Scarless Healing

6,868 posts in this topic

Just curious, where does it say that the hydrogel was degraded after 21 days in mice? The only thing I can find on the matter seems to indicate that the hydrogel only took about 7 days to completely digest in mice.

With further adjustments to the hydrogel, it will hopefully produce the same results in pigs and ultimately humans that it did in mice. The sheer fact that complete regeneration of skin was provoked in a mammal is unprecedented in and of itself.

Edited by Bozo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right it was digested in 7days in mice and in 5days in pigs, the 21days is for the hair grow and glands in mice.

I think degradation rate should be in time, not too fast not too slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the mice experiment is a completely failed...far from the originally published data on PNAS

... Says who? If you're referencing the area in the most recently published article that says something along the lines of, "We saw very little difference between the treated and untreated wounds in the first test," it's referencing the first porcine test, not the original murine test that was published in the PNAS, as they carried out two separate porcine tests within the porcine study. The wording is a little bit weird, so I too was initially confused, but you can make sense of it if you read it in context.

Stepping away from the dextran hydrogel for a moment because that's simply going to be a matter of waiting to witness potential progress as they continue to optimize the hydrogel for larger mammals, here is a rather extraordinary treatment option for acne scars that I've been eyeing for a while but have yet to share because I've been busy. It's almost guaranteed to see some level of results. All patients with mild scarring were left with no visible atrophy, as well as some patients with moderate scarring. Even patients with severe scarring saw results, some improving by as much as two grades (from grade 4 to grade 2). It also has the benefit of being available in clinics all around the world today. The other benefit is that it's extremely cheap compared to traditional acne scar treatments (lasers).

Here is a study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937506/

And another study that a fellow acne.org user has posted:

The treatment option used in the first study is subcision followed by TCA. The second study utilizes the aforementioned methods, but they also add in dermarolling and tretinoin treatment. The method is novel, as this particular sequence of treatments has not been performed before to the best of anyone's knowledge. The results are quite amazing. Not as incredible as complete healing with the DHG would be, but this treatment is available now as opposed to waiting 3+ years for the DHG, or even longer if they must continue making optimizations to it. But hey, even if the DHG only works in the murine model, look at it this way: Mice are freaking set, guys.

Edited by Bozo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

HA HAHAHAHHAHAH BULLSHIT. Like I've always said, this product has no application to acne scars first of all so you all need to get your heads out of your ass and second it has in SCIENTIFIC PAPERS according to SCIENTIFIC TESTS been showed to be a FAILURE. So Seabs was wrong and i've been right all along. Serbs has been proven wrong but he's too proud to admit it.

And get that BOZO spammer out of here you f'n retard!!!! You're the scum of the earth you're probably some dermatologist trying to make more money. I hope you rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

HA HAHAHAHHAHAH BULLSHIT. Like I've always said, this product has no application to acne scars first of all so you all need to get your heads out of your ass and second it has in SCIENTIFIC PAPERS according to SCIENTIFIC TESTS been showed to be a FAILURE. So Seabs was wrong and i've been right all along. Serbs has been proven wrong but he's too proud to admit it.

And get that BOZO spammer out of here you f'n retard!!!! You're the scum of the earth you're probably some dermatologist trying to make more money. I hope you rot.

Dude. I bet you're the type of guy that gets lasered ONCE, looses a considerable amount of money and didn't get results and quickly came to the conclusion that there's no hope. %&$% off

This thread should go away. You guys need to stop waiting for this 'cure' and do something for your skin if it bothers you that much that you have to bump this useless thread every other day. People need advice not this trash.

/endrant got it out of my system

Edited by Robertitoo

If you have pitted scarring look into Subcision-Suction as well as microneeding. Check out my success


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

HA HAHAHAHHAHAH BULLSHIT. Like I've always said, this product has no application to acne scars first of all so you all need to get your heads out of your ass and second it has in SCIENTIFIC PAPERS according to SCIENTIFIC TESTS been showed to be a FAILURE. So Seabs was wrong and i've been right all along. Serbs has been proven wrong but he's too proud to admit it.

And get that BOZO spammer out of here you f'n retard!!!! You're the scum of the earth you're probably some dermatologist trying to make more money. I hope you rot.

1. This was tested on two pigs by a 'student,' in a 'thesis.' In the thesis he even highlights the wounds may have been 'infected' early...

2. Also, how can anyone be proved wrong or right in anyway in any context on a messageboard where all they do is cite papers??? You cant do this without shooting a messenger... If you are associating this thesis as proven and as something to debunk/shoot a messenger, a 'thesis' that has clearly not 'proven' or 'dis-proven' anything, then this must be balanced out. You should give a messenger credit for everything, Einsteins theory of relativity, or how about the work of Louie Pastuer which a messenger on a message board also had nothing to do with.

However if you are upset that I will always maintain expectancy from citing peer reviewed, testable, scientific data then you are very foolish and you are burying your head in the sand. Expectancy coming from scientific investigation maintains standards, sets in stone benchmarks, pushes progression...

Edited by seabs135
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers seabs,

Im sure our time of waiting will be over soon..

Embracing the sun once again, talk to the people right face to face once again, become 'complete' once again, become 'equals' to other people again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

HA HAHAHAHHAHAH BULLSHIT. Like I've always said, this product has no application to acne scars first of all so you all need to get your heads out of your ass and second it has in SCIENTIFIC PAPERS according to SCIENTIFIC TESTS been showed to be a FAILURE. So Seabs was wrong and i've been right all along. Serbs has been proven wrong but he's too proud to admit it.

And get that BOZO spammer out of here you f'n retard!!!! You're the scum of the earth you're probably some dermatologist trying to make more money. I hope you rot.

1. This was tested on two pigs by a 'student,' in a 'thesis.' In the thesis he even highlights the wounds may have been 'infected' early...

2. Also, how can anyone be proved wrong or right in anyway in any context on a messageboard where all they do is cite papers??? You cant do this without shooting a messenger... If you are associating this thesis as proven and as something to debunk/shoot a messenger, a 'thesis' that has clearly not 'proven' or 'dis-proven' anything, then this must be balanced out. You should give a messenger credit for everything, Einsteins theory of relativity, or how about the work of Louie Pastuer which a messenger on a message board also had nothing to do with.

However if you are upset that I will always maintain expectancy from citing peer reviewed, testable, scientific data then you are very foolish and you are burying your head in the sand. Expectancy coming from scientific investigation maintains standards, sets in stone benchmarks, pushes progression...

I think this tests represent the study of Gerecht lab, not just A student....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the first dextran hydrogel trial on pigs", the student took the procedure, results and all data in the thesis but the trial of course was done by Gerecht and her team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a 'thesis' for his qualification, this is not valid a scientific document; surely you can understand this?
As I know this is a thesis; I have genuinely not thoroughly read it all. Even when it was first put up I did not read it thoroughly. However looking at the discussion in the thesis, and briefly scanning the document I can see a few big problems that clearly stop this from being 'complete,' as you claim it is.

1. on the smaller wounds they left necrotic tissue on the periphery on both pigs, yet with the bigger wounds they did not. He noted on the bigger wounds the without necrotic tissue, the cells infiltrated better…
However he did not try to excise fully the smaller wounds to check for infiltration. At the same time, he loosely queried, it must be the body handling it??? Before you get on a high horse and make a clarification; did you spot the different treatment and clear standards fallacy above between the small wound treatment and the large wound treatment? Can you see they were treated differently? And therefore this should be disclosed, like it was actually.
Anyway, for some reason in his thesis, it is kind of like he set the bar higher for the smaller wound than the bigger wound. The smaller wounds were handicapped with regards to cell infiltration. On a scientific document this would have been reasoned why there was a difference in treatment. However this is a 'thesis' and this was used to demonstrate his skill not validate. This paper is not about completeness.
2. Another important point, he even stated the wound looked 'infected' after the second day in his discussion segment. (Again note: The smaller wounds on both pigs were all left with necrotic tissue that probably caused an infection, the bigger wounds were not.)
This sighted infection, in a proper scientific process probably would have invalidated the test immediately, especially later on if it was not disclosed earlier. It is kind of like doing the 100meters with a ton weight chained to you, you can't establish anythng from it. However, the reason this was not invalidated is because it was his 'thesis;' it is his chance to showcase his skills with what circumstances he has; and pigs are expensive. I imagine he is a lucky boy getting props like that to do his thesis, I bet not may students get that luxury at smaller universities.
3. Here is a very important thing you have clearly missed, the wounds were reopened and reopened...
quote from the discussion: “In terms of re-epithelialization, we learned that the pigs scratch their backs often during the first three weeks of treatment where the wounds were created. Sometimes this resulted in re-opening of the wounds, confirmed by increased blood flow measurement at these time points.” The wound were reopened by scratchy and itchy the pigs. I could imagine this would be a big problem with pigs who will do what they want even if you bribe them with apples
Imo this reactionary response is a problem we all can have; but you clearly have not understood this is not a valid scientific document or even read his thesis. Btw neither have I read it thoroughly to a point, I don’t claim I have and I will not be reading it fully, but by referencing these sticking points, I have highlighted what you have missed, and along with the fact this is a thesis with two pigs that have shown infection, makes this a thesis of someone using the best of circumstances available and 'not' a peer reviewed scientific document…

"the first dextran hydrogel trial on pigs", the student took the procedure, results and all data in the thesis but the trial of course was done by Gerecht and her team.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seabs135, you usually answers with logic.. what do you think about this man?

What I've always stated, the hydrogel when tested against a scalable control, got complete regeneration of a third degree burn. The scientific expectancy is massive for complete regeneration.

HA HAHAHAHHAHAH BULLSHIT. Like I've always said, this product has no application to acne scars first of all so you all need to get your heads out of your ass and second it has in SCIENTIFIC PAPERS according to SCIENTIFIC TESTS been showed to be a FAILURE. So Seabs was wrong and i've been right all along. Serbs has been proven wrong but he's too proud to admit it.

And get that BOZO spammer out of here you f'n retard!!!! You're the scum of the earth you're probably some dermatologist trying to make more money. I hope you rot.

Normally I would just ignore you because you're obviously trolling and should probably removed from this forum where people are trying to provide each other with constructive support, discussion, and research, but I wanted to clarify for others that I wasn't trying to sound advertisey by posting those papers. Honestly, I'm not really sure how that makes me a spammer. I simply linked to some research papers that show a series of treatments that everybody already knows about, but in a new sequence and combination that is actually yielding tangible results today. I didn't advertise a specific dermatologist or clinic. Personally, I find it quite fascinating, and I'll probably be undergoing those treatments sometime in the future if the DHG doesn't work out. I think there are some people who will appreciate that there's a novel treatment that they can undergo that yields consistent results at an inexpensive price compared to more traditional treatments that deliver unpredictable and sometimes harmful results at upwards of thousands of dollars. So that's why I decided to share. There's no money to be had for me to post a few links to research papers, even if I were a dermatologist. Which I'm not, by the way. I'm 18, and dermatology would be my absolute last career choice. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not a right thing to conclude some thesis like those....

The thesis and their journal at pnas are clearly different.

Analyze further before coming to a conclusion please

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trial on pigs is the latest information we have about the hydrogel, previously I put a link about a hydrogel investor, Fast foward podcast radio interview, most of the people in the forum are just blabling but they never bring any information, any news about the hydrogel. Blabling is very easy and very cheap, but we all want real information and in the information we have the hydrogel in pigs did not show any sign of regeneration I do not mean complete regeneration, not all the wounds were reopened or infected, probably this has not complete scientific value but in this moment we do not have any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate how gemstone decided not to tell anybody that the pig test failed

Again that paper was a thesis of a student. Gemstone is clearly not referenced in the paper. A thesis is not about sientfic completion, it is about presenting your knowledge with what circumstances you have. In the thesis he disclosed there was infection and various other things.

Personally this is my last post with regards to a thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Repola : i am grateful you gave us an information about how trials are going on with pigs, i got the little piece of the puzzle as to why they need to take the timeline to 2017

@bloodwar77: thats why we discuss here since they are playing hide and seek with us. Make this site our pool and discuss information. Btw pig test hasn't failed yet. for the initial, yes, but for now you never know. Because the website clearly indicates the oppossite, Its a success , i can show you where they state this though

@seabs135: yeah, by reading those, im still calm because it was published at april 2014 while the website was established at nov 2014. The thesis are clear made, that they are not actually doing those not by protocols but just for the sake of his thesis. The pig was scratching their backs multiple times and there is indeed a bacterial infection beforehand

Btw a couple hours ago gerecht lab published their latest study:

Implantable and Injectable Hydrogels for Vascular Regeneration

Blatchley MR, Gerecht S; Biomedical Materials in press, 2015

Heres the link:

http://gerechtlab.johnshopkins.edu/publication

Edited by rudy1986

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after comparing the thesis and pnas paper we can see

1. They tested the hydrogel on mice for 5 weeks and 8 weeks before testing the gels on pigs. The 5week mouse study is not the same as the 5week study on the pnas paper, or much worse. (Figure 6)

2. the wound heal(pig) with contraction, no compete skin regenerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate how gemstone decided not to tell anybody that the pig test failed

Again that paper was a thesis of a student. Gemstone is clearly not referenced in the paper. A thesis is not about sientfic completion, it is about presenting your knowledge with what circumstances you have. In the thesis he disclosed there was infection and various other things.

Personally this is my last post with regards to a thesis.

they put on their site that "we received promising results for the pig test"

the thesis was not promising at all

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate how gemstone decided not to tell anybody that the pig test failed

Again that paper was a thesis of a student. Gemstone is clearly not referenced in the paper. A thesis is not about sientfic completion, it is about presenting your knowledge with what circumstances you have. In the thesis he disclosed there was infection and various other things.

Personally this is my last post with regards to a thesis.

they put on their site that "we received promising results for the pig test"

the thesis was not promising at all

This is far from promising!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a New Account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now