I totally understand your pessimism. We don't have any solid evidence at this time, either way. The Intercytex statement implies positive progress, but doesn't back it up with exciting data. However, the statement from Intercytex was aimed at shareholders and certainly intended to convey the message I've outlined. There is nothing in the statement that could be construed as particularly negative. If you're putting a negative spin on it then you're doing so based on emotion rather than evidence.
Intercytex is strictly a (small) research lab, and the government loan in 2006 was small & for very specific equipment. It was inevitable that Intercytex would have to take on appropriate aesthetic industry partners for rolling out a high potential cosmetic product such as this. They don't have the practitioner relationships or customer presence to do it any other way. Also, Intercytex doesn't have ANYTHING on the market yet, so it needs to keep costs down until its developments can go commercial. Therefore to protect the share price Intercytex needs to cut running costs by sharing the load with partners, which is exactly what it's doing.
In the absence of clear evidence all we can do is interpret events and statements. Given the current sources these are obviously going to have a positive bias. Previously we've had encouraging but very limited clinical data. On the face of it this new statement is a positive development indicating that ICX-TRC is now ready to attract a suitable partner and move toward more commecial development. That's all we really know...
Personally I do hope to see ICX-TRC first launched in about 5 years. Intercytex have already formally reported positive trial results (though in a vague way). If they're now confident that the completed Phase II trials have proved the efficacy of ICX-TRC such that it's a saleable business proposition, then that's a massive step forward! I think 5 years is a reasonable number, allowing 3 years for further trials then another 2 for govenment approvals & practioner training. Of course I'm just guessing, but from what I've read about the trial/approval process it seems those are reasonable timsecales.
The main reason I can think of for this not coming out on roughly that timescale is if it doesn't live up to expectations in further development. So I think this really all boils down to one question - how well does it work? Sadly, that's not something we're going to find out anytime soon.
Intercytex is strictly a (small) research lab, and the government loan in 2006 was small & for very specific equipment. It was inevitable that Intercytex would have to take on appropriate aesthetic industry partners for rolling out a high potential cosmetic product such as this. They don't have the practitioner relationships or customer presence to do it any other way. Also, Intercytex doesn't have ANYTHING on the market yet, so it needs to keep costs down until its developments can go commercial. Therefore to protect the share price Intercytex needs to cut running costs by sharing the load with partners, which is exactly what it's doing.
In the absence of clear evidence all we can do is interpret events and statements. Given the current sources these are obviously going to have a positive bias. Previously we've had encouraging but very limited clinical data. On the face of it this new statement is a positive development indicating that ICX-TRC is now ready to attract a suitable partner and move toward more commecial development. That's all we really know...
Personally I do hope to see ICX-TRC first launched in about 5 years. Intercytex have already formally reported positive trial results (though in a vague way). If they're now confident that the completed Phase II trials have proved the efficacy of ICX-TRC such that it's a saleable business proposition, then that's a massive step forward! I think 5 years is a reasonable number, allowing 3 years for further trials then another 2 for govenment approvals & practioner training. Of course I'm just guessing, but from what I've read about the trial/approval process it seems those are reasonable timsecales.
The main reason I can think of for this not coming out on roughly that timescale is if it doesn't live up to expectations in further development. So I think this really all boils down to one question - how well does it work? Sadly, that's not something we're going to find out anytime soon.
