Cool. I have started with making studio music and slowly teaching myself to play the piano. (empathize on slowly) I have discovered sport is the best antidepressant. I have started swimming.

 

Where in the Netherlands do you live? What music are you in?

 

Studio music? Really? That's what I do too. haha I'm a guitar player myself. I'm mostly into rock but I've started writing music for someone on this forum who is a singer, right? And all this other kind music of came out of me and it's been quite fun exploring different styles.

As far as where in The Netherlands I live... This will remain a mystery. Any chance we might hear any of your recordings? That would be cool. I can send you link to a song I produced for the singer if you're interested.

Hey John, all I can say, which is what I've always said, is it is wrong for me or anyone else to to claim authority on what you should do, and point you in any direction; all I can do is put facts up, Then you should always look at the facts yourself.

 

thank you for your reply seabs

Yes send me, I am always interested in music.

I just started, so it isn't anything spectaculair and it's much harder to make a full song then just a nice tune. In fact the first song I made is more music you would expect in a thriller/mystery movie then a real song. So I can't really send anything yet. I have a lot of projects I am still working on and I am just discovering all the software. On the piano I am learning basic accords and I have just learned to play two songs of Eric Satie.

I'll send you a link to my youtube channel.

 

 

 

Lapis... read about hydrogel...

 

 

I have. I'll bet you 1000 Euros that you'll never hear from that again in the news. It's just going to disappear. Stop. As it won't come to fruition. It won't work on humans. Hydrogels are nothing new. Sure they have achieved an interesting result with the mouse. But they say it will take several years before they will test on humans and I believe that when they will (if they will at all) they will not get the results they hope for.

 

False hope is comforting. But letting go of it is liberating. Seriously, there have been similar reports in the past. People got their hopes up and have always been disappointed. I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

 

I have. I'll bet you 1000 Euros that you'll never hear from that again in the news. It's just going to disappear. Stop. As it won't come to fruition. It won't work on humans.

Lapis, complete and utter logical fallacy and lacking common sense. Humans are mammals that regenerate with intercellular cells growing inside a matrix. The hydrogel created a matrix, then the intercellular cells done the rest. It needed no human intervention whatso ever.

So are you telling me our intercellular cells work differently inside a matrix to another mammal. Again what you have said is complete and untter logical fallacy and can be shown to be false when you consider that human re-epithelize in a similar time frame to other mammals that used the standard.

Read the scientific paper, this hydrogel beat the market standard matrix (that works similar equal time frames in all mammals including human. Humans who in the grand scheme of things are not biologically special to a matrix, our intercellular cells grow tissues in a matrix like any other matrix. Humans are mammals that evolved from the ancestors of the other mammals, we are not alien species to the biosphere). The hydrogel regenerated a 3rd degree burn wound in under 21days, one the other hand the standard reepithilized a 3rd degree wound way after the 30 days, just like it does on the human mammal.

Since when have humans all of a sudden not been mammals?

reference

Dextran hydrogel scaffolds enhance angiogenic responses and promote complete skin regeneration during burn wound healing

Functional neovascularization, which facilitates cell and nutrition transportation as well as oxygen exchange, is critical for perfect skin regeneration. In our study, the distinctive hydrogel structure facilitates neutrophil infiltration, neutrophils facilitate hydrogel digestion, and this leads to vascular cell infiltration. Thus, unlike the clinically used scaffold, dextran hydrogels accelerate the recruitment of endothelial cells to the wound area, enabling rapid neovascularization after a week of treatment. The wound treated hydrogel resulted in skin regeneration with appendages (hair follicles and sebaceous glands). Overall, our study clearly demonstrates that dextran hydrogel alone, without the addition of growth factors or cytokines, promotes rapid neovascularation and complete skin regeneration,

edited

"Hydrogel has been tested on people, the results are not published yet although they say they where promising. If they are published this year we will know if it's good or bad news."

Hey WinnieTheBlue, how do you know that the Hydrogel has been tested on people??

Seabs,do you think it's possible to make a hydrogel ourselves without waiting to go on sale? According i read is simply a scaffold as others that are for sale,but this has added a kind of sugar,which is what would work as a signal the body to say that we can make our own regeneration ... can be a serious project that we have here among some veteran users.

yes, I was thinking the same thing moondark,

therefore, I asked seabs the patent (extracellular matrix)

we need the hydrogel patent,

simple

hydrogel

Further animal testing is planned before human trials on thispatent-pending hydrogel, according to a statement from the university.

Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer

patent

Seabs,do you think it's possible to make a hydrogel ourselves without waiting to go on sale? According i read is simply a scaffold as others that are for sale,but this has added a kind of sugar,which is what would work as a signal the body to say that we can make our own regeneration ... can be a serious project that we have here among some veteran users.

 

They said last year that the hydrogel should be available in 2 to 3 year as it is a device.

With regards making it, I think you are allowed to make anything patented, if it is for personal use only. There was a lad on here who created his own patelet rich plasma machine etc.

I'm sure there are some people who could make it for themselves if they chose to. Who could get the dextran ratio correct etc.,I'd imagine there are plenty of science clubs etc. But, like always in life, you'd have to trust in your own ability, or put your trust in someone else etc.

Seabs you know this that in two or three years a drug goes on sale is something that we've heard before and nothing happened ...(juvista,acell scams).

Sometimes I think that this news come just to reassure desperate as us ... but in the end nothing happens...

Remember when here we talk about topiramat, -tgf b2, +tgf b3, yodine,kitoscell, etc? More scam

This is very sad I hope the end is fucking happy...

Lapis, complete and utter logical fallacy and lacking common sense. Humans are mammals that regenerate with intercellular cells growing inside a matrix. The hydrogel created a matrix, then the intercellular cells done the rest. It needed no human intervention whatso ever.

So are you telling me our intercellular cells work differently inside a matrix to another mammal. Again what you have said is complete and untter logical fallacy and can be shown to be false when you consider that human re-epithelize in a similar time frame to other mammals that used the standard.

Read the scientific paper, this hydrogel beat the market standard matrix (that works similar equal time frames in all mammals including human. Humans who in the grand scheme of things are not biologically special to a matrix, our intercellular cells grow tissues in a matrix like any other matrix. Humans are mammals that evolved from the ancestors of the other mammals, we are not alien species to the biosphere). The hydrogel regenerated a œ3rd degree burn wound in under 21days, one the other hand the standard reepithilized a 3rd degree wound way after the 30 days, just like it does on the human mammal.

Since when have humans all of a sudden not been mammals?

They regrew hair on mice (this was a different group of scientists than the people who made the hydrogel). This was big news in the hairloss community. But the same treatment didn't work on humans. In fact on a radio show recently someone asked "If people and mice are the same in a certain way, why doesn't it work on humans?" and the response was "I don't know.". So there you go. Theoretically things should work. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that they won't.

They said last year that the hydrogel should be available in 2 to 3 year as it is a device.

2 to 3 years, 3 to 4 years, 4 to 5 years, 5 to 6 years... It's all the same to me. When I hear people say stuff like that to me it means something along the lines of this:

If everything happens the way we hope they will, if everything is ideal and we have a lot of luck then it will come to fruition within x to x years. But the chances that all of that is going to be the case is incredibly unlikely so you might as well forget we ever said anything.

With regards making it, I think you are allowed to make anything patented, if it is for personal use only. There was a lad on here who created his own patelet rich plasma machine etc.

I'm sure there are some people who could make it for themselves if they chose to. Who could get the dextran ratio correct etc.,I'd imagine there are plenty of science clubs etc. But, like always in life, you'd have to trust in your own ability, or put your trust in someone else etc.

 

Making your own hydrogel would be an act of desperation. Let's face it. Nobody is going to make their own hydrogel so let's not kid ourselves.

 

Lapis, complete and utter logical fallacy and lacking common sense. Humans are mammals that regenerate with intercellular cells growing inside a matrix. The hydrogel created a matrix, then the intercellular cells done the rest. It needed no human intervention whatso ever.

So are you telling me our intercellular cells work differently inside a matrix to another mammal. Again what you have said is complete and untter logical fallacy and can be shown to be false when you consider that human re-epithelize in a similar time frame to other mammals that used the standard.

Read the scientific paper, this hydrogel beat the market standard matrix (that works similar equal time frames in all mammals including human. Humans who in the grand scheme of things are not biologically special to a matrix, our intercellular cells grow tissues in a matrix like any other matrix. Humans are mammals that evolved from the ancestors of the other mammals, we are not alien species to the biosphere). The hydrogel regenerated a œ3rd degree burn wound in under 21days, one the other hand the standard reepithilized a 3rd degree wound way after the 30 days, just like it does on the human mammal.

Since when have humans all of a sudden not been mammals?

 

They regrew hair on mice (this was a different group of scientists than the people who made the hydrogel). This was big news in the hairloss community. But the same treatment didn't work on humans. In fact on a radio show recently someone asked "If people and mice are the same in a certain way, why doesn't it work on humans?" and the response was "I don't know.". So there you go. Theoretically things should work. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that they won't.

 

 

They said last year that the hydrogel should be available in 2 to 3 year as it is a device.

 

2 to 3 years, 3 to 4 years, 4 to 5 years, 5 to 6 years... It's all the same to me. When I hear people say stuff like that to me it means something along the lines of this:

 

If everything happens the way we hope they will, if everything is ideal and we have a lot of luck then it will come to fruition within x to x years. But the chances that all of that is going to be the case is incredibly unlikely so you might as well forget we ever said anything.

 

 

 

With regards making it, I think you are allowed to make anything patented, if it is for personal use only. There was a lad on here who created his own patelet rich plasma machine etc.

I'm sure there are some people who could make it for themselves if they chose to. Who could get the dextran ratio correct etc.,I'd imagine there are plenty of science clubs etc. But, like always in life, you'd have to trust in your own ability, or put your trust in someone else etc.

 

 

Making your own hydrogel would be an act of desperation. Let's face it. Nobody is going to make their own hydrogel so let's not kid ourselves.

 

Apples and oranges, you are comparing a human micromanaging biochemical signals to a human macromanaging the wound. These are completely different.

E.g. a drug or an injection is a completely different process to scaffolds.A drug or an injection (excluding vaccines), is a human trying to micromanage a signal in a complex matrix. A scaffold on the otherhand is a human trying to macromanage, allowing the scaffold, vascularisation and intercellular cells, do the matrix of microsignals they do.

Now when you allow the intercellular cells to do the micro managing they create tissue.

The benchmark factor, Also with scaffolds there is relative benchmarks. If a scaffold reepithilizes that fast in one mammal it will do the exact same in another, horse, pig, mouse, it doesn't discriminate. Which has been shown clinically. The goal posts cannot be moved with regards to scaffolds, the bench marks are there, they react similar in all mammals. Scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals. On the otherhand, drugs and injections which are humans micromanaging biosignal do, and it is very hard to get a benchmark in some of these situations. But these are different approaches to scaffolds and devices.

Also if you look at the paper, I provided before, this stuff has beaten a standard benchmark, it reepithilized mammalian tissue from a 3rd degree burn completely in 14 days and by 21day hair follicles and other gland were observed, the glands and follicles you see in the regeneration process. The standard benchmark was still reepithilizing after day 30.

To go with the above if you observe reepithilization by 21days you get scar free healing, if you get sebaceous glands etc, (which are the most vulnerable to thermal injury and do not grow in scar tissue) you get scar free tissue.

These are all facts.

"Hydrogel has been tested on people, the results are not published yet although they say they where promising. If they are published this year we will know if it's good or bad news."

 

 

Hey WinnieTheBlue, how do you know that the Hydrogel has been tested on people??

 

http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/ModernMedicine+Now/Celotres-hydrogel-scaffold-wins-CE-mark-OK/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/771489?ref=25

Read this carefully. It's news from 26 april 2012.

Winnietheblue maybe you trolling...in thath news isnt clear if its the sane hydrogel (there are many hydrogels on sale), by the way, in that report, the report are very promising, they have CE aprobation, so its possibly to go on sale in the nest year maybe, like seabs says (i hope that).

lapis, why you so negative? In the past you was a diferent person here...hydrogel colud work, hydrogel its real, hydrogel cure a hole of the skin (3degree burns its a hole complete full skin ), in 14 days, so...its possibly hydrogel can minimize a scar...so lets be positive please...

seabs, i admire your patience sometimes here...

Winnietheblue maybe you trolling...in thath news isnt clear if its the sane hydrogel (there are many hydrogels on sale), by the way, in that report, the report are very promising, they have CE aprobation, so its possibly to go on sale in the nest year maybe, like seabs says (i hope that).

 

 

lapis, why you so negative? In the past you was a diferent person here...hydrogel colud work, hydrogel its real, hydrogel cure a hole of the skin (3degree burns its a hole complete full skin ), in 14 days, so...its possibly hydrogel can minimize a scar...so lets be positive please...

 

 

seabs, i admire your patience sometimes here...

 

I am not trolling, this is the hydrogel from Sharon Gerecht. (I am not a known for trolling and don't have trol genes)

This is even more interesting news. http://biotuesdays.com/2012/05/08/avitas-breakthrough-treatment-for-burns-wounds-and-scars/

Recell seems to have almost nailed scareless healing, at least a lot of improvement can be made on pretty much all kind of scars. I wonder If Recell treatment can be done with a hydrogel scaffold????

Good results whit recell in that link!!! Im surprise...the first pic its a keloid i think (the worst scar), whit very good results...i hope that pics are not photoshoped...

the bad side of aceel is that this product can not made sebaceous glands and follicules...recell can not make regeneration like hydrogel does, path its very good improvement. Thanks for that link.

 

no, I have no intention of cutting my scars, that's crazy

If you are happy with your scars, or if you get over it

It is only because you scars aren´t to bad to the point of going crazy,

 

 

I have one scar. Not due to acne but due to an accident. For years it was a huge problem. The laser surgery really helped. It made such a difference... People still notice my scar but it's OK now. My scar is pretty big, by the way. It's not small. It's not HUGE either but people see it from a distance. In certain lighting conditions (harsh sunlight for instance) I'm sure it doesn't look very flattering. But what am I going to do? Hide from the world? I've done that to a degree in the past but I have no intention to do so anymore.

 

My scar used to drive me crazy. Believe me. It was a long road that I had to travel before I got to this point. But now my scar isn't on my mind 90% of the time. Just this weekend I went out and I never once thought of my scar. So the negative psychological impact that it had in the past is now gone. I think everyone can get past their scarring the way I have. Even people with "severe" scarring.

 

This is a famous football player:

 

 

He's on TV all the time and he has a wife and kids... I bet your scarring isn't as bad as his?

 

he should wear a long beard

 

Winnietheblue maybe you trolling...in thath news isnt clear if its the sane hydrogel (there are many hydrogels on sale), by the way, in that report, the report are very promising, they have CE aprobation, so its possibly to go on sale in the nest year maybe, like seabs says (i hope that).

 

 

lapis, why you so negative? In the past you was a diferent person here...hydrogel colud work, hydrogel its real, hydrogel cure a hole of the skin (3degree burns its a hole complete full skin ), in 14 days, so...its possibly hydrogel can minimize a scar...so lets be positive please...

 

 

seabs, i admire your patience sometimes here...

 

 

I am not trolling, this is the hydrogel from Sharon Gerecht. (I am not a known for trolling and don't have trol genes)

 

Hey winnie, I see no linkable verification in that hydrogel...

I might be trolling afterall. I discovered their product does not necessarily link with halscion celotres hydrogel, I fooled myself because the news came from the same site and assumed it was an update of the same product. Sorry I had my hope glasses on and should have been more sceptical.

http://medicbest.com/mednews/dermatology-news/news_2011-12-16-04-26-03-517.html

I have send a mail to Sharon Gerecht asking when we could expect an update on their research. I haven't found a name for the hydrogel yet other then hydrogel. My English isn't so good, so someone could also try mailing or calling.

About the other celotres hydrogel, they have had results in treatment of keloid scars. 19.2% (5/26 keloids) vs. a scientific literature rate of 51.2%. http://halscion.net/press-release-february-15-2012/ I don't know if this is in anyway linked or works on the same basics as the mouse tested hydrogel mentioned in december 2011.

SG Reply:

This is an automatic reply. I am traveling until May 17 and will have limited email access.

Thank you.

Apples and oranges, you are comparing a human micromanaging biochemical signals to a human macromanaging the wound. These are completely different.

 

E.g. a drug or an injection is a completely different process to scaffolds.A drug or an injection (excluding vaccines), is a human trying to micromanage a signal in a complex matrix. A scaffold on the otherhand is a human trying to macromanage, allowing the scaffold, vascularisation and intercellular cells, do the matrix of microsignals they do.

Now when you allow the intercellular cells to do the micro managing they create tissue.

 

The benchmark factor, Also with scaffolds there is relative benchmarks. If a scaffold reepithilizes that fast in one mammal it will do the exact same in another, horse, pig, mouse, it doesn't discriminate. Which has been shown clinically. The goal posts cannot be moved with regards to scaffolds, the bench marks are there, they react similar in all mammals. Scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals. On the otherhand, drugs and injections which are humans micromanaging biosignal do, and it is very hard to get a benchmark in some of these situations. But these are different approaches to scaffolds and devices.

 

Also if you look at the paper, I provided before, this stuff has beaten a standard benchmark, it reepithilized mammalian tissue from a 3rd degree burn completely in 14 days and by 21day hair follicles and other gland were observed, the glands and follicles you see in the regeneration process. The standard benchmark was still reepithilizing after day 30.

 

To go with the above if you observe reepithilization by 21days you get scar free healing, if you get sebaceous glands etc, (which are the most vulnerable to thermal injury and do not grow in scar tissue) you get scar free tissue.

 

These are all facts.

 

Well I appreciate the lengthy reply. But how much money would you be willing to put on that hydrogel becoming the cure for scarring? Seriously, if you had to bet would you place your bet on that thing becoming a real cure? If you are so certain you'd place all the money you have on that. But you wouldn't. Let's face it.

Theory is one thing. Practice is another. People don't know everything. People might very well be on the wrong track regarding at least some of the things you mentioned. Some pieces of the puzzle might very well be missing. Just like how Gary Hitzig described the workings of the extracellular matrix; he said that all the pieces of the puzzle were there and ACell should work therefore. But it didn't. At least not the way he said it would. And if it did it only did so sporadically.

I'll go so far as to say that the hydrogel is interesting. But I'd be surprised, genuinely surprised if one day I will find out that Sharon Gerecht and her scientist buddies will go down in the history books as the people who managed to find what thousands and thousands of scientists never could for decades and decades namely a treatment that actually prevents scars from forming.

I would love to see a treatment like that come out. But I don't see it happening.

lapis, why you so negative? In the past you was a diferent person here...hydrogel colud work, hydrogel its real, hydrogel cure a hole of the skin (3degree burns its a hole complete full skin ), in 14 days, so...its possibly hydrogel can minimize a scar...so lets be positive please...

I am not negative at all. I am realistic. There is nothing you can do so why not forget about it and move on? Easier said than done but one has to make the most out of life. Even if that requires meeting difficult challenges.

The hydrogel could work...but I still think the chances of that are negligable. My radar will only really pick up the following headline: "New treatment enables the body to heal without scars.". Period. No ambiguity. No ifs or buts. As long as scientists express themselves very carefully you can safely assume that what they are working on will eventually only do so much if it will do anything at all.

I'm just voicing my opinion and sharing my view. Just as you are voicing yours. I've said what I wanted to say now so I'll stop posting again. I hope you all find a way to deal with having scars.

 

Apples and oranges, you are comparing a human micromanaging biochemical signals to a human macromanaging the wound. These are completely different.

 

E.g. a drug or an injection is a completely different process to scaffolds.A drug or an injection (excluding vaccines), is a human trying to micromanage a signal in a complex matrix. A scaffold on the otherhand is a human trying to macromanage, allowing the scaffold, vascularisation and intercellular cells, do the matrix of microsignals they do.

Now when you allow the intercellular cells to do the micro managing they create tissue.

 

The benchmark factor, Also with scaffolds there is relative benchmarks. If a scaffold reepithilizes that fast in one mammal it will do the exact same in another, horse, pig, mouse, it doesn't discriminate. Which has been shown clinically. The goal posts cannot be moved with regards to scaffolds, the bench marks are there, they react similar in all mammals. Scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals. On the otherhand, drugs and injections which are humans micromanaging biosignal do, and it is very hard to get a benchmark in some of these situations. But these are different approaches to scaffolds and devices.

 

Also if you look at the paper, I provided before, this stuff has beaten a standard benchmark, it reepithilized mammalian tissue from a 3rd degree burn completely in 14 days and by 21day hair follicles and other gland were observed, the glands and follicles you see in the regeneration process. The standard benchmark was still reepithilizing after day 30.

 

To go with the above if you observe reepithilization by 21days you get scar free healing, if you get sebaceous glands etc, (which are the most vulnerable to thermal injury and do not grow in scar tissue) you get scar free tissue.

 

These are all facts.

 

 

Well I appreciate the lengthy reply. But how much money would you be willing to put on that hydrogel becoming the cure for scarring? Seriously, if you had to bet would you place your bet on that thing becoming a real cure? If you are so certain you'd place all the money you have on that. But you wouldn't. Let's face it.

 

Theory is one thing. Practice is another. People don't know everything. People might very well be on the wrong track regarding at least some of the things you mentioned. Some pieces of the puzzle might very well be missing. Just like how Gary Hitzig described the workings of the extracellular matrix; he said that all the pieces of the puzzle were there and ACell should work therefore. But it didn't. At least not the way he said it would. And if it did it only did so sporadically.

 

I'll go so far as to say that the hydrogel is interesting. But I'd be surprised, genuinely surprised if one day I will find out that Sharon Gerecht and her scientist buddies will go down in the history books as the people who managed to find what thousands and thousands of scientists never could for decades and decades namely a treatment that actually prevents scars from forming.

 

I would love to see a treatment like that come out. But I don't see it happening.

 

 

lapis, why you so negative? In the past you was a diferent person here...hydrogel colud work, hydrogel its real, hydrogel cure a hole of the skin (3degree burns its a hole complete full skin ), in 14 days, so...its possibly hydrogel can minimize a scar...so lets be positive please...

 

I am not negative at all. I am realistic. There is nothing you can do so why not forget about it and move on? Easier said than done but one has to make the most out of life. Even if that requires meeting difficult challenges.

 

The hydrogel could work...but I still think the chances of that a negligable. My radar will only really pick up the following headline: "New treatment enables the body to heal without scars.". Period. No ambiguity. No ifs or buts. As long as scientists express themselves very carefully you can safely assume that what they are working on will eventually only do so much if it will do anything at all.

 

I'm just voicing my opinion and sharing my view. Just as you are voicing yours. I've said what I wanted to say now so I'll stop posting again. I hope you all find a way to deal with having scars.

 

You say you are giving an opinion, this is fair enough. However people may think by you saying this that I am giving my opinion. When in fact I am not. All I™m doing is giving out facts and benchmarks by citing work. This is nothing personal, all I™m doing is producing facts and reducing noise etc. Also you mentioned ambiguity, there is nothing ambiguous in the facts I have presented, tell me were a fact I presented can mean more than one outcome?

These facts are that, scars take 30+ days to form, anything that reepithilizes in under 21days regenerates scar free. Anything were a sebaceous gland etc. is regenerated proves scar free healing, as sebaceous glands do not form in scars. Scaffold work similar, in all mammals this is clinically observed, they do not have a discrimination. Without getting technical in brief all they are is a matrix that soaks blood up and intercellular cells and produce tissue. I brought forward a citation were something beat a benchmark standard. It beat the standard, by reepithilizing a 3^rd degree burn wound in 14 days, and it produced sebaceous glands in 21 days etc. Which proves scar free healing. The standard was still reepithilizing the 3^rd degree burn wound after 30days. (I then showed you the paper were the bottom line mentioned complete skin regeneration This is referenced in many reports.)

This is interesting - famous football players with terrible facial scars:

http://bigdunc.blogs...cial-scars.html

You say you are giving an opinion, this is fair enough. However people may think by you saying this that I am giving my opinion. When in fact I am not. All I™m doing is giving out facts and benchmarks by citing work. This is nothing personal, all I™m doing is producing facts and reducing noise etc. Also you mentioned ambiguity, there is nothing ambiguous in the facts I have presented, tell me were a fact I presented can mean more than one outcome?

These facts are that, scars take 30+ days to form, anything that reepithilizes in under 21days regenerates scar free. Anything were a sebaceous gland etc. is regenerated proves scar free healing, as sebaceous glands do not form in scars. Scaffold work similar, in all mammals this is clinically observed, they do not have a discrimination. Without getting technical in brief all they are is a matrix that soaks blood up and intercellular cells and produce tissue. I brought forward a citation were something beat a benchmark standard. It beat the standard, by reepithilizing a 3^rd degree burn wound in 14 days, and it produced sebaceous glands in 21 days etc. Which proves scar free healing. The standard was still reepithilizing the 3^rd degree burn wound after 30days. (I then showed you the paper were the bottom line mentioned complete skin regeneration This is referenced in many reports.)

 

They don't even know how their hydrogel works. They had scar free healing in the mouse but they didn't even know why. That doesn't sound very good to me. They are very careful in the way they express themselves: "It may lead to a treament that works better than current ones" is something else than "We found the cure!". But time will tell.