Time for an interview with Kemp?

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

I’m on both sides of the fence. I want to know all about the current state of research but as a modest shareholder I want Intercytex to keep stum.

I was amazed when they announced scalp pre-stimulation improved hair growth. Although Intercytex didn’t say what they stimulated with, they still gave valuable research information away free to competitors. Anyone have any idea why? The relatively transparent time frame and research updates allows competitors to align their response.

Intercytex directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to behave commercially and protect assets. They currently don’t have any duty to us, even though most of us will be customers one day. We wouldn’t demand to know what McDonalds or Microsoft have in the research pipeline and we can’t really expect more of Intercytex.

Even as a shareholder, I’d still put information and hair before share price so I hope someone does compile a questionaire. How much Kemp can be expected to reveal is debatable. Mr SPQR’s point about HM working or not on scar tissue is of interest to me too. Any ideas?

22

n/t :stuck_out_tongue:

23

» n/t :stuck_out_tongue:

24

At some point in the past somebody from ICX went on record saying that existing HTs would not screw up their HM.

I think it hinges on the question about whether or not there are any new follicles being created by the HM work, or whether it’s giving 100% of its gains from reviving original follicles. (There seems to be agreement now that at least the majority of the HM gains are definitely revived existing follicles. The question is whether it’s most or all of them.)

If there are no new follicles being created then I think that would potentially hinder restorations on HT’d patients. How much depends on the patient’s work.

A heavily HT’d patient would be dealing with a recipient area that is full of original follicles that have probably been damaged by the insertion of the transplants. You’d probably be able to eventually get a decent amount of hair in there anyway (between the HM’d hairs and the existing transplanted hairs already there) but it would be an issue to think about.

And suppose the patient’s donor area is overly thinned from past HT work. Without the creation of all-new follicles I don’t see how HM could do anything about it. There would simply be no extra MPB-dormant original grafts in the donor area for the HM to revive. All the patient’s original-born grafts in the donor area are still growing, but after the HT work there’s a whole bunch of them that are literally just missing.

The blanket statement so far is basically “HT work will not interfere with the coming HM.” But I don’t think that’s enough talk on the issue by a long shot.