Intercytex Phase II Trials Prove Hair Cloning Now Possible

One of the more discouraging aspects of Intercytex’s financial struggles is that their results are so promising. We now know that the Phase II clinical study of Intercytex’s pioneering work in hair cloning techologies has been a tremendous success. The study was conducted by Dr Bessam Farjo in Manchester, UK, and involved the removal of dermal papilla cells from a patient, the multiplication of those cells in a lab, and then the re-insertion of those cells on the patient’s scalp. Dermal papilla cells are cells at the base of a hair follicle that help make keratin, the tough, fibrous, insoluble protein out of which hair is made.


In simple language: The scientists are attempting to grow limitless amounts of a patient’s own hair follicles in a lab and then “re-seed” a bald head with them. This overcomes the inherent limitations of even advanced transplantation techniques — which is the limited number of hairs available from a patient’s head to transplant.

On his website, Dr. Farjo summarized the results of this exciting clinical trial. As you can see, the results are very encouraging.

This trial was designed to examine the effect of different DP [dermal papilla] delivery techniques and methods to ensure that the epidermal cells were in the correct state to respond to the signals and produce new hairs.

In this study, subjects were injected 900 times with 1µl aliquots of DP cells in a large area which was photographed at the end of the study. Subjects were also injected in a smaller area, divided into two sections - counts were obtained by shaving and photographing the two small sections of scalp, injecting them multiple times (either 1 injection of 50 µl or 50 injections of 1 µl) with living DP cell suspension and then applying a specialised image analysis system to provide a total hair count. In these small sections, all 19 subjects in the trial were treated using a range of injection and scalp pre-stimulation techniques; the first 6 subjects were injected without stimulation of the scalp. In the remaining 13 subjects the resident hair producing (epithelial) cells were stimulated at the time of delivery of the DP cells in one of the two treatment sites.

13 subjects completed the 48-week trial with 6 subjects lost to follow-up. Of the 13 subjects completing the trial the data showed that:

65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes

71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter

78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes

100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter

The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the stimulated areas was

o 40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes

o 18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 micron in diameter

The larger (900 injection) area photographs have not yet been analysed.

These data are consistent with the interim data reported last September and further confirm the hypothesis that new hair production is improved by pre-stimulation of the scalp, leading to an interaction between the injected cells and the resident hair producing cells.