Lapis, Im sticking to the facts, the most important is the hydrogel works, they have forensically observed it works by comparing it to a standard, it produced reepithilization in 14 days and glands etc were regenerated at 21 days. On a clear forensic examination that is scar free healing as glands do not form in scars, and in scars reepithilise much slower than 30 days. They also explain that the wound got complete regeneration many times in the paper.

Benchmarks,after seven days was better than the standard in neovascularation; the scaffold was also degraded much faster than the standard in a bench mark with played a part in the faster reepithilization, also and the key, the hydrogel reepithilized the 3^rd degree burn wound in 14 days and by day 21 glands were regenerated, in the control for instance was still reepithilizing way after day 30 (it is a fact if a wound takes longer than 31 days a scar forms etc.) Scars take 30+ days to form. If a wound reepithilizes in under 21 days you do not get scar.

Your reason they dont know why the hydrogel works at the micro level is fallacious. If you apply that standard to anything it would be senseless. E.g. We dont know how a flower grows and blooms at the micro level but we observe it does, they didn't know how anything 100% microscopically and they dont need to. If something works, it works and this is the same standard for anything.

this would not make the hydrogel more effective or worse.

3. We cannot ensure that hydrogel can give us scar free healing (100%)

 

 

 

Due to processes they don't fully understand

 

 

 

, however, the gel in its basic form was able to grow new skin - complete with hair follicles, blood vessels and skin oil glands.

 

 

 

 

The scientists

 

 

 

believe

 

 

 

that the physical structure of the hydrogel could be guiding the tissue growth, and that it could be attracting bone marrow stem cells circulating in the blood stream, then signaling them to form into skin cells and blood vessels.

 

 

 

 

 

1.The fact that they dont understand how the hydrogel works not change the fact that hydrogel works ( in mice)

 

 

 

 

2. If they achieve understand how hydrogel works,

 

this would not make the hydrogel more effective or worse.

3. We cannot ensure that hydrogel can give us scar free healing (100%)

 

I dont know if this is addressed to me or not...

BTW not one human knows what happens microscopically with anything. And this standard really includes anything. But again this has nothing to do with scar free healing. If you observe scar free healing, i.e. tissue reepithilizs in under 21days gets sweat glands etc. then you just observe "scar free healing."

Here are the facts, scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals, they reepithilize at similar rates. (what ever mammal, pig, human, ape, horse, mouse)

They revascularize at similar rates and they reepithilize at similar rates.

e.g. If a scaffold takes 3 weeks to reepithilize in one mammal say with one standard scaffold xyz, with the exact same standard scaffold xyz it would take 3week to create tissue in another mammal. This has been shown. This is because they all degrade at a similar rate.They all degrade in the tissue at a similar rate whatever tissue it is.

When the scaffold has degraded the mammal takes over. If they cant be fully degraded the mammal trys to reject the scaffold and this creates a scar.

Scaffolds degrade in similar time frames and reepithilize in similar time frames. To convey that any scaffold xyz discriminates tissue is wrong. They do not discriminate against tissues on any mammal.All they do is degrade (after they have degraded they play no part in the tissue, the body takes over again), and he faster they degrade (i.e they are not crosslinked, meaning the mammal rejects it) then the faster the body can reepithilize the tissue, whatever mammal tissue it is.

BTW not one human knows what happens microscopically with anything.

-YES

Here are the facts, scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals, they reepithilize at similar rates. (what ever mammal, pig, human, ape, horse, mouse)

-then, according to your logic, clinical trials are not necessary to verify the effectiveness of hydrogel in humans, but, they say: first we must make clinical trials with others animal (not mices), later, we can do clinical trial with humans, and finally market it. I guess you are smarter than them. This is not the true

believe me, I thought exactly like your.

so, if scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals, I guess they are ignorant. This is not the true

More testing is required on animals before human testing could begin, but the researchers hope that the hydrogel could be approved for clinical use in just a few years. The research was published in the Dec. 12-16 online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.qmed.com/...n-wound-healing

this is a fact. i am only quoting a cite

 

i hope that we found the solution soon.

 

 

I hope so too. I mean that would be cool.

 

I wonder what I'd do if a real scar preventative was available to me though. Would I actually have my scar cut out or would I feel I would be taking too much of a chance? I wonder. I think I'd probably get it done for real though, depending on what the doctors would tell me in terms of the risks of the procedure.

 

Alonso,many and many medicina in the market, like roaccutane (accutane a acne medication), in the prospect says: we dont know exactly how accutane works...

so, dont metter if we dont know how a medicine works, path the laboratory need make trials on humans, its neccesary. Then put the medicine on sale..dont matter if we dont know the scientes how they work a medicine...the important thing are that the medicine works. So, stip trolling.

please lets discusses about hydrogel whit facts,like seabs do.

Lets focus in this posibly miracle...calls hydrogel. I never in the history read before that a product can regenerated hair follicules and sebaceous gland, i think hydrogel its a possibly the miracle.

moondark, you invent things that I didn't say, I'm not saying that is necessary to know how a drug works, I am not discussing the effectiveness of hydrogel ( everyone here knows that hydrogel works)

I am only saying we dont know if hydrogel can work with humans. do not confuse things.

I am not trolling. You are trolling here

I am talking with facts:

More testing is required on animals before human testing could begin, but the researchers hope that the hydrogel could be approved for clinical use in just a few years. The research was published in the Dec. 12-16 online Early Edition ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.qmed.com/...n-wound-healing

I'm not making anything, I'm just cutting and pasting.

hydrogel works,

its not necessary to know the mechanism of action, but we do not know if it works the same way in humans.

please ,do not invent things that I didnt say

BTW not one human knows what happens microscopically with anything.

-YES

Here are the facts, scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals, they reepithilize at similar rates. (what ever mammal, pig, human, ape, horse, mouse)

-then, according to your logic, clinical trials are not necessary to verify the effectiveness of hydrogel in humans, but, they say: first we must make clinical trials with others animal (not mices), later, we can do clinical trial with humans, and finally market it. I guess you are smarter than them. This is not the true

believe me, I thought exactly like your.

so, if scaffolds do not discriminate between mammals, I guess they are ignorant. This is not the true

 

More testing is required on animals before human testing could begin, but the researchers hope that the hydrogel could be approved for clinical use in just a few years. The research was published in the Dec. 12-16 online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.qmed.com/...n-wound-healing

 

this is a fact. i am only quoting a cite

 

I've never mentioned anything about testing or about the precedented legal protocol of going to market for a device. Also I never mentoioned it would be out tomorrow. I mentioned the logical fact that the rate of degrading of a scaffold is similar in all mammals. E.g. if it degrades this fast in one mammal it will degrade that fast in another, as is the pattern that is noted. (BTW you can also note the standard scaffold they tried the scaffold against also reepithilizes similar in other mammals)

With regarding trials, this is not a drug. It is a device approach and the protocol is different, but still you have to demonstrate safety in the framework of protocols like any other device.

if you say that scaffolds (like hydrogel) works similar in all mammals, you are saying too that testing in humans is not neccesary ( because, from your logic, the scaffold work similar in humans and mices), so, if hydrogel achieve complete scar free healing in mices, you are saying that the same will occur in us.

you can ask this to any researcher, and he will tell you: you're wrong,

I know this, because I've done

clinical trials are necessary for one reason, verify the effectiveness and safety check

Alonso, you trolling, you put innecesary big words.

if you say that scaffolds (like hydrogel) works similar in all mammals, you are saying too that testing in humans is not neccesary ( because, from your logic, the scaffold work similar in humans and mices), so, if hydrogel achieve complete scar free healing in mices, you are saying that the same will occur in us.

 

 

you can ask this to any researcher, and he will tell you: you're wrong,

I know this, because I've done

 

clinical trials are necessary for one reason, verify the effectiveness and safety check

 

I never said it should miss out the safety protocols for a device. I mentioned the fact that scaffolds degrade similar in all tissues.

then, if scaffolds works similar in all mammals, why clinical trials are neccesary? excluding safety check

moondark, you must stop attacking people, you can not answer wrong, just because you hear something you do not like, or something that you do not believe. you've attacked many people in this topic, like me, please stop,

sorry for the big letters, is due to the fact of copying and pasting,

then, if scaffolds works similar in all mammals, why clinical trials are neccesary? excluding safety check

 

moondark, you must stop attacking people, you can not answer wrong, just because you hear something you do not like, or something that you do not believe. you've attacked many people in this topic, like me, please stop,

 

sorry for the big letters, is due to the fact of copying and pasting,

 

Again I didn't mention the device testing protocol I mentioned the fact that all scaffold degrade similar in all mammallian tissues and there are standards in this e.g. the control scaffold in the paper has sandards set in all mammal tissue and is used in burns.

BTW clinical trials take upto 12+years., devices dont go through clinical trials. As far as I know devices go through the protocols set up for a device, like any other device has to.

Avita begins spray-on skin study in US

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8465398

I've been reading this forum for years now, with the same hope we all have ... to find a solution that brings back my normal skin. I decided to join and post today because in doing further research on ReCell (which I was initially really excited about) I came across an area in their fact section that kinda crushed me:

How is ReCell used to treat scars?

Scars occur when the edges of a wound cannot quickly join. The healing process focuses on closing the gap quickly more than producing good quality skin. By restoring a normal epidermis (the top layer of the skin) ReCell enables the normalisaton of the cellular activity underneath that ultimately improves the overall skin structure. It has to be remembered that once established, a scar can never be completely removed, it can only be remodelled so it blends with the surounding tissue and is less noticeable. Not every scar can benefit from ReCell and your surgeon will be able to advise on the best course of action.

Not trying to burst anyone's bubble here as Avita begins their trials in the US...but it seems like ReCell even admits to not being the true answer. The company has also stated the spray on skin has more success with new wounds vs existing scarring. I just don't understand why the makers of this STILL think complete scar removal isn't possible - and will never be. Makes me nervous we'll never see the day...especially when this is the most promising treatment seen in humans to date. Sigh.

Someone send an email to hydrogel inventors...we need push this people for answers... this hydrogel could be the real answer, i hope that the inventors are not scamming (scam games).

Alonso, you can investigate more about this...can you send emails and sesearch to this people.

This cain of sugar in the ecm, maybe send signals to stem cells for regenerated, i hope so...the key maybe is this cain of sugar (ecm too).

I've been reading this forum for years now, with the same hope we all have ... to find a solution that brings back my normal skin. I decided to join and post today because in doing further research on ReCell (which I was initially really excited about) I came across an area in their fact section that kinda crushed me:

 

How is ReCell used to treat scars?

 

Scars occur when the edges of a wound cannot quickly join. The healing process focuses on closing the gap quickly more than producing good quality skin. By restoring a normal epidermis (the top layer of the skin) ReCell enables the normalisaton of the cellular activity underneath that ultimately improves the overall skin structure. It has to be remembered that once established, a scar can never be completely removed, it can only be remodelled so it blends with the surounding tissue and is less noticeable. Not every scar can benefit from ReCell and your surgeon will be able to advise on the best course of action.

 

Not trying to burst anyone's bubble here as Avita begins their trials in the US...but it seems like ReCell even admits to not being the true answer. The company has also stated the spray on skin has more success with new wounds vs existing scarring. I just don't understand why the makers of this STILL think complete scar removal isn't possible - and will never be. Makes me nervous we'll never see the day...especially when this is the most promising treatment seen in humans to date. Sigh.

 

hey, do not get depressed about things you read. there was one person on this page (Ernesto), he started a treatment with ReCell, combined with laser fraxel repair and subcision http://www.acne.org/messageboard/index.php/topic/256333-combo-treatment-subsicion-fraxel-re-cell/

He claims that his smalls scar completely disappeared, and the more deep greatly improved. He had really really bad acne scarring.

I believe even with clinical available treatments, very shallow scars can completely disappear. Although it would take its time.

Someone send an email to hydrogel inventors...we need push this people for answers... this hydrogel could be the real answer, i hope that the inventors are not scamming (scam games).

 

Alonso, you can investigate more about this...can you send emails and sesearch to this people.

 

This cain of sugar in the ecm, maybe send signals to stem cells for regenerated, i hope so...the key maybe is this cain of sugar (ecm too).

 

I have already sent emails to them:

Rachel Cassidy

Hello Alonso:

Can you provide more information about yourself and the company that you represent?

Are you a JHU student? Can you tell me what class you are taking?

Many Thanks,

Rachel

I asked for information (patent, trials, etc), but they are not so accessibles, they just answered this.

http://www.jhu.edu/c...cht/contact.htm

this seems to be the patent: Hydrogel

materials mentioned herein and preparation

Materials: Dextran (Mr 70,000) and allyl isocyanate were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. We dried the dextran in an oven for 30 min at 60 C before reaction. We purchased dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dibutyltin dilaurate, 2-bromoethylamine hydrobromide, triethylamine, acryloyl chloride, polyethylene glycol (Mr 4,000), and other chemicals from Aldrich Chemical Co. and used them as received. The photoinitiator 2-hydroxy-1-[4-(hydroxyethoxy)phenyl]-2-methyl-1-propanone was obtained from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. We obtained male 8-weekold 129S1/SvImJ mice from The Jackson Laboratory. We purchased Integra wound dressing from Integra Life Sciences Co. and DuoDerm extra thin dressing from ConvaTec Co.

Preparation of Dextran-Allyl Isocyanate-Ethylamine (Dex-AE)/Polyethylene Glycol Diacrylate (PEGDA) Hydrogel: We prepared the Dex-AE/PEGDA hydrogels as we previously reported (1, 2). We dissolved Dex-AE/PEGDA at the ratio of 60/40 and 80/20 into phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 0.1% (wtwt) 2-methyl-1-[4-(hydroxyethoxy)phenyl]-2-methyl-1-propanone (Irgacure 2959, Ciba). The mixture was pipetted into a sterile mold (70-L volume per well) to obtain discs measuring 8 mm in diameter by 2 mm in thickness and photopolymerized (approximately 10 mWcm2 of UV light for 10 min; Black-Ray, UVP). We removed the resulting hydrogels from the mold and immersed them in sterile PBS solution before application onto wounds.

http://www.pnas.org/...108_SI.pdf#STXT

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

http://www.pnas.org/...8.full.pdf html

I repeat we need make our own hydrogel dextran...lets focus on that chance.

but it seems to be difficult for us, here are the material and source of obtaining:

-Dextran (Mr 70,000) and allyl isocyanate---------------------------------------------Sigma Chemical Co.

-dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dibutyltin dilaurate, -------------------------------------Aldrich Chemical Co.

2-bromoethylamine hydrobromide, triethylamine,

acryloyl chloride, polyethylene glycol (Mr 4,000),

and other chemicals

-The photoinitiator 2-hydroxy-1-[4-(hydroxyethoxy)-----------------------------------Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.

phenyl]-2-methyl-1-propanone

-Integra wound dressing--------------------------------------------------------------------Integra Life Sciences Co.

-DuoDerm extra thin dressing-------------------------------------------------------------ConvaTec Co.

First, get the materials (I hope they can be obtained by civilians(normal people)), and then, understand the preparation.

Second, how we going to use this? after laser, subcision, dermabrasion, tca peel, etc??? since, no doctors are willing to cut ours scars and put something.

Maybe, a small group of us can meet, and obtain the materials, and prepare hydrogel in copious amounts, this would be more economical and faster.

anyone here who have a relative / friend who is a scientist or something like???

P.D. I'm just speculating

Another hydrogel is being tested in 2012 for scars. Looks like companies acknowledge hydrogel as the new scaffold and the race has begun.

http://finance.yahoo...-120800286.html

This is the company financing it.

http://www.oculusis.com

All I have to do now is be patient. I believe 2013 is going to be the year, because a hydrogel is a device and not a medicine approval is faster than a medicine. In the meantime Recell is amazing enough for me for facial scars.

So relax. Recell is really coming up lately and I expect the use of this product worldwide.

In the meantime Lapis is right, do everything you can mentally. This man (jonny) is a real hero to me and made me rethink about my problems. (it's kind of heavy)

Scars are just superficial, so is identity. You have to become pure soul.

[media

Hey everyone, I heard back from one of the researchers in Gerecht's lab today.

I asked for the status of the hydrogel and the reply was this...

Slowww motion....... if this stuff can really do what they say it can, then why the heck would it take so long to get funding? This could be absolutely HUGE, you'd think investors would be jumping all over it? I asked them the same question a few months ago and they said they were trying to getting funding then too.

Hey thanks for sharing that man. DoD stands for Department of defense, right? Interesting. That's very strange indeed, the fact that they aren't yet funded. I wish I had a few million in the bank! But seriously, that kind of sucks, the fact that lack of funding may stop the further testing and development of it.

I repeat we need make our own hydrogel dextran...lets focus on that chance.

 

We have the support information, which details the apparatus, we know the ratio needed is 80:20 etc. In the grand scheme of things this is very easy to replicate. Someone will do this sooner or later.

Yeah, it's very odd. So although they're getting consistent results that show it works, it still seems as if it's going to be quite a while before we reap any benefits.

It's quite frustrating when there's potentially a cure just sitting there ready to rid all of us of tons of emotional issues and hinderances, but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it but wait for the long awaited say-so of a few slow paced decision makers at the top of the ladder.

We dried the dextran in an oven for 30 min at 60 C before reaction. We purchased dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dibutyltin dilaurate, 2-bromoethylamine hydrobromide, triethylamine, acryloyl chloride, polyethylene glycol (Mr 4,000), and other chemicals from Aldrich Chemical Co. and used them as received.

other chemicals------------------------------------lack this information, I think