Acne.org Products
Lapis, I agree. I wouldn't make an overly manipulative video like you describe with sad piano music. The trick with these kinds of things (along with film and television) is to elicit emotions in your audience without it feeling contrived. Basically, you do try to convince your audience of something, be it a theme, message, idea but without them knowing you're doing it. Any good film, television show or promotion does this. For the most part, I would just want simple interviews with the researchers describing what they're doing, briefly how it works and who it could potentially help. Basically, follow the template that sites like kickstarter and petridish use for their videos but with better production.
However, I will say that more overt techniques do work for some people. I may not like it but I can concede that I don't represent everyone's taste. Basically, I'd start with the subtler videos that focus on the researchers, device and applications and modify if necessary. So, start by appealing to ethos and showing that this is legitimate research being done at the best medical research university in America with very promising results. That will make people feel safe that the money is being put to good use.
Then, if others need a little extra push or that tactic doesn't work for them (it's too "sciency", boring etc.) shift to something tasteful that gives a face to the unmet medical need. Let's face it, talking about a device that could potentially result in complete regeneration for 3rd degree burn victims would never be as attention grabbing as simply showing someone with burns. You're right, they wouldn't have to say a word. I think of the campaign against meth that ran a little while ago here in Los Angeles. Just billboards with a picture of a person but as you drove closer it shifted to what that person looks like after abusing meth. Or the TV adds where the person took off all their facial prosthetics they'd had to get because of it (similar to the current smoking one). I have no idea if it made a single meth addict stop using but it did get my attention. Obviously that exact technique wouldn't be used for this but the idea of just using simple images without words would I think.
What about conveying that accidents happen and that they can happen to anybody? That you don't appeal to sympathy by showing how others suffer but that you convey that if you donate you might just benefit from it yourself should it come to fruition? Maybe statistics that show how many traffic accidents happen? Or show how many people need surgery at any point in their lives? Breast cancer sufferers who need surgery can end up without scars. Just as people who get breast implants...and so forth and so forth.
I may be cynical here but when it comes down to it, helping oneself is higher up the list of priorities than helping others as far as a large percentage of the population is concerned.
@Lapis, broadening the scope would definitely be a good idea. Brings it closer to home (even show cosmetic applications perhaps). Giving people a sense of a personal incentive definitely helps but think about.
I tend to agree when you say that a large percentage of the population would rather help themselves than others. However, even successful fundraisers, marketing campaigns etc. really are only reaching a very small percentage of the population. Take the kickstarter page that was funded for over 10 million. It had close to 69,000 backers. A good amount but when you think about that stacked up to the population of a country like America? It's nothing, minuscule (.02% of America's population if they were even all U.S. backers). Or even take a look at the most successful films and music over the past 50 years. In the end they're reaching a very small percentage of the potential viewing or listening audience.
The trick for something like this would be to do the necessary research so we'd know who to target with the videos. And you know what? It's probably not people like you or me at all. It might be the person that spends 14 hours a day watching YouTube cat videos, filling out online sweepstakes, and feels like they're doing God's work when they donate money to a charity or cause. I'm giving an exaggerated example but my point is that we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought we'd get even 1% of the population of any country to donate. We need to reach the people who are willing and able to donate to causes they find appealing or some benefit in that they didn't know about before. Let's face it, getting money the 80% of the population (or whatever you think it is) that is only going to donate to something if they get something in return is more like icing on the cake. You don't need even 1% of the population donating to be successful, just find that small percentage that has a history of donating.
Vlad. I'm like a a broken record.
The only things that block off regeneration is 1. scar and 2. necrosis. Logically healing is a triangular relationship between scarring, necrosis and regeneration. And you want perfect regeneration (blood vessels, appendages)
Fibrosis happens with age, and fibrosis usually happens with injury.
Necrosis happens with infection in an injury or you get an injury and your body is compromised with a disease like diabetes.
Also there is no such concept as artificial tissue. Or any foreign tissue that lives within your regenerated tissue. If you put an artificial tissue in your soft tissues, your body would slowly fight to reject the artificial tissue, it wouldnt absorb, and youd either scar (filling the place of the artificial tissue with scar), or if you got an infection your tissue on your organ would die.
Also, at the same time, if your body has nothing inhibiting it you will get perfect regeneration (like what has happened in say your arm skin, which is the same skin as all other skin in your arm; in skin where you have no fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration), if not youd get fibrosis (a filler taking place of appendages to add a substitute structure and function etc.) or necrosis blocking off regeneration, were youd eventually die.
Now you say artificial tissue which to me is not a concept (as the artificial tissue would be rejected and youd scar, or die if it was necrotic, as Ive just highlighted). But Ill use how I think you defined artificial tissue, you suggested the skin is not perfectly normal.
'Not perfectly normal means either necrosis or scar is blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages from regenerating. You also described the tissue as living, that rules out necrosis. Your artificial tissue you have described is clearly fibrotic encapsulation blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages (your not perfect tissue is scar in other words).
So if you had artificial tissue as you are defining it above (not perfectly normal). Then imo you should change the term 'artificial tissue' or 'not perfectly normal' to scar or fibrotic tissue, or necrotic tissue as the tissue you have described clearly would have fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration of appendages.
However there is nothing highlighting scar or necrosis (artificial tissue) in the paper. There is nothing that highlights blocking off the regeneration of tissue and micro appendages.
Back on to the hydrogel, the hydrogel after digestion brought no scar, fact, and had no necrosis (100% survival) fact, the hydrogel it digested fast under 7days and reepithilized fast under 14days (under 21 days), before the scar response takes hold which is usually after 30days fact. After the hydrogel had digested, the tissue has not had scar blocking off appendages, The appendages regenerated fact. Therefor it has regenerated 100%. Appendages do not grow in scar. There was no artificial tissue (or fibrosis blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages. If there was you'd get fibrosis blocking off the regfeneration of the micro appendages).
To answer your question will it regenerate tissue to normal? it regenerates appendages. There is no other conflicting reason it scars. Reason: regenerating appendages proves no necrosis and no scar, which means regeneration. Also btw with regards to your second question, about tumors which are fibrotic encapsulations. All scaffolds do is degrade (they get digested), the faster they degrade the faster the reepithilization.
It's all nice but then why that hydrogel cannot regenerate sweat glands?
And look at this picture:
although the results are AWESOME compared with their 'state-of-the-art treatment' that they use in John Hopkins burn center it is visible that something was wrong with that part of the regenerated skin because of lower number of hairs so I am just afraid that the regenerated skin texture will be different from normal, uninjured skin.
A. I thought the hydrogel did regenerate sweat glands?
B. Pretty sure it regrew normal hair density as well. It just looks as though it did not in that picture because they left a ring around the treated area when they did the excision of the burn wound.
..?
Vlad. I'm like a a broken record.
The only things that block off regeneration is 1. scar and 2. necrosis. Logically healing is a triangular relationship between scarring, necrosis and regeneration. And you want perfect regeneration (blood vessels, appendages)
Fibrosis happens with age, and fibrosis usually happens with injury.
Necrosis happens with infection in an injury or you get an injury and your body is compromised with a disease like diabetes.
Also there is no such concept as artificial tissue. Or any foreign tissue that lives within your regenerated tissue. If you put an artificial tissue in your soft tissues, your body would slowly fight to reject the artificial tissue, it wouldnt absorb, and youd either scar (filling the place of the artificial tissue with scar), or if you got an infection your tissue on your organ would die.
Also, at the same time, if your body has nothing inhibiting it you will get perfect regeneration (like what has happened in say your arm skin, which is the same skin as all other skin in your arm; in skin where you have no fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration), if not youd get fibrosis (a filler taking place of appendages to add a substitute structure and function etc.) or necrosis blocking off regeneration, were youd eventually die.
Now you say artificial tissue which to me is not a concept (as the artificial tissue would be rejected and youd scar, or die if it was necrotic, as Ive just highlighted). But Ill use how I think you defined artificial tissue, you suggested the skin is not perfectly normal.
'Not perfectly normal means either necrosis or scar is blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages from regenerating. You also described the tissue as living, that rules out necrosis. Your artificial tissue you have described is clearly fibrotic encapsulation blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages (your not perfect tissue is scar in other words).
So if you had artificial tissue as you are defining it above (not perfectly normal). Then imo you should change the term 'artificial tissue' or 'not perfectly normal' to scar or fibrotic tissue, or necrotic tissue as the tissue you have described clearly would have fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration of appendages.
However there is nothing highlighting scar or necrosis (artificial tissue) in the paper. There is nothing that highlights blocking off the regeneration of tissue and micro appendages.
Back on to the hydrogel, the hydrogel after digestion brought no scar, fact, and had no necrosis (100% survival) fact, the hydrogel it digested fast under 7days and reepithilized fast under 14days (under 21 days), before the scar response takes hold which is usually after 30days fact. After the hydrogel had digested, the tissue has not had scar blocking off appendages, The appendages regenerated fact. Therefor it has regenerated 100%. Appendages do not grow in scar. There was no artificial tissue (or fibrosis blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages. If there was you'd get fibrosis blocking off the regfeneration of the micro appendages).
To answer your question will it regenerate tissue to normal? it regenerates appendages. There is no other conflicting reason it scars. Reason: regenerating appendages proves no necrosis and no scar, which means regeneration. Also btw with regards to your second question, about tumors which are fibrotic encapsulations. All scaffolds do is degrade (they get digested), the faster they degrade the faster the reepithilization.
It's all nice but then why that hydrogel cannot regenerate sweat glands?
And look at this picture:
although the results are AWESOME compared with their 'state-of-the-art treatment' that they use in John Hopkins burn center it is visible that something was wrong with that part of the regenerated skin because of lower number of hairs so I am just afraid that the regenerated skin texture will be different from normal, uninjured skin.
The results have complete regeneration. In the paper there was nothing noted about lower number of hairs than normal. Also in the paper you see quite clearly that the central treated portion (the 2mm rim near, the treated section, was not treated) had normal hair growth, whereas standard controls, did not and were still healing at 5 weeks.
It doesn't mention sweat glands but it does mention sebaceous glands and hair follicles. This is probably down to the fact oily sebaceous glands along with hair are more common and dominant near hairs on mammals with fur. They may have decided prior in the experimental design to focus on one or two appendages, instead of appendages like nails (mice dont have nails), sweat glands (I'd imagine there would be less evolved sweat glands near hairs as the sweat could rub off the oil in hairs that comes from the sebaceous glands). However all micro appendages do not regenerate in scar, so because we have hair and sebaceous glands after the rapid digestion and reepithilization you can see that every other appendage will regenerate, depending on what appendages have evolved to be needed on a mammal.
Well I hope you're right that dextran hydrogel is a real 'cure for scars' and that it can really regenerate perfectly normal skin with perfect textures, hair follicles, sebaceous glands and maybe even sweat glands, then in that case we shouldn't be worried about funding for it and FDA approval, it will be available in clinics sooner or later if it is really so effective and safe...
BTW what do you think about these research, I guess that those are only basic research and not applied research but anyway it sounds interesting:
http://ibbme.utoront...Centimeters.htm
Imagine a machine that makes layered, substantial patches of engineered tissue”tissue that could be used as grafts for burn victims or vascular patches. Sounds like science fiction? According to researchers at the University of Toronto, it's a growing possibility.
Image of cells aligned to spell "Toronto", courtesy Lian Leng
http://www.nottingha...of-the-art.aspx
Taking tissue regeneration beyond the state-of-the-art
The University of Nottingham has begun the search for a new class of injectable materials that will stimulate stem cells to regenerate damaged tissue in degenerative and age related disorders of the bone, muscle and heart.
The work, which is currently at the experimental stage, could lead to treatments for diseases that currently have no cure. The aim is to produce radical new treatments that will reduce the need for invasive surgery, optimise recovery and reduce the risk of undesirable scar tissue.
http://www.biodesign...ages/focus.html
BIODESIGN is a strategic alliance of global experts developing medicines that stimulate tissue regeneration for degenerative and age related disorders of the bone, muscle and heart.
Tissue regeneration, following tissue damage, has characteristics common to almost all tissues (inflammation of the tissue, necessity for nutrient supply and scarring) combined with the organ specific regeneration.
Our modular design incorporates aspects, which address the shared characteristics of the regeneration process, while simultaneously providing highly specific stimuli based upon the damaged organ itself.
Our initial focus is on the design of biomimetics for the treatment of age related and genetic disorders of the bone, skeletal muscle and cardiovascular tissues, while the technologies can be adapted and tailored to almost all tissues.
Well I hope you're right that dextran hydrogel is a real 'cure for scars' and that it can really regenerate perfectly normal skin with perfect textures, hair follicles, sebaceous glands and maybe even sweat glands, then in that case we shouldn't be worried about funding for it and FDA approval, it will be available in clinics sooner or later if it is really so effective and safe...
The fast degrading hydrogel scaffold has clear results, its theory results ratio is balanced in the results. All scaffolds do is degrade, the faster the better. If it didn't regenerate perfectly normally that would be fibrotic encapsulation and you would not get appendages. And down to a slow digestion, enabling a scar response. It should digest similar in all mammals. BTW we have already waited 8month, just because something works does not say it will be funded, it is not as black and white as that with anything in life.
I can't believe it's already been 8 months without any progress. SMH, disheartening.
I say we hire some biomedical engineers to make the 80/20 dextran hydrogel and start our own underground healing revolution. 
Vlad. I'm like a a broken record.
The only things that block off regeneration is 1. scar and 2. necrosis. Logically healing is a triangular relationship between scarring, necrosis and regeneration. And you want perfect regeneration (blood vessels, appendages)
Fibrosis happens with age, and fibrosis usually happens with injury.
Necrosis happens with infection in an injury or you get an injury and your body is compromised with a disease like diabetes.
Also there is no such concept as ˜artificial tissue.™ Or any foreign tissue that lives within your regenerated tissue. If you put an artificial tissue in your soft tissues, your body would slowly fight to reject the artificial tissue, it wouldn™t absorb, and you™d either scar (filling the place of the artificial tissue with scar), or if you got an infection your tissue on your organ would die.
Also, at the same time, if your body has nothing inhibiting it you will get perfect regeneration (like what has happened in say your arm skin, which is the same skin as all other skin in your arm; in skin where you have no fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration), if not you™d get fibrosis (a filler taking place of appendages to add a substitute structure and function etc.) or necrosis blocking off regeneration, were you™d eventually die.
Now you say ˜artificial tissue™ which to me is not a concept (as the artificial tissue would be rejected and you™d scar, or die if it was necrotic, as I™ve just highlighted). But I™ll use how I think you defined artificial tissue, you suggested the skin is ˜not perfectly normal.™
'Not perfectly normal means either necrosis or scar is blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages from regenerating. You also described the tissue as ˜living™, that rules out necrosis. Your artificial tissue you have described is clearly fibrotic encapsulation blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages (your ˜not perfect tissue™ is scar in other words).
So if you had ˜artificial tissue™ as you are defining it above (not perfectly normal). Then imo you should change the term 'artificial tissue' or 'not perfectly normal' to ˜scar™ or ˜fibrotic™ tissue, or ˜necrotic™ tissue as the tissue you have described clearly would have fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration of appendages.
However there is nothing highlighting scar or necrosis (˜artificial tissue™) in the paper. There is nothing that highlights blocking off the regeneration of tissue and micro appendages.
Back on to the hydrogel, the hydrogel after digestion brought no scar, fact, and had no necrosis (100% survival) fact, the hydrogel it digested fast under 7days and reepithilized fast under 14days (under 21 days), before the scar response takes hold which is usually after 30days fact. After the hydrogel had digested, the tissue has not had scar blocking off appendages, The appendages regenerated fact. Therefor it has regenerated 100%. Appendages do not grow in scar. There was no ˜artificial tissue™ (or fibrosis blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages. If there was you'd get fibrosis blocking off the regfeneration of the micro appendages).
To answer your question will it regenerate tissue to normal? it regenerates appendages. There is no other conflicting reason it scars. Reason: regenerating appendages proves no necrosis and no scar, which means regeneration. Also btw with regards to your second question, about tumors which are fibrotic encapsulations. All scaffolds do is degrade (they get digested), the faster they degrade the faster the reepithilization.
It's all nice but then why that hydrogel cannot regenerate sweat glands?
And look at this picture:
although the results are AWESOME compared with their 'state-of-the-art treatment' that they use in John Hopkins burn center it is visible that something was wrong with that part of the regenerated skin because of lower number of hairs so I am just afraid that the regenerated skin texture will be different from normal, uninjured skin.
The results have ˜complete regeneration.™ In the paper there was nothing noted about lower number of hairs than normal. Also in the paper you see quite clearly that the central treated portion (the 2mm rim near, the treated section, was not treated) had normal hair growth, whereas standard controls, did not and were still healing at 5 weeks.
It doesn't mention sweat glands but it does mention sebaceous glands and hair follicles. This is probably down to the fact oily sebaceous glands along with hair are more common and dominant near hairs on mammals with fur. They may have decided prior in the experimental design to focus on one or two appendages, instead of appendages like nails (mice dont have nails), sweat glands (I'd imagine there would be less evolved sweat glands near hairs as the sweat could rub off the oil in hairs that comes from the sebaceous glands). However all micro appendages do not regenerate in scar, so because we have hair and sebaceous glands after the rapid digestion and reepithilization you can see that every other appendage will regenerate, depending on what appendages have evolved to be needed on a mammal.
these mice do not have sweat glands,that's why not sweat glands regeneration
I can't believe it's already been 8 months without any progress. SMH, disheartening.
I say we hire some biomedical engineers to make the 80/20 dextran hydrogel and start our own underground healing revolution.
waiting for next budget year now
I can't believe it's already been 8 months without any progress. SMH, disheartening.
I say we hire some biomedical engineers to make the 80/20 dextran hydrogel and start our own underground healing revolution.
hire me
More money is needed for preclinical study. It may need some time to customize the hydrogels scaffolds for preclinical study, as this will base on pig model. Once the preclinical study is clear, it will move to clinical study. FDA approval is needed before clinical study though....
Now the key issue is MONEY for this research!
Vlad. I'm like a a broken record.
The only things that block off regeneration is 1. scar and 2. necrosis. Logically healing is a triangular relationship between scarring, necrosis and regeneration. And you want perfect regeneration (blood vessels, appendages)
Fibrosis happens with age, and fibrosis usually happens with injury.
Necrosis happens with infection in an injury or you get an injury and your body is compromised with a disease like diabetes.
Also there is no such concept as ˜artificial tissue.™ Or any foreign tissue that lives within your regenerated tissue. If you put an artificial tissue in your soft tissues, your body would slowly fight to reject the artificial tissue, it wouldn™t absorb, and you™d either scar (filling the place of the artificial tissue with scar), or if you got an infection your tissue on your organ would die.
Also, at the same time, if your body has nothing inhibiting it you will get perfect regeneration (like what has happened in say your arm skin, which is the same skin as all other skin in your arm; in skin where you have no fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration), if not you™d get fibrosis (a filler taking place of appendages to add a substitute structure and function etc.) or necrosis blocking off regeneration, were you™d eventually die.
Now you say ˜artificial tissue™ which to me is not a concept (as the artificial tissue would be rejected and you™d scar, or die if it was necrotic, as I™ve just highlighted). But I™ll use how I think you defined artificial tissue, you suggested the skin is ˜not perfectly normal.™
'Not perfectly normal means either necrosis or scar is blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages from regenerating. You also described the tissue as ˜living™, that rules out necrosis. Your artificial tissue you have described is clearly fibrotic encapsulation blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages (your ˜not perfect tissue™ is scar in other words).
So if you had ˜artificial tissue™ as you are defining it above (not perfectly normal). Then imo you should change the term 'artificial tissue' or 'not perfectly normal' to ˜scar™ or ˜fibrotic™ tissue, or ˜necrotic™ tissue as the tissue you have described clearly would have fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration of appendages.
However there is nothing highlighting scar or necrosis (˜artificial tissue™) in the paper. There is nothing that highlights blocking off the regeneration of tissue and micro appendages.
Back on to the hydrogel, the hydrogel after digestion brought no scar, fact, and had no necrosis (100% survival) fact, the hydrogel it digested fast under 7days and reepithilized fast under 14days (under 21 days), before the scar response takes hold which is usually after 30days fact. After the hydrogel had digested, the tissue has not had scar blocking off appendages, The appendages regenerated fact. Therefor it has regenerated 100%. Appendages do not grow in scar. There was no ˜artificial tissue™ (or fibrosis blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages. If there was you'd get fibrosis blocking off the regfeneration of the micro appendages).
To answer your question will it regenerate tissue to normal? it regenerates appendages. There is no other conflicting reason it scars. Reason: regenerating appendages proves no necrosis and no scar, which means regeneration. Also btw with regards to your second question, about tumors which are fibrotic encapsulations. All scaffolds do is degrade (they get digested), the faster they degrade the faster the reepithilization.
It's all nice but then why that hydrogel cannot regenerate sweat glands?
And look at this picture:
although the results are AWESOME compared with their 'state-of-the-art treatment' that they use in John Hopkins burn center it is visible that something was wrong with that part of the regenerated skin because of lower number of hairs so I am just afraid that the regenerated skin texture will be different from normal, uninjured skin.
The results have ˜complete regeneration.™ In the paper there was nothing noted about lower number of hairs than normal. Also in the paper you see quite clearly that the central treated portion (the 2mm rim near, the treated section, was not treated) had normal hair growth, whereas standard controls, did not and were still healing at 5 weeks.
It doesn't mention sweat glands but it does mention sebaceous glands and hair follicles. This is probably down to the fact oily sebaceous glands along with hair are more common and dominant near hairs on mammals with fur. They may have decided prior in the experimental design to focus on one or two appendages, instead of appendages like nails (mice dont have nails), sweat glands (I'd imagine there would be less evolved sweat glands near hairs as the sweat could rub off the oil in hairs that comes from the sebaceous glands). However all micro appendages do not regenerate in scar, so because we have hair and sebaceous glands after the rapid digestion and reepithilization you can see that every other appendage will regenerate, depending on what appendages have evolved to be needed on a mammal.
these mice do not have sweat glands,that's why not sweat glands regeneration
I can't believe it's already been 8 months without any progress. SMH, disheartening.
I say we hire some biomedical engineers to make the 80/20 dextran hydrogel and start our own underground healing revolution.
waiting for next budget year now
I can't believe it's already been 8 months without any progress. SMH, disheartening.
I say we hire some biomedical engineers to make the 80/20 dextran hydrogel and start our own underground healing revolution.
hire me
More money is needed for preclinical study. It may need some time to customize the hydrogels scaffolds for preclinical study, as this will base on pig model. Once the preclinical study is clear, it will move to clinical study. FDA approval is needed before clinical study though....
Now the key issue is MONEY for this research!
Like dogs, they only have sweat glands in the nose, and paws. Common in most mammals with fur I'd imagine.
no... he's currently on vacation and we're planning on having a conversation on the phone after labor day!
I want to move the research forward, to do preclinical testing, says Gerecht. But that next steppre-clinical studies in large animalswill require substantial funding. To garner that funding, Gerecht is applying for federal grants. She is also seeking potential sponsors in another quarter: industry.
@skinregenerator, yeah I think we're all familiar with that. Hopefully she does find some funding there. chuckstonchew has been in touch with Dr. Harmon (another Johns Hopkins researcher involved in this project) and he expressed interest in working with a group like ours to increase awareness and get them funding.
All attempts to contact Gerecht have been unsuccessful as far as I know. She and her lab did receive additional funding for the project this year from the NHLBI and a smaller amount from the DoD. A few pages back I posted links to what she and the lab were awarded.
Also, I think we have to see things from her perspective on this a bit. As much as she may want this to come to fruition for altruistic reasons, there is a financial one as well since she owns the patent. I know someone (sorry can't remember who) on this board contacted Sun (the first name on the paper) who said that they were contacting SBIR for money as well. SBIR awards money to small businesses aimed at turning research into commercialization.
She's probably trying to set up a small business of some type for herself, get the award from SBIR, and then focus on private investors so she can be better setup her infrastructure for when/if this hydrogel comes to market.
That being said, I'm sure she wouldn't scoff at whatever funds we could help them raise. 
no... he's currently on vacation and we're planning on having a conversation on the phone after labor day!
Great! Just ask him whether that hydrogel will be useful for all kinds of scars (injuries, acne scars, ulcers, hypertrophic scars, keloids,...) and whether it will be capable of regenerating perfect scar free skin with perfect natural-looking skin textures and whether it wll be capable of regenerating sweat glands?
That are the most important things, if the answer is 'yes' then don't worry, it's not a drug, it's a device, I'm sure it will be available in the plastic surgery clinics before 2015, they just need to follow tough FDA rules and most probably they will test it on different parts of the body on large animals and then after that on humans so they need some time, then just ask him who will fund their preclinical and clinical trials (NIH, SBIR, venture capital funds or someone else) and whether they plan to set up their company?
And ask him about that new law ('FDA Safety and Innovation Act') and whether it will change something for dextran hydrogel (the fact is that new legislation had strong support by medical device industry, they were willing to spend a lot of money on lobbying for it and now they are willing to pay additional fees to FDA just because they want more quick approval procedures for their products so I guess that could be good news).
And ask him whether is there a chance that it will be approved in Europe before America (just like re-cell)?
And try to remember all other details on what he will say to you.
Here's a link to some interesting statistics on the SBIR site. The most interesting being the months between the different stages going from proposal, selection to the start of the awards.
http://www.sbir.gov/competitiveness
For the most part all of the agencies funding the projects through SBIR have roughly a year to year and half timetable from the proposal time to phase II awards being dispersed. Hopefully Gerecht has already gotten the ball rolling on the proposal step and some of those months have been trimmed off already.
We need to get funding NOW. I'm not waiting a year and a half to get the funding, then another year and a half / two years to get approval. That is absurd. If that's the case I will literally teach myself how to make hydrogels and fix myself. Someone somewhere with money has to see the potential of this. I mean - how have they not already? Complete scar free regeneration after a 3rd degree burn? Using a simple device? Am I missing something?!?!
We need to get funding NOW. I'm not waiting a year and a half to get the funding, then another year and a half / two years to get approval. That is absurd. If that's the case I will literally teach myself how to make hydrogels and fix myself. Someone somewhere with money has to see the potential of this. I mean - how have they not already? Complete scar free regeneration after a 3rd degree burn? Using a simple device? Am I missing something?!?!
Completely agree we need to get funding now. A year and a half is to long a wait.
Here's a link to some interesting statistics on the SBIR site. The most interesting being the months between the different stages going from proposal, selection to the start of the awards.
http://www.sbir.gov/competitiveness
For the most part all of the agencies funding the projects through SBIR have roughly a year to year and half timetable from the proposal time to phase II awards being dispersed. Hopefully Gerecht has already gotten the ball rolling on the proposal step and some of those months have been trimmed off already.
I think she need s startup to get SBIR. the PI of the SBIR funding has to be employed 51% by the startup company, and cannot be JHU full time employee.She needs hire someone...It won't be a possible solution for her
We need to get funding NOW. I'm not waiting a year and a half to get the funding, then another year and a half / two years to get approval. That is absurd. If that's the case I will literally teach myself how to make hydrogels and fix myself. Someone somewhere with money has to see the potential of this. I mean - how have they not already? Complete scar free regeneration after a 3rd degree burn? Using a simple device? Am I missing something?!?!
what will you do if you have got the funding?