Acne.org Products
I totally agree about CAR decorin. When I got Ruoslahti's second response I pretty much lost interest in the research.
To be honest, anything less than complete regeneration really doesn't interest me (with the sweat glands, hair follicles etc.). I don't see the point in doling out money only to come back with a somewhat better resulting scar. All or nothing I say, which is why the hydrogel is so intriguing.
Hopefully she responds after she gest back so we can get an update and help out if possible with funding.
here's another article regarding a dextran hydrogel (plus some additional drug), and it's healing effects versus a standard and gauze control: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2974132/
To be completely honest these results aren't very impressive. In the pictures they seem to be about at the same level as the gauze control. Personally I'm not getting my hopes too high about hydrogel because I ought to just live my life and apply a cure when it comes.
Good find trendycat. However, it seems the materials and preparation for the two hydrogels is somewhat different which probably contributes to the differences in outcome. Also, the one you linked only reported their observations for up to 15 days after application whereas the Johns Hopkins researchers observed and documented up to 21 and reported on up to 35 days after application.
I don't know, for me the research shows a mouse with it's skin, hair follicles and sweat glands all regenerated. So unless something was misreported or fabricated it's safe to say that the dextran hydrogel used by Gerecht and Co. was able to promote complete regeneration in mice. That's the key though. Will it work on humans? I'd honestly just cut out a scar from my leg and try that bad boy if I were one of them... but maybe that's why I'm not a scientist 
Obviously no one should get their hopes up too high about this because nothing has been proven to work in humans at all. However, I do think if there is some small way I can help them find that out it's worth my time and effort to do so.
here's another article regarding a dextran hydrogel (plus some additional drug), and it's healing effects versus a standard and gauze control: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2974132/
To be completely honest these results aren't very impressive. In the pictures they seem to be about at the same level as the gauze control. Personally I'm not getting my hopes too high about hydrogel because I ought to just live my life and apply a cure when it comes.
Youll have a long wait if you look at the polyvinyl Alcohol/Dextran Hydrogel (PVA) (though I havent assessed that study you linked to, but I guess if that different study is as bad as you say, then youll have a long wait).
The dextran compound you highlighted polyvinyl Alcohol/Dextran Hydrogel (PVA) is not the dextran in the sun. gerecht study. Polyvinyl Alcohol/Dextran Hydrogel is not a dextran-allyl isocyanate-ethylamine (Dex-AE)/ polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) in the sun, gerecht study. They are different, apples and oranges. So to compare them and generalise them and to paint them with the same broad brush, and to then write them both off when the absolutely non related fails is fallacious imo.
You cant even compare the related dextran-allyl isocyanate-ethylamine (Dex-AE)/ polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) 80:20 and the dextran-allyl isocyanate-ethylamine (Dex-AE)/ polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) 60:40, as they both degrade slightly differently.
So we all await the doctor's reply
re - copyrighting the dextran - I also read that China have declared recently that they will manufacture any drug they want in the case of a 'national emergency' and won't compensate the inventor/investigator - which I don't think has gone down well - but which also brings up questions of knowledge and how ethical is it to say that you 'own' something just because you've discovered it has a certain reaction in the human body - and should you be allowed to withold something from someone that affects their health
Anyhow the central question for me remains this:
*as a person outside of the scientific world I have read that this new product [which contains no drugs or stem cells] has been discovered to completely regenerate skin in mice - a thing never before achieved - and according to the researchers the product would be cheap and quick to make
*And now I learn that nearly a year has passed and nothing has been done yet to follow up on this research
And in my mind I just can't bridge the above two points - why has there been no follow-up research in this time? - even if the lab at John Hopkins can't get funding - or is snowed under with projects - in my mind I would think that a burns charity - or charitable institution [and there are many, some worth billions dedicated just to giving money to medical research] - or just some of the many other institutions in the world would just pick up on the potential and say 'ok - even if we don't paid royalties from a future product, we'd be happy to be part of making it happen - let's just get some further experiments on this going'
sorry if this sounds a bit rant-like - but I just find the disconnect between the hope when I read about the hydrogel - and the reality of the situation now hard to bridge
Another point is that surely further animal studies wouldn't be hard to do - I think a lot of wound healing products are tested on pigs as their skin is more similiar to humans - and I am a huge animal welfare/rights advocate - but basically creating a small cut on pig while it's under anesthetic and then putting a bandage on it I assume wouldn't even hurt the animal that much - deep cuts/full burns don't actually hurt that much or at all - for the obvious reason that if they are deep enough then the nerves are gone
Another question I have - if anyone knows: is the hydrogel that they have made incredibly diffcicult to manufacture - or have they created something that any scientist given the process details could easily recreate - ie. they have just stumbled upon a great formula - I guess I'm asking because that gives me hope that someone else might just do the research out of curiosty - after all, I'm sure even though the hydrogel device is patented that doesn't mean someone else can't research it - just that they can't sell it without getting permission or giving royalties
The words of your rant are exactly what irks me every single day. It doesn't make ANY since. It is truly a crime to humanity. Something has to be done. But what?
And I honestly like China's approach. It makes sense. When it comes to saving and restoring people's lives, patents/politics/etc shouldn't even be considered. We are talking about the quality of humans lives here.
The articles have stated that the hydrogel is very easy and inexpensive to manufacture.
Also guys, I've emailed Gerecht on several occasions in the past and have never gotten a response - so don't get your hopes up. I don't know why she won't respond, it's rather unfortunate. Especially since Guoming Sun can no longer give insight into the progress as they've lost funding for his spot.
Gahhhhhhhhhhhh. 
What do we do?
More regarding China's policy on manufacturing patented drugs...
They state they will do so during emergencies, unusual circumstances, or in public interest...
Note the public interest part there. That is key.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/06/2012694923223634.html
Golfpanther
Scaffolds behave similar in all mammals. They degrade at similar rates, they are digested or not digested at similar rates.
So that means that you really believe that the dextran hydrogel will succeed in human trials?
And you follow scarless healing advancements for a long time, much longer than me, so just want to ask you if this is the first case that scientists have managed to completely regenerate the skin wound on the mouse so that scar does not remain at all? Or there were such cases before?
I can see that you predicted failure of Juvista when no one really expected that could happen (I can just tell you that you could earn a lot of money by shorting Renovo's stock ), I hope that your predictions will be correct again
nice greetings!
Golfpanther
Scaffolds behave similar in all mammals. They degrade at similar rates, they are digested or not digested at similar rates.
So that means that you really believe that the dextran hydrogel will succeed in human trials?
And you follow scarless healing advancements for a long time, much longer than me, so just want to ask you if this is the first case that scientists have managed to completely regenerate the skin wound on the mouse so that scar does not remain at all? Or there were such cases before?
I can see that you predicted failure of Juvista when no one really expected that could happen (I can just tell you that you could earn a lot of money by shorting Renovo's stock ), I hope that your predictions will be correct again
nice greetings!
At first, when I began researching, I originally took in the spin coming off juvista; but I really stopped believing in Juvista after the second phase results, the theory:results ratio was not up to standard (and the realisation that one injection based on an observation of one mechanism, will never ever bring regeneration. The only thing that will bring scar free healing is your body, or the removal of a scar response) it was also scarless healing not scar free. Ive never bought or shorted anything in my life, but in retrospect I wish I thought about shorting it, I'd be in profit, but at that time, even though I did not want it approved, I partly thought it might be approved, not because it merited/deserved it, but because I repeatedly heard the talk off the moneymen and renovo; the rhetoric coming from them was that it was in the bag.
But the phase 3 trial proved it had no merit for scarless healing.
Regarding scaffolds, all scaffolds do is degrade, they get degraded by the host, the host does the rest. The longer they take to degrade the more scar. The faster your body digests the faster healing and the less scar. When they degrade fast they reepithilize faster. Degradable scaffolds allow cell growth, wereas non degradable do not. BTW there is a reference in the paper about chitosan hydrogel scaffold digestion that also backs up the claim that the faster the digestion the better healing in mammals.
And using linear logic, I reasonably predict it will work in any mammal, like other scaffolds do. Anything outside that logic would be out of the logical framework imo, not expected. I've never seen anything like with 3rd degree burns on this thread. Also using the paper this is the first time that a scaffold has been degraded in 7days, the first time 3rd degree burn has reepithilized in under 14 days (reepithilized before a scar response can grab a hold of the healing, before day 21) and completely regenerated a 3rd degree burn as stated in the paper.
I'm not even sure you'd need a website. You could probably just have a Facebook page and a Twitter account. That way it's easier to interact with other supporters and keep them updated and you wouldn't have to drive traffic to another site. It would just be sites almost everyone visits everyday anyway.
I'd be down to do something like this for sure. I think planning would be key though so at launch you could get some traction right off. Beforehand it might be a good idea to reach to some organizations for support (VA for one) so the site or page would have a bit more clout. The trick to obtaining support would be getting people to buy into the fact this would work on humans. I agree with seabs that this would most likely be the case but without data to support that it's a bit tricky.
It would also be good to know where the research stands from Gerecht since she owns the patent to the device. See if she would be interested in playing a part in it.
Yeah it'd definitely be ideal to talk to Gerecht beforehand. But I literally sent her an email telling her this same thing a couple weeks ago. Telling her that myself and a community of people supporting the progress of the hydrogel were willing to start a movement/petition/anything it takes to get this process sped up.
And I got no response. So that's going to be unfortunate and maybe put a damper on the thing.
Let's start contacting organizations if you think that'd help. What exactly do you picture their role being?
Did you read the thing about China and public interest? I feel like we could easily show huge public interest with a page like this.
As far as organizations and their role I think it would have a lot more impact on the public and potential investors (government or private) if they were behind the movement. Plus, if this were to really take off other media outlets would need to become involved and large organizations like the VA would have contacts that could help make that happen.
It's tough not knowing where Gerecht stands on the research. Maybe you could follow up with Sun to see if he has thoughts about doing something like this to gauge what interest the lab might have.
The idea of public interest prompting China to disregard patent and start researching this themselves is entirely possible. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone is there right now working on it after reading the same articles and publications we read. Maybe I'll contact one of their research university's or departments to see if they know anything about it.
We might also want to contact this guy:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/surgery/faculty/Harmon
He too was involved with the research and is quoted in several articles about the hydrogel. He might be able to shed additional light on what's going on with it and ways we could help.
So... I might have a bit of good news. I went searching around the NIH and it appears Gerecht DID receive funding for continuing her research. Here's the link:
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=8291247&icde=0
She also received money from the same place, National Lung, Heart and Blood Institue, in 2011:
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=8086942&icde=0
So I'm not sure what exactly they're doing with the funds right now but if you click on the results tab it lists the very paper we've all been referring to.
Very interesting.
I'll contact Yungling Gao if you haven't already?
I wonder if this funding was for something else though? Dr. Sun literally told me one week ago that they hadn't received funding yet and were contemplating pursuing an SBIR funding opportunity. This doesn't add up.
I was inclined to think it was something else until I clicked on the results tab and saw the paper listed about the hydrogel. Now, the specific tests they're doing with the funding at this time might not have to do with the hydrogel but it is the same overall project.
I have not contacted Yungling so fire away if you want.
wow - this thread is a bit of a roller-coaster! - with shock findings and plot development twists and turns
*hopefully* it turns out that further hydrogel tests are already in motion - I think most people on here are realistic and know that if the gel did translate to humans - and that even if development went fast [ie fast for the medical world] that any treatment would still be at least a couple of years away - but hey, time goes fast - and actually if this did begin to look like good news the wait would be fine - every time I would look at my scars I would think 'your are days are numbered, all of you!' - and even if I just knew something was in development it would give me hope to go on with, I would know something was being done - a solution might be on it's way - and even that little bit of hope means a lot
another thought is - I know that the plastic surgery industry is interested in scar free healing for use in everything from breast implants to hair transplants - but if this hydrogel did give true scar free healing couldn't a surgeon just cut off some excess skin on a wrinkly face/neck and pull the skin together with a hydrogel filler to result in a very tight face - I guess, basically a face-lift - but if it left no scars you could pull the skin in every direction - if this did actually work it would make someone - or their institution A LOT of money
Obviously, if this worked on humans the sky would be the limit for several industries. The one thing that concerns me about this is that mice have significantly less mechanical stress on their skin that humans (it's why we form hypertrophic scars and they do not without adding stress). I would imagine the next tests would be on pigs because they scar very similar to humans. If it worked on them, then I'd be pretty much convinced it would work on humans.
And yeah, if I knew something that worked was on the way I think a lot of my worries about the scars I have (from a car accident actually) wouldn't bother me. As for the funding it definitely is intriguing. Not sure what to make of it when it's stacked up against what Dr. Sun said in his email to chuckstonchew. It might be that since they knew they weren't going to get the funding for his position he's been left a little bit out of the loop. Then again he wrote that they were looking into funding from SBIR. I mean, they do have funding from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute so there is some disconnect going on between Sun and the rest of the Gerecht lab.
Great! Look forward to hearing what they have to say.
In looking at the NIH project information page further they received additional funding from the same institute for a little over $60k. Good news!
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=8476800&icde=0
So with additional funding the total actually comes to more than they received in 2011.
Very interesting.
I'll contact Yungling Gao if you haven't already?
I wonder if this funding was for something else though? Dr. Sun literally told me one week ago that they hadn't received funding yet and were contemplating pursuing an SBIR funding opportunity. This doesn't add up.
There is a nuance here. Something does not add up. My current suspicions 1. original funding is not enough to cover costs and they need a different type of funding (but I thought they had no funding), or 2. they were waiting to be accepted and approved for some funds on a yearly roll on basis. (again I thought they had no funding) 3. They were funded but did not have some official documentation to verify the funding and therefor couldn't say they were funded. 4. Or something else.
But with what you said Dr Sun said, this doesn't add up and this is the first time I have heard they have any funding...
