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

Why don\'t we have anything real yet from ICX?


#1

Phase II trials, mid-2008 word, percentages, scalp stimulation . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

Man, we’re talking about a multi-million-dollar operation that is supposed to be in the final stages of testing the biggest cosmetic surgery advancement in our lifetimes.

We get these results on figures like 6 patients in a trial?
Only small sections of scalp that have actually been injected?

I’m not looking for a few more specific answers/reasonings/justifications for any of the individual points that I’m raising here. We’ve had more than enough of that for years already.

When you just stand back from the table for a minute and stop to THINK about all this, doesn’t it seem a little ridiculous that ICX is supposed to be so close to the market and they have so little to show off?

Would it just be too gddmn straightforward of them to actually grow one single person’s whole head of hair back during all these years of clinical trials? Or to inject a little more than a half-dozen people for their trial groups? Or to inject a few people with multiple passes in the same spot and then grow the hair a couple inches out to look at?

I just see us making every excuse under the sun for ICX’s “indiosyncracies” but no real justifications for all the cloak & dagger stuff.

Why can’t they just hold up one single result that 10 out of 10 people off the street would agree are the real deal? Why not ONCE? Hell, we all know it would do more for their stock prices than everything else they’ve done so far put together.

It begs some very uncomfortable questions, doesn’t it?


#2

» Phase II trials, mid-2008 word, percentages, scalp stimulation . . . blah,
» blah, blah . . .
»
» Man, we’re talking about a multi-million-dollar operation that is supposed
» to be in the final stages of testing the biggest cosmetic surgery
» advancement in our lifetimes.
»
» We get these results on figures like 6 patients in a trial?
» Only small sections of scalp that have actually been injected?
»
»
»
»
» I’m not looking for a few more specific answers/reasonings/justifications
» for any of the individual points that I’m raising here. We’ve had more
» than enough of that for years already.
»
» When you just stand back from the table for a minute and stop to THINK
» about all this, doesn’t it seem a little ridiculous that ICX is supposed
» to be so close to the market and they have so little to show off?
»
» Would it just be too gddmn straightforward of them to actually grow one
» single person’s whole head of hair back during all these years of clinical
» trials? Or to inject a little more than a half-dozen people for their
» trial groups? Or to inject a few people with multiple passes in the same
» spot and then grow the hair a couple inches out to look at?
»
»
»
» I just see us making every excuse under the sun for ICX’s
» “indiosyncracies” but no real justifications for all the cloak & dagger
» stuff.
»
» Why can’t they just hold up one single result that 10 out of 10 people off
» the street would agree are the real deal? Why not ONCE? Hell, we all know
» it would do more for their stock prices than everything else they’ve done
» so far put together.
»
» It begs some very uncomfortable questions, doesn’t it?
You search a reason on a forum? We don’t know nothing like you, post like this are useful only if you write directly to who are working on what you want to know… write to icx, every day… and wait for an answer…

ps
they can say nothing about the study… if this work well, they have no reason for say every day this, when the product comes out, they say all what peolpe have to know for buy this…


#3

in a perfect world that would be the easiest answer, however to me it still seems like they are in the research phase and trying to work out the kinks.

who knows what the hell they are doing at this point. summer of next year we should have a better idea of if it’s even worth discussing anymore. right now it just looks ‘hopeful’ to me and thats only because ‘technically’ it works.


#4

I heard Dr. Farjo is also involved in this phase 2 clinical trials.

Probably someone in UK can try to extract some information from him?


#5

» I heard Dr. Farjo is also involved in this phase 2 clinical trials.
»
» Probably someone in UK can try to extract some information from him?

I’ve given up phoning them.I now shave my hair down,less looks more,but I would still like more hair.

The Farjo Clinic do occassionally give a bit of information out.I think its depends who answers the phone.I once had a lengthy conversation with Lesley,whos dealing with HM there,shes Dr Farjo’s helping hand.

The telephone nomber is 0044(0)870 7555 495

Good luck


#6

» Phase II trials, mid-2008 word, percentages, scalp stimulation . . . blah,
» blah, blah . . .

» It begs some very uncomfortable questions, doesn’t it?

Quite some time ago I stated that people should expect from ICX pretty much what we saw from Gho. People freaked out on Gho, but the truth is, you are watching bleeding edge startup companies attempt to cure a very complex disease. What you see is exactly how these processes are typically carried out. Of course the researchers are optimistic about their procedures. Of course they repeatedly miss their timelines. Of course the experiments progress more slowly than prospective patients wish. Of course the earlier phase trials tests are limited to small areas of the scalp. There are logical reasons for all of this, but they are lengthy to explain. The best way to understand what is going on is to look at any other startup company attempting to bring a bleeding edge medical product to the marketplace. Gho holding and Intercytex are no different. They are everyday average startup companies trying to realize a dream. The only reason they seem more important to you than other bleeding edge medically related startup companies is because they are/were working toward curing the disease that personally afflicts you.

Sometimes I get the feeling people think HM is above the medical law. It isn’t. It abides by the same laws of physics that any other promising new treatment must abide by. There is no guarantee that it is going to work. And in truth, the biggest hurdle standing in its way is not medically related; it is monetarily related. A company must conserve its resources and turn a profit by a certain date or it fails. That is the harsh business reality that Gho was met with that bankrupted his company and killed his HM dream.

Gho’s failure was a result of HM being extremely difficult to perform consistently; thus, investors who wanted a quick profit were reluctant to fund it long enough to allow it to come to fruition. The promise of Intercytex is not that it has better smarter scientists than Gho. The fact is that it doesn’t. The promise of Intercytex is that it has more scientists (diversity in thought), more product lines (diversity in potential profit), has better funding, and most importantly it has a much better/more robust business model (including prior expertise and experience by those that guide the company).

Why is it difficult to get HM to work consistently? Each person is bio-chemically unique. With HT you have a big hunk of tissue you move from the back of the head to the front. Thus it is easier to get somewhat consistent. You can think of HT as the macroscopic/surgical world. Mankind is more capable in the macroscopic/surgical world because it is more straightforward and it has been around for a very long time.

HM is different in that it exists in the microscopic/cellular world. You can think of this duality in a similar manner as Newtonion-Einsteinian physics vs. Quantum physics. Both exist harmoniously to make up the universe, but each represents a very different mechanical model, and it is difficult to understand how the two extremes fit together to form a single entity. The world of the very large and the world of the very small are in truth a single entity, yet they appear to be as unique from one another as a plant is to the moon.

So what are the implications of HM being a microscopic/cellular-based science? For one, HM has a lot more in common with drug medicine than it does with macroscopic/surgical techniques like HT. And what does science at the drug medicine level bring us? It brings inconsistency; so the results are typically measured by percentages of those who respond well and those who don’t. And even in those who respond well, there is typically a lot of variation in result outcomes.

Of course, HM has as much not in common with drug medicine than it has in common with it, but my point is that in order to understand why a company like the old Gho Clinic or Intercytex have gone down roads they have traveled is not because there is something wrong with them. It is because there is something right with them. It is important to realize that HM has very little in common with HT, so one cannot try to fit a round peg into a square hole in an attempt to explain it away.

The best way to explain it is that what you have seen from Gho in the past and what you are now seeing from Intercytex and Aderans is exactly what you should be expecting from these companies at this stage of the game. There is absolutely nothing out of place here. But in order to fully appreciate this, you need to realize that there are no guarantees here. Nobody is guaranteeing you that HM will be here by such and such date. Right now HM arriving in the next 5 years looks extremely promising. However, there is also a possibility that it will never see the light of day. So Intercytex wisely chooses to conserve its resources and keep experimenting as cost effectively as possible while it attempts to radically alter our future.

As for whether it would be too much to ask for ICX to restore a single head? I’ve thought about that a little more lately and decided, yes. It is way to early in the game. Why waste time and resources restoring 100 cm^2 on a single scalp when the same time, money, and intellectual resources could restore 1 cm^2 on 6 patient heads and satisfy a portion of the required regulations for bringing this to market? The potential profit in HM is not in making it work for one out of a million balding people and leaving the other 999,999 people bald. The potential profit is making it work consistently on 999,999 out of a million people and leaving the other 1 person bald.

The only way I see restoring a single head as being useful is if a company is running out of money and wants to try to raise some WOW income from the general public (as opposed to VC). But doing so will take time and money, so it would only be useful under duress. Personally, I think Gho would be the best candidate to do something of this nature right now, but he is probably too scientifically intelligent to do so. IOW, he knows restoring one head is fairly meaningless in the grand scope of the game as far as marketing a consistent procedure is concerned. It’s an expensive gimmick, and even the best results would not be without flaw. And if it were done, it would be a radical departure from standard scientific protocol and risks bringing criticism of one’s scientific credibility (where are the independent double-blind placebo control trials published in a major peer-reviewed medical journal?). If I were Gho, I would do it, as he is a radical out of the box thinker, but I think ICX should stick to mainstream scientific protocol and try to get this thing out as soon as possible.

The point is, you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk, so don’t expect HM to hit the streets in 2008. It just is not going to happen. Even the 2010 timeline is pretty optimistic and is described by ICX as being the “earliest possible release.” For those that don’t believe we have a while to wait yet, I suggest taking a look at ICX’ history of timeline announcements and when they have actually met these milestones.


#7

good post. well they miss their timelines but they make progress. you are probably right and it will be 2011 or 2012 as the earliest date where it could come out.


#8

Yes, very good post.

I didn’t really mean to raise “sinister” questions about ICX with my original question. I still get the feeling that ICX is basically on the up & up, just that they’re misleadingly optimistic. (And think they knowingly mislead sometimes. Lying by ommission for example.)

I just think we’re missing the forest for the trees with this 2008 and 2010 talk.

We’ve seen no photogenic shots of ANYTHING from ICX yet whatsoever, they’re not sure whether they’re really regrowing any new follicles or just reawakening old ones, they’re experimenting with only a few people at a time, and their consistency rates are all over the map.

These just are not indications of a company that is gonna be putting any new hairs onto the heads of working-class stiffs like us within two or three years. I wish the general attitude would get a little more realistic around here.


#9

» These just are not indications of a company that is gonna be putting any
» new hairs onto the heads of working-class stiffs like us within two or
» three years. I wish the general attitude would get a little more
» realistic around here.

I agree. You and I will not see the opportunity to have our heads restored with HM by the year 2010.

But a few lucky souls might.


#10

I have refrained for a few weeks from commenting

you guys keep saying,we have to listen to what ICX tells us in order to judge the progress of their results

therein lies the dilemma
of course they are not going to come out and pooh pooh their own results

lets play devils advocate here and lets just say that ICX is acutely aware that
they do not have a marketable product. Their years of research have not produced
viable growing hair that would be cosmetically acceptable. Sure they could admit it, or they could have an optimistic attitude and hope that they will someday in the near future achieve this goal. Meanwhile, will they admit to the general public that at this point in time they have nothing? Nope.

This would kill the funding, if they have stock, it would plummet. So the best option they have is to give fuzzy release dates, fuzzy data that is hard to come right out and say they are lying, Just do not give hair counts, give “percentage regrowth”, do not give numbers of terminal hairs regrown, and for gods sake never take any pictures.

I am not saying ICX is a scam company. I just do not think that Hair Multiplication is as simple or achievable as they or anyone else hoped it would be.

Will it come to fruition some day, Maybe . But at this point I dont think we are even ten years out.


#11

Thanks James Bond, as usual, the most informative read on the HM forum.


#12

you might not like it and you might not like him, but rassman is right. before icx he said about 30 years away, now where we have intercytex he says about 10 years away. sounds logical to me.

he migth be a bad ht surgeon and he might want hm not to come out but his predictions are good.

james bond says about the same.


#13

YOU’RE RIGHT Hangingthere!!!

Actually, as you say, they are just above the lieing line. They do that just to keep investors and not to be sue.

Most of the people here are above 25 and I guess most of them work for private company I mean not the government. Just watch what private companies can do to make money. Just think about Isolagen selling a scrap to the public, they can do anything.

I not saying also that ICX is a scam, I’m just saying that TRC doesn’t work as they expected. But so far, they succeed a lot with SKN and by the way it’s in the POPULAR SCIENCE magasin as one of the best invention of the year. Hopefully it would have been TRC but it’s SKN.

» I have refrained for a few weeks from commenting
»
» you guys keep saying,we have to listen to what ICX tells us in order to
» judge the progress of their results
»
» therein lies the dilemma
» of course they are not going to come out and pooh pooh their own results
»
» lets play devils advocate here and lets just say that ICX is acutely aware
» that
» they do not have a marketable product. Their years of research have not
» produced
» viable growing hair that would be cosmetically acceptable. Sure they could
» admit it, or they could have an optimistic attitude and hope that they will
» someday in the near future achieve this goal. Meanwhile, will they admit to
» the general public that at this point in time they have nothing? Nope.
»
» This would kill the funding, if they have stock, it would plummet. So the
» best option they have is to give fuzzy release dates, fuzzy data that is
» hard to come right out and say they are lying, Just do not give hair
» counts, give “percentage regrowth”, do not give numbers of terminal hairs
» regrown, and for gods sake never take any pictures.
»
» I am not saying ICX is a scam company. I just do not think that Hair
» Multiplication is as simple or achievable as they or anyone else hoped it
» would be.
»
» Will it come to fruition some day, Maybe . But at this point I dont think
» we are even ten years out.


#14

» you might not like it and you might not like him, but rassman is right.
» before icx he said about 30 years away, now where we have intercytex he
» says about 10 years away. sounds logical to me.
»
» he migth be a bad ht surgeon and he might want hm not to come out but his
» predictions are good.
»
» james bond says about the same.

As I stated earlier, Rassman has absolutely no specialized training in cell therapy. He is the absolute last person you should ever look to for advice about HM–current or future. He is a HT surgeon. So feel free to ask him about HT, but please don’t look to him for advice in a field (HM) that he knows absolutely nothing about.

Here is what Rassman wrote about HM (April 2005). I’ll put a few comments in parenthesis.

"The hair cloning issue keeps coming up because it seems to be promoted by some unscrupulous people who use the cloning ‘card’ as a way to elevate their own position of authority in this business.”

Now that is funny, because Rassman is doing that in this post. By blaming others, he takes the suspicion off of himself. He goes on to claim:

“There is no cloning on the short-term horizon for hair, despite claims to the contrary. If and when the cloning problem for hair is solved from a research perspective that can be replicated , it will take legislation to make that reality into a clinical tool. Hair was first cloned by Jahoda in Scotland in the late 1980s. Since then, there is been a relatively long silence in the industry on repeating his work. His report stands alone as a successful cloning experiment.”

That is totally inaccurate. Jahoda does not know how to clone anything. He is a cell therapy expert. As far as I know, he hasn’t performed a single cloning experiment. Rassman goes on to claim:

“Attempts to do this in mice and other animals have produced many dead animals in at least one study I have been told about. Attempts to do this in humans have met with failure after failure. Fortunately, no deaths have occurred. I would urge all of my readers to be cautious about the cloning option and look skeptically at anyone who promotes it at this time.”

Rassman has confused cell cloning with cell therapy. Yes, cloning experiments have lead to dead animals. But that is a totally different field than cell therapy. The truth is that cell therapy has been proven to be so safe that the FDA allows a special expedited process for it compared to developing new drugs.

Here is the extremely uniformed answer Rassman gave a year ago when asked why he thinks it will take 10 years just to clear the safety issues in HM:

" If he (a doctor) takes something out of your body (or even worse, from a mouse as you suggest) and then does something to it, following that by reinjecting it into you, then he is using a ‘drug’ which would then be covered under FDA regulations. Safety and effectiveness for a drug takes many years (15 on average) and cost about $800 million. Thousands of people must be tested and safety and effectiveness must be confirmed according to FDA rules and under FDA guidance. That is why I said 10 years. A cloned mouse hair on a human head fits that timeline for me, but if that happens on your head, be sure to stay away from cats."

Frankly, I am astonished by the misinformed nature of that statement. The FDA regulations for cell therapy and drug development are not one and the same. In fact, the FDA believes that cell therapy is so safe compared to drug development that it allows very small numbers of patients to take part in the clinical trials of cell therapy products compared to the large multi-thousand patient trials and the billion dollars it takes to bring a new drug to the marketplace. Also, the time necessary to complete a cell therapy trial is greatly reduced compared to a large billion-dollar drug trial. The reason small companies like ICX and ARI can get in the game and compete is because the time and cost necessary to develop a cell therapy treatment compared to developing a new drug is minimal. Furthermore, the notion that scientists are using mouse cells to grow hair on human heads has absolutely no merit. Rassman is most likely confused about cloned embryonic cell lines that are contaminated with mouse tissue. This has nothing to do with HM.

Please stop promoting Rassman as an authority and a guru on HM timelines. Nothing could be further from the truth. His expertise is as a surgeon, but the buck stops there.

My timeline predictions for HM and Rassman’s are radically different from one another. In each case, we are making predictions, thus both of our claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Please take special note that Rassman claimed 10 years—just to clear the safety issues, which is very different than 10 years away from being available to the public. And as far as I recall, I have never made the claim that it will take 10 years for HM to become available to the public.


#15

» you might not like it and you might not like him, but rassman is right.
» before icx he said about 30 years away, now where we have intercytex he
» says about 10 years away. sounds logical to me.
»
» he migth be a bad ht surgeon and he might want hm not to come out but his
» predictions are good.
»
» james bond says about the same.

You NEVER have a good post, like ever…its funny, you try so hard but your posts are always lame.


#16

ok, maybe he is wrong in every part. but his statements are a good conterpart to the guys who think hm comes out next year and is already perfect.

its good that he says 10 years away and people at least listen what he says even if they dont believe it. if only one guy thinks more realistic and takes his life how it is, then rassman is a good man and what he says is a good thing.

i frankly dont know anything about when HM will come out. but some in here think just coz people of farjo and icx “feel” good about it, it will be out 2008 and perfect.

» » you might not like it and you might not like him, but rassman is right.
» » before icx he said about 30 years away, now where we have intercytex he
» » says about 10 years away. sounds logical to me.
» »
» » he migth be a bad ht surgeon and he might want hm not to come out but
» his
» » predictions are good.
» »
» » james bond says about the same.
»
» As I stated earlier, Rassman has absolutely no specialized training in
» cell therapy. He is the absolute last person you should ever look to for
» advice about HM–current or future. He is a HT surgeon. So feel free to
» ask him about HT, but please don’t look to him for advice in a field (HM)
» that he knows absolutely nothing about.
»
» Here is what Rassman wrote about HM (April 2005). I’ll put a few comments
» in parenthesis.
»
» “The hair cloning issue keeps coming up because it seems to be promoted by
» some unscrupulous people who use the cloning ‘card’ as a way to elevate
» their own position of authority in this business.”
»
» Now that is funny, because Rassman is doing that in this post. By blaming
» others, he takes the suspicion off of himself. He goes on to claim:
»
» “There is no cloning on the short-term horizon for hair, despite claims to
» the contrary. If and when the cloning problem for hair is solved from a
» research perspective that can be replicated , it will take legislation to
» make that reality into a clinical tool. Hair was first cloned by Jahoda in
» Scotland in the late 1980s. Since then, there is been a relatively long
» silence in the industry on repeating his work. His report stands alone as
» a successful cloning experiment.”
»
» That is totally inaccurate. Jahoda does not know how to clone anything. He
» is a cell therapy expert. As far as I know, he hasn’t performed a single
» cloning experiment. Rassman goes on to claim:
»
» “Attempts to do this in mice and other animals have produced many dead
» animals in at least one study I have been told about. Attempts to do this
» in humans have met with failure after failure. Fortunately, no deaths have
» occurred. I would urge all of my readers to be cautious about the cloning
» option and look skeptically at anyone who promotes it at this time.”
»
» Rassman has confused cell cloning with cell therapy. Yes, cloning
» experiments have lead to dead animals. But that is a totally different
» field than cell therapy. The truth is that cell therapy has been proven to
» be so safe that the FDA allows a special expedited process for it compared
» to developing new drugs.
»
» Here is the extremely uniformed answer Rassman gave a year ago when asked
» why he thinks it will take 10 years just to clear the safety issues in
» HM:
»
» " If he (a doctor) takes something out of your body (or even worse, from a
» mouse as you suggest) and then does something to it, following that by
» reinjecting it into you, then he is using a ‘drug’ which would then be
» covered under FDA regulations. Safety and effectiveness for a drug takes
» many years (15 on average) and cost about $800 million. Thousands of
» people must be tested and safety and effectiveness must be confirmed
» according to FDA rules and under FDA guidance. That is why I said 10
» years. A cloned mouse hair on a human head fits that timeline for me, but
» if that happens on your head, be sure to stay away from cats.”
»
» Frankly, I am astonished by the misinformed nature of that statement. The
» FDA regulations for cell therapy and drug development are not one and the
» same. In fact, the FDA believes that cell therapy is so safe compared to
» drug development that it allows very small numbers of patients to take
» part in the clinical trials of cell therapy products compared to the large
» multi-thousand patient trials and the billion dollars it takes to bring a
» new drug to the marketplace. Also, the time necessary to complete a cell
» therapy trial is greatly reduced compared to a large billion-dollar drug
» trial. The reason small companies like ICX and ARI can get in the game and
» compete is because the time and cost necessary to develop a cell therapy
» treatment compared to developing a new drug is minimal. Furthermore, the
» notion that scientists are using mouse cells to grow hair on human heads
» has absolutely no merit. Rassman is most likely confused about cloned
» embryonic cell lines that are contaminated with mouse tissue. This has
» nothing to do with HM.
»
» Please stop promoting Rassman as an authority and a guru on HM timelines.
» Nothing could be further from the truth. His expertise is as a surgeon,
» but the buck stops there.
»
» My timeline predictions for HM and Rassman’s are radically different from
» one another. In each case, we are making predictions, thus both of our
» claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Please take special note that
» Rassman claimed 10 years—just to clear the safety issues, which is very
» different than 10 years away from being available to the public. And as
» far as I recall, I have never made the claim that it will take 10 years
» for HM to become available to the public.


#17

…and you to react to my post. maybe that was what i wanted?? :slight_smile:


#18

I agree about the cell cloning versus cell therapy issue. It is the linchpin of a TON of misunderstandings about HM efforts right now.

I don’t want to just keep bashing ICX with this thread. I actually do think ICX is very close to selling something and doing us all a world of good.

Even if we still don’t get the faster timelines coming true, just the more conservative predictions aren’t too far out of reach anymore. A kid who is losing his hair in high school right now can probably bet on being able to buy some kind of additional hair growth from HM by the time he’s in grad school. This stuff does seem to be on the horizon if you can wait a few more years and if you can afford it when it arrives.

But 2008?
Come on guys, that’s really jumping the gun.

People can get their hopes up all the want. But it’s not gonna give them a right to get new hair any sooner than the next guy who didn’t bother following HM’s development at all. HM gets here when it gets here.


#19

» you might not like it and you might not like him, but rassman is right.
» before icx he said about 30 years away, now where we have intercytex he
» says about 10 years away. sounds logical to me.
»
» he migth be a bad ht surgeon and he might want hm not to come out but his
» predictions are good.
»
» james bond says about the same.

you seem to hang on rassman’s every word. can you list one credential in HM he has that makes him sucha good source for HM’s release?


#20

Maybe we should set up a betting system for the avaiability of HM?

Who is in?