» yes I think they have groun hair, but I do not think it is in sufficient
» numbers or cosmetically acceptable enough to be of commercial use
»
» however in order to not flat out lie, and in order to keep the money from
» inverstors coming in, they slowly let the data trickle out, and they keep
» changing the dates of the release etc
»
» overall I think they are somewhat of a scam company, since they are not
» being totally forthright in their data and information they release,
» trying to cloak the data release under the guise of…trade secrets,
» when in reality it is just that the data is not that overwhelming
You make a lot of claims, but you don’t possess a single piece of physical evidence that can back up any of them. It appears to most of us that you sit around night-and-day and make this stuff up out of thin air. You really need to ask yourself whether you are practicing good judgment and whether your thoughts are grounded in reality. Being skeptical is one thing, but you really have taken this issue to extremes. So if you are adamant about invading our forum with an overabundance of negative posts , I politely ask that you provide evidence that can back up your assertions.
The problem with HM is not that it does not result in quality hair; it is that it has not been shown to “consistently” result in quality hair. IOW, it might work quite well for me but leave you as bald as a beet or vice-versa.
Here is what David–the owner of this website–had to say about the appearance of HM hair (after witnessing experimental human results with his own eyes):
"HAIRmultiplication patient results:
* The new hair growth as a result of HM treatment is totally natural and undetectable. It is impossible to tell that the test subject was a HM patient.
* There are no scars or anything unusual associated with the test patient's new hair growth.
* Hair direction is not an issue.
* Hair texture is not an issue.
* Hair color is not an issue.
* It is exactly like our normal growing hair."
Once again, the hair that grows looks very good. The problem is in getting each injection to consistently result in new hair.
Now if you want to critique HM, how about using some real facts. For instance, since ICX appears to be using a Gho-like protocol of stimulating existing follicles, how do we know this treatment will last long-term? IMO, the consistency issues could turn out to be due to variation in the patterns of migrating dermal cells in and out of the papilla due hair cycling issues.
Furthermore, Jahoda has added even more heat to the subject:
“This is a highly simplified model diagram because the exchange of cells between the papilla and sheath occurs at specific and different times of the hair cycle, as may the loss of cells from the follicle dermal sheath into the dermis. However, what it attempts to illustrate is the idea that movement of dermal cells may occur not only within the follicle but to the skin dermis as well, and that this may occur both in trauma situations and during the dynamic migratory phases of the hair cycle. Whether there is movement in the reverse direction, from the skin dermis to the dermal sheath, cannot be completely ruled out. However, this would seem unlikely since the follicle dermis appears to have unique developmental properties. Thus, McElwee’s paper, having raised the prospect of being able to augment follicle size by recruitment, is balanced by Tobin’s evidence of movement of dermal cells not only within the follicle, but outside to the dermis. In skin undergoing androgenetic alopecia, there is the possibility that the balance of migration is altered and incontinence of dermal sheath cells to the skin dermis leads to reduction in size of the dermal papilla, and in turn to miniaturization of the follicle structure. If this leakage is the result of signals from a dermal environment unique to this region of skin, then addition of cells by recruitment might only be postponing the inevitable.”
http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v121/n6/full/5602054a.html#fig1
On another note, over a decade ago, Jahoda used his cells to grow this hair in his wife’s arm (in a place where terminal hair does not normally grow). It is true that this technology is not exactly progressing at breakneck speeds. However, it is currently progressing at a decent clip as a result of recent interest and the heavy funding that has come into the equation as a result of the enormous potential for profit that this technique possesses.
BTW, ICX’ FAQ section states that TRC won’t be available until “2010 at the earliest.” So I am in complete agreement that people need to quit daydreaming about the “2008 release.”
