pics 4 example. When were the after shots taken ? summer 2004 . when were they made public ? summer 2007.
How long must it have taken the to the get the gov grant of almost £2M, at least 6 months i’d say. Did any of us had any idea this was gonna happen ? Not a sniff hey
Intercytex r miles ahead of everyone. It is up to them when they want to make their information public cos of commercial sensitivity.
Again, Intercytex is NOT going to inform anybody of their progress until they have excellent results on efficacy. They’re only going to inform for reasons having to do with marketing or legality. So let’s suppose they have very good results right now but think they can do better in the next wave of Phase II trialists. They’re going to wait until they have a slam-dunk that will skyrocket their value – if they just release with first-round Phase II good but not excelletn results then that could very well dampen the stocks even though they aren’t finished with all of Phase II.
» JTR, I do NOT agree.
» The ICX strategy was “inform investors and people about the progress on
» projects”.
» If there are no information at the moment, it would say that or ICX missed
» the deadline or some other reasons (the results of trial 2.1 are not good
» as they would want, the strategy is changed,…).
» However they missed the deadline in the sense they do NOT inform -as the
» website would do to mean- people about progress on TRC.
I will agree with JTR too.
They already have results. Remember the 2008 small scale commercialization possibility. That didn’t came out of nowhere, right. Think reasonably!
They have not missed the dateline yet guys. We are still on September, and as they have mentioned preliminary data is due to the second half of 2007! So consider as a deadline September the 30th.
But even if they miss the so called deadline would not matter. Intercytex is our only hope and we ought to be patience. The only thing we should bother with is if the results are as expected!
Let me make a prediction and bet that through phase II they are trying to find the best formula in order to go “small scale” commercial on 2008. :yes:
» I will agree with JTR too.
»
» They already have results. Remember the 2008 small scale commercialization
» possibility. That didn’t came out of nowhere, right. Think reasonably!
» They have not missed the dateline yet guys. We are still on September, and
» as they have mentioned preliminary data is due to the second half of 2007!
» So consider as a deadline September the 30th.
»
» But even if they miss the so called deadline would not matter. Intercytex
» is our only hope and we ought to be patience. The only thing we should
» bother with is if the results are as expected!
My opinion is NOT that they don’t have results. They have such results that at the moment they cannot/don’t want to publish. Differently from what they promised: first half 2007. Simply.
So, by definition, they litterally ‘missed a milestone’!
Excuse me for not a great mastery of english language, but it’s a ‘sillogismo’! ICX promised results of fase II for first half 2007, at 9th sept there are no results of fase II, thus they missed the milestone.
Not engaging in a circular argument over semantics, but demonstrating (very easy in this case 
) a theory: A>B, B>C so A>C
» My opinion is NOT that they don’t have results. They have such results
» that at the moment they cannot/don’t want to publish. Differently from
» what they promised: first half 2007.
Pat, how many times do I have to say it:
They NEVER promised the public would see their results in the first half of 2007.
They only promised they would HAVE results by the first half of 2007.
The statement was intended not to let us know when WE would see their results, but instead so that WE would know what their basic operating timeline is.
» So, by definition, they litterally ‘missed a milestone’!
»
» Excuse me for not a great mastery of english language, but it’s a
» ‘sillogismo’!
It’s not only that you don’t have a great mastery of the English language. Your English isn’t really that bad.
The problem with your argument, even though you cite a term from the study of logic (we call it a ‘syllogism’), is that there is absolutely no syllogism in what you are saying. Instead it’s a false syllogism, based on an inaccurate assumption created entirely by yourself.
Entonces, dejame explicarlo en español.
Nunca dijeron que nos darían los resultados de Phase II al fin de la primera mitad de 2007.
Dijeron que TENDRIAN unos resultados por esta fecha, nada más.
If you misread their statement because your understanding of written English is imperfect, I apologize. But the statement couldn’t have been more simple and straightforward.
This is the exact statement from their website: “Recruitment for Phase II clinical efficacy trial on patients with male pattern baldness has commenced in the UK with an initial cohort of up to 20 subjects which will be followed by variations in delivery technique in further similar sized cohorts. The trial is designed to demonstrate efficacy of ICX-TRC, the dosage regime and the delivery device. Preliminary data from this trial are expected during the first half of 2007.”
(Emphasis added)
NOTHING ELSE WAS SAID ABOUT PHASE II RESULTS.
THEY NEVER SAID THEY WOULD ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS TO THE PUBLIC IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY GOT THE RESULTS.
JTR, and I’ll close the discussion,
if I tell publishly that I’ll have results at a certain date, I’ll publish the results at the date. I’m a researcher. So, my assumption is based.
But they are opinions, good for making dialectical considerations (I think it was the aim of your post) waiting ICX results.
regards
» » My opinion is NOT that they don’t have results. They have such results
» » that at the moment they cannot/don’t want to publish. Differently from
» » what they promised: first half 2007.
»
» Pat, how many times do I have to say it:
»
» They NEVER promised the public would see their results in the first half
» of 2007.
»
» They only promised they would HAVE results by the first half of 2007.
»
» The statement was intended not to let us know when WE would see their
» results, but instead so that WE would know what their basic operating
» timeline is.
»
»
» » So, by definition, they litterally ‘missed a milestone’!
» »
» » Excuse me for not a great mastery of english language, but it’s a
» » ‘sillogismo’!
»
»
» It’s not only that you don’t have a great mastery of the English language.
» Your English isn’t really that bad.
»
» The problem with your argument, even though you cite a term from the study
» of logic (we call it a ‘syllogism’), is that there is absolutely no
» syllogism in what you are saying. Instead it’s a false syllogism, based
» on an inaccurate assumption created entirely by yourself.
» JTR, and I’ll close the discussion,
»
» if I tell publishly that I’ll have results at a certain date, I’ll publish
» the results at the date. I’m a researcher. So, my assumption is based.
OK, you’re a researcher and you are making that ASSUMPTION about other researchers.
But remember, these other researchers are also A COMMERCIAL ENTITY.
» » JTR, and I’ll close the discussion,
» »
» » if I tell publishly that I’ll have results at a certain date, I’ll
» publish
» » the results at the date. I’m a researcher. So, my assumption is based.
»
» OK, you’re a researcher and you are making that ASSUMPTION about other
» researchers.
»
» But remember, these other researchers are also A COMMERCIAL ENTITY.
Ok, but in this case YOU assume that they are HOVEWER rigth! strange demonstration!!
your assumption is weaker than mine!
Hey all,
Let’s close the discussion with this: JTR is right on this one. Intercytex never promised public release of results by H2 2007. And it’d be insane for them to release the data IF they thought they could improve the protocol significantly. This is true even assuming the results are very, very good. Why release a product on efficacy if you haven’t achieved efficacy yet? What good would that do except undermine the media blitz surrounding your new product release?
Best,
BB
» » » JTR, and I’ll close the discussion,
» » »
» » » if I tell publishly that I’ll have results at a certain date, I’ll
» » publish
» » » the results at the date. I’m a researcher. So, my assumption is based.
»
» »
» » OK, you’re a researcher and you are making that ASSUMPTION about other
» » researchers.
» »
» » But remember, these other researchers are also A COMMERCIAL ENTITY.
»
»
» Ok, but in this case YOU assume that they are HOVEWER rigth! strange
» demonstration!!
»
» your assumption is weaker than mine!
Pat, an assumption is no big deal. Every day of our lives, we engage in hundreds of tacit assumptions. I assume I can start driving again through a traffic intersection after stopping at a stop sign when I see other drivers stopping at the intersection after I stopped.
However, there are reasonable assumptions and unreasonable assumptions.
My assumption is based on a reasonable reading of their statement.
Your assumption is based on a preconceived bias that you have read INTO their statement.
Your assumption is both much bigger, and much less reasonable, than mine.
Hey PAT, are you Greek? Cause you mentioned the Greek word “sillogismos” means thought…
By the way, everybody is free to think and believe what he wants. So there is no point to make this discussion anymore. Things are clear enough for everybody to understand what has been stated by Intercytex.
» Hey PAT, are you Greek? Cause you mentioned the Greek word “sillogismos”
» means thought…
Imor, I’m italian. I’m a technician, but I like old latin and greek languages.
In these 2 languages there is the REAL meaning of mediterranean words.
I like also phylosophy. The first phylosophers were technicians.
»
» By the way, everybody is free to think and believe what he wants. So there
» is no point to make this discussion anymore. Things are clear enough for
» everybody to understand what has been stated by Intercytex.
QUOTE ALL. I interpreted the JTR’s considerations as a way to make a dialectical discussion waiting ICX-TRC results.
I agree: in fields different to mathemathics and science in general, everybody is free to think and believe what he wants.
Also in mathemathics and science, but fortunately in this case none is free to violate the logical rules of a demonstration.
I follow this forum rich of informations and interesting thoughts, as JTR’s.
best regard to all
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
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.