Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

The Report Could Be Worse

The report says the following:

“We believe the continued development of ICX-TRC would best be carried out in partnership with a
specialist in the aesthetics field. We do not intend to finance the continuation of clinical and commercial
development of ICX-TRC beyond the current Phase II trial and shall seek to sign a partner when we have
the complete data package from this trial.”

It could be worse: they might have abandoned continuing phase II trials.

Instead, they intend to complete the trial and then find a partner (unless, of course, the data from the end of the trial is discouraging).

Nothing’s over 'till it’s over.

And this is not over yet.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Rqte5w257C4

yup …

tis funny report actually, they say trc data is positive but they dont want to do phase iii

they then say they wont finance clinical and commerical developments beyond phase ii, if trc not going to come to market then why and what are they financing commercial development now then ? what r they going to commerialise after phase ii?

Ahab, the optimist??? Are you sure you’re not just trying to be different? :wink:

<>

,

» Ahab, the optimist??? Are you sure you’re not just trying to be
» different? :wink:

No.

This report didn’t devastate me because my expectations were more sober than others, so I am able to view this more dispassionately.

I didn’t let my imagination run away with me.

» » » Assuming a vague report is acceptable, and further assuming the
» results
» » » were actually great, they’d use words like “excellent”,
» » “revolutionary”,
» » » “astounding”, “superb” or maybe even “cure” in their report;
» » »
» » » If the results were average, the’d used words like “good”,
» » “noticeable”,
» » » “improved”;
» » »
» » »
» » » If the results were poor, they’d say “trials ongoing”, “more data
» needs
» » to
» » » be collected”, or "[insert your own bulls#it here].
» » »
» » » In my view, the only way the report could be worse is if the testing
» » » resulted in disfigurement to the subjects, in which case they’d use
» » » phrases like “testing has been discontinued at this time” or “we are
» » » currently under an administrative hiatus”, or some other vague
» » nonsense.
» » »
» » »
» » » This is how PR (public relations) is done.
» » »
» » » Ahab, the optimist??? Are you sure you’re not just trying to be
» » » different? :wink:
» »
» » how about this as a worse report alternative
» »
» » we are currently under investigation by the SEC for our accounting
» » methods, trading has been suspended on our stock
» »
» » :smiley: :smiley:
»
» Agreed. If the SEC is investigating British stocks that would surely be a
» concern.
»
» I don’t know about anyone else, but I kind of expected they wouldn’t have
» the cash to go to Phase III on their own. But as for the data, gotta agree
» we don’t have much to be excited about. Pretty non-specific.

Maybe they don’t want to go onto phase III for a reason other than money, maybe they think selling through a company like Bosley would be more accessible for people, or they would be better at marketing it, or they know it requires HT so they want to run trials with HT’s.

I don’t know, could be anything… just a thought.

»Ahab,’

IM pissed that the report isn’t including any pictures of this product and no statistical data.

As much as I hate to say it…them saying 13% increases to 103% increases in hair mean very very little

You need about 120 hairs per square inch for “decent” coverage, and 200 hairs per square inch for good coverage. People without MPB have more than this. If a man only has 20 hairs per square inch, then 40 hairs is a 200% of that if you wanted to parse words and be dishonest about it. That 103% responder might have only went from 20 hairs to 30 hairs in other words, not 20 to 40.

Even if they are playing it straight, and 10 hairs turned into 20 or 30 hairs turned into 60…This isn’t much. This is a company that was talking “unlimited amounts of hair” and all that jazz.

» »Ahab,’
»
» IM pissed that the report isn’t including any pictures of this product and
» no statistical data.
»
»
» As much as I hate to say it…them saying 13% increases
» to 103% increases in hair mean very very little
»
»
»
» You need about 120 hairs per square inch for “decent” coverage, and 200
» hairs per square inch for good coverage. People without MPB have more than
» this. If a man only has 20 hairs per square inch, then 40 hairs is a 200%
» of that if you wanted to parse words and be dishonest about it. That 103%
» responder might have only went from 20 hairs to 30 hairs in other words,
» not 20 to 40.
»
» Even if they are playing it straight, and 10 hairs turned into 20 or 30
» hairs turned into 60…This isn’t much. This is a company
» that was talking “unlimited amounts of hair” and all that jazz.

:frowning:

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.