Acne.org Products
whoah, this topic was on the third page...unacceptable! Especially considering this thread is the only reason I return to these boards!
some interesting reading to get the discussion going again
Title says NO SCARRING but the article then says "minimize" scarring.
Interesting post hopeseed! I remember Paul Martin was prominent in some of the very early regenerative papers. I wondered what he was up to. I believe he worked closely with Ferguson. Wasn't Osteopontin heralded as a type of super tissue glue a few years ago? Really interesting if it would now be implicated as an enemy of scar free healing. I'll have to Google this. Honestly, I wish I didn't work and could research this topic all day long!
Incidentally, no word back from the Germans, and now none from the Swiss either on Epidex..grr...
Title says NO SCARRING but the article then says "minimize" scarring.
I have seen this gross misrepresentation of products/treatments countless times. Apparently, there are still many professionals (doctors, scientists, journalists) who still don't comprehend the difference between removing scars and minimizing scars. Some obviously feel that this distinction between the two is slight and negligible, therefore the concept of removing scars and of reducing scars become analogous.
I have seen this phenonmenon with Juvista in the majority of articles that I have read. It is being heralded as something that will allow for scarless healing (ie, healing with NO scars), yet all of the information from Renovo stresses the fact that this is something that may "reduce scars."
This confusion exists in most of the articles written about it:
Juvista for scar-free healing after surgeries (Article title)
"A new product which helps reduce scars significantly is manufactured using alligator embryos." (in the body of the article)
Juvista - Scars be gone
"it helps to reduce scarring."
It seems that there is a lot of hope and faith being entrusted in this propective drug. I think that it may be premature for some of you to get your hopes all ramped up thinking that this will give you "scarless" healing. From all indications, it will just reduce your scars. Albeit, it may be the best way to reduce your scars, but it will only reduce your scars. Reduced scarring after a procedure is not scarless healing.
In the end, we are still left with the conumdrum we have been facing since the beginning:
How do you eliminate scars?
Title says NO SCARRING but the article then says "minimize" scarring.
I have seen this gross misrepresentation of products/treatments countless times. Apparently, there are still many professionals (doctors, scientists, journalists) who still don't comprehend the difference between removing scars and minimizing scars. Some obviously feel that this distinction between the two is slight and negligible, therefore the concept of removing scars and of reducing scars become analogous.
I have seen this phenonmenon with Juvista in the majority of articles that I have read. It is being heralded as something that will allow for scarless healing (ie, healing with NO scars), yet all of the information from Renovo stresses the fact that this is something that may "reduce scars."
This confusion exists in most of the articles written about it:
Juvista for scar-free healing after surgeries (Article title)
"A new product which helps reduce scars significantly is manufactured using alligator embryos." (in the body of the article)
Juvista - Scars be gone
"it helps to reduce scarring."
It seems that there is a lot of hope and faith being entrusted in this propective drug. I think that it may be premature for some of you to get your hopes all ramped up thinking that this will give you "scarless" healing. From all indications, it will just reduce your scars. Albeit, it may be the best way to reduce your scars, but it will only reduce your scars. Reduced scarring after a procedure is not scarless healing.
In the end, we are still left with the conumdrum we have been facing since the beginning:
How do you eliminate scars?
but at the same time you have to really take a look at the definition of eliminate. My personal definition of eliminate when it comes to scarring is reducing them so much so that they aren't noticeable -yet they still might be there in some form. I think they chose this careful language of reduce because its highly unlikely that it will reduce every type of scar in every situation because as you and I both know scars are not similar but are tremendously varied.
I think they way they use scarless is that you will have less scarring because some of the tissue infact regenerates scarlessly...just not all of it - they don't call it NO SCAR healing. I know symantics. But you have to look at indvidual bits of tissue...But if the scar was going to be the size of a basket ball and then it could be reduced to the size of a penny, i'd say that is scarless healing ....a lot of tissue healed w/o a scar. So some tissue was indeed healed scarlessly. Just not all of it.
Yes I know you said scar reduction does not equal scar elimination and that we shouldn't get our hopes up. But it is a scar reduction is a promising step in the right direction. All of these processes are in it's infancy and if we can successfully and significantly reduce scarring, complete reduction may be just down the road.
I do have a lot of hope because the method\gel I just posted about is a different approach to reducing scarring than Juvista, and this can only mean good things. My hope is that if these approaches are combined you will get some serious synergy going! Scarring is a very complex process with many steps. Juvista may only reduce scarring because it is only blocking some of the steps, while the gel I just posted may be blocking other steps. Combine the two and who knows what will happen. When it comes to medicine often times 1 + 1 = 10.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from. If you want to get down to sematics, the pure definition of the post-fix less means without. By default, it means without whatever article in which it is attached to (in this case: scar). Scar-less does not mean less [of a] scar- it means without a scar, ie- no scar.
So, "scarless" is the direct equivalent of the phrase "without a scar." It's not "almost without a scar" or "practically without a scar", it's "without a scar." It's not "without most scarring" or "without the majority of scarring", it's "without scarring." It is definitively concrete. To transform this absolute term into a relative term adulterates it's intrinsic meaning. The ascription of a relative meaning of this word creates a contradiction in terms. You are either with or without. The delineation between the two is not indistinct.
Think of it in terms of another word that carries an absolute definition- dead. You are either dead or not dead. You can't be "sort of" dead.
A scar that would normally have been the size of a basketball reduced to the size of a penny would be just that- the reduction of the scar. This person would not be without a scar because they have a scar the size of a penny. Obviously this degree of reduction would be monumental, but the extent of reduction does not change the fact that it's still reduction. As long as there is detectable scarring, it is clear that scarless healing has not occured because that person is not without a scar.
Like you said, you are thinking of this in terms of individual bits of tissue. I am thinking of it as a whole.
Yeah, it does come down to personal interpretation. It's more precisely the convenient bending of the meaning of a word to suit a company's needs, in advertising. In a way, it's almost a form of cognitive dissonance.
The developers want to market/advertise this as something that will acheive scarless healing. Now, fully understand that this drug actually results in reduced scar formation rather than no scar formation, people will try and bend the meaning of a word to make it fit rather than redefining the role of the drug.
I agree that this may be one integral part of a multi-step process that may result in scarless healing. That would be exciting. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I'd like to add my two cents on the semantics topic as I have been chasing this holy grail for some time.
Whenever something new comes along it is good to get excited as excitement creates energy, so approach your research with an open mind to avoid becoming a dismally negative person whose snippy posts nobody wants to read. Afterall, if you don't have some shred of true hope why would you come here?
However, when you find something new ask some key questions:
Would the new treatment offer any TRUE regenerative results? (This is not skin tightening or scar softening although both of those results are great if you aren't paying through nose for them.) This means that the treatment has components which would be utilized toward deep tissue or even limb regeneration.
Does the paper/manufacturer/method show credible before and after pictures of indented scars filling in? (Again see above regarding scar softening and skin tightening.) Pretty much, if they don't show pictures, there is a reason.
AND, as a side note, Renovo is not innocent in this. Back about five years ago when they were in the initial phase of trying to attract investors they plastered their website with Scarless Healing promises and the end of scarring. They had amazing theories that glowed about the end to hidden surgical approaches. By this they meant that if you had a bump on your nose, their product would be so successful in stopping scarring that a surgeon could open, your nose right on top of the bump to remove it instead of a hidden incision inside your nose. All that disappeared as the years and research went on.
All that said, I think we are moving closer every day towards the goal of rebuilding lost tissue and eliminating excess fibrous tissue, so let us all please remain hopeful!
Whenever something new comes along it is good to get excited as excitement creates energy, so approach your research with an open mind to avoid becoming a dismally negative person whose snippy posts nobody wants to read.
Hmmm, I assume that this post was directed at me? I do have hope and I have hope in this new direction of research. I truly believe that scarless healing is something that will be acheived at some point. Like Hopeseed, I think that this just may be one integral part of many other factors that coalesce to create that elusive effect that we have all been searching for. I think that we should be very hopeful with strides that are being made in this branch of research.
I'm not sure where "dismal negativity" factors into all of this. I have just contrasted the difference between "scarless healing" and "reduced scar formation healing." You yourself have stated that Renovo has backed off of their initial "scarless healing" stance on this drug. This is not pessimism but realism.
Whenever something new comes along it is good to get excited as excitement creates energy, so approach your research with an open mind to avoid becoming a dismally negative person whose snippy posts nobody wants to read.
Hmmm, I assume that this post was directed at me? I do have hope and I have hope in this new direction of research. I truly believe that scarless healing is something that will be acheived at some point. Like Hopeseed, I think that this just may be one integral part of many other factors that coalesce to create that elusive effect that we have all been searching for. I think that we should be very hopeful with strides that are being made in this branch of research.
I'm not sure where "dismal negativity" factors into all of this. I have just contrasted the difference between "scarless healing" and "reduced scar formation healing." You yourself have stated that Renovo has backed off of their initial "scarless healing" stance on this drug. This is not pessimism but realism.
Not originally.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from. If you want to get down to sematics, the pure definition of the post-fix less means without. By default, it means without whatever article in which it is attached to (in this case: scar). Scar-less does not mean less [of a] scar- it means without a scar, ie- no scar.
So, "scarless" is the direct equivalent of the phrase "without a scar." It's not "almost without a scar" or "practically without a scar", it's "without a scar." It's not "without most scarring" or "without the majority of scarring", it's "without scarring." ...................
A scar that would normally have been the size of a basketball reduced to the size of a penny would be just that- the reduction of the scar. This person would not be without a scar because they have a scar the size of a penny. Obviously this degree of reduction would be monumental, but the extent of reduction does not change the fact that it's still reduction. As long as there is detectable scarring, it is clear that scarless healing has not occured because that person is not without a scar.
Like you said, you are thinking of this in terms of individual bits of tissue. I am thinking of it as a whole.
I agree that this may be one integral part of a multi-step process that may result in scarless healing. That would be exciting. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Like you said with the dead analogy a scar is all or nothing. What I was trying to say that areas that would have been scar tissue that are now not going to be scar tissue due to some sort of reduction in this process would have achieved scarless healing.
You are right that we have to be careful what we look at and read ... basically you need them to define the wound. These substances could certainly be used on papercuts and provide scarless healing.
Continue to have hope. We didn't put a man on the moon without building a rocket first.
I have no idea what that article was trying to say. I also believe I have had one too many and I apologize for my ramblings.
I have no idea what that article was trying to say. I also believe I have had one too many and I apologize for my ramblings.
Heh, heh, heh, I didn't read what you said. I haven't a clue what it said either I'm like an early egyptologist reading a tomb with regards to medical speak and I haven't got the time to spend hours decipher it with a medical dictionary. It is just it has Badylak in it, it mentions remodeling, regeneration, extracelluar matrix etc., and I'm assuming he might be ready to annonce something with regards to regeneration that will fit in with his aim to regrow a digit in the next few years etc.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from. If you want to get down to sematics, the pure definition of the post-fix less means without. By default, it means without whatever article in which it is attached to (in this case: scar). Scar-less does not mean less [of a] scar- it means without a scar, ie- no scar.
So, "scarless" is the direct equivalent of the phrase "without a scar." It's not "almost without a scar" or "practically without a scar", it's "without a scar." It's not "without most scarring" or "without the majority of scarring", it's "without scarring." ...................
A scar that would normally have been the size of a basketball reduced to the size of a penny would be just that- the reduction of the scar. This person would not be without a scar because they have a scar the size of a penny. Obviously this degree of reduction would be monumental, but the extent of reduction does not change the fact that it's still reduction. As long as there is detectable scarring, it is clear that scarless healing has not occured because that person is not without a scar.
Like you said, you are thinking of this in terms of individual bits of tissue. I am thinking of it as a whole.
I agree that this may be one integral part of a multi-step process that may result in scarless healing. That would be exciting. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Like you said with the dead analogy a scar is all or nothing. What I was trying to say that areas that would have been scar tissue that are now not going to be scar tissue due to some sort of reduction in this process would have achieved scarless healing.
You are right that we have to be careful what we look at and read ... basically you need them to define the wound. These substances could certainly be used on papercuts and provide scarless healing.
Continue to have hope. We didn't put a man on the moon without building a rocket first.
papercuts naturally heal by regeneration, because the wound is so small and the edges stay approximated.
this is the principle behind fraxel, which creates thousands of microscopic wounds which induces the body to heal them all by regeneration.
That's why scars soften with fraxel but don't go away. the MTZs are healing by true regeneration, but its a fractional process.
there's also problems with the MTZ's not going deep enough to denature all scar tissue, and people's individual healing response being muted by things like smoking or myriad factors.
BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY!!!!!! Man gets new jaw from stem cells, sounds almost science fiction like but very true...does that mean we get new skin? LOL...promising...
I thought some might be interested in this summary of a topical that is said to induce scar free healing of wounds. It seems to have been created for use with horses, but hey...we're animals too.
"This invention relates to a novel medication that may be applied as an abluent lotion directly upon lacerated skin tissue of wounded animals so as to promote scar-free healing thereof."
"The method of promoting rapid and scar-free healing of a skin laceration, said method comprising the daily application of the following homogeneous mixture to a skin laceration: 100 parts by weight of phenol; about 80,000 U.S.P. Units of retinol; about 8,000 U.S.P. Units of ergosterol; and about 114 parts by weight olive oil."
"Examples 1 and 2 provide especially rapid regenerative scar-free healing of skin lacerations."
This sounds interesting Scarcrash. It looks like the patent application was abandoned in 1964 though...I wonder why.
It does look like the treatment would be easily duplicated given the treatment being the daily application of the following homogeneous mixture to a skin laceration:
100 parts by weight of phenol; about 80,000 U.S.P. Units of retinol; about 8,000 U.S.P. Units of ergosterol; and about 114 parts by weight olive oil.
Lacerations are different missing tissue wounds though...
Scar free healing...
here is a link,
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/ma...tml?id=3805429n
he mentions
that scarring is a brick wall to regeneration and that this matrix enables the enzymes that stop the wound from having a scar respone, thus enabling regeneration.
Here is the link to the article and you will see there is another video...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/...in3805318.shtml
Kirk, all these proofs that scarless healing IS possible when the wound hasnt close and the scar tissue is not developed.
However, if we had the scar in the first place, is it possible to somehow reverse it and cause the body to regenerate normal tissues instead of scarring.
However, if we had the scar in the first place, is it possible to somehow reverse it and cause the body to regenerate normal tissues instead of scarring.
I think that scarless regeneration of existing scarred tissue will be reliant upon a "re-injuring" the skin in some type of fashion. You would cause a new controlled injury, starting the process over again, and then begin redirecting healing and regeneration from that point on (utlizing whatever scarless healing technology becomes available).
The theory is sound and very plausible. Keep in mind through that the outcome is dependent upon the process, ie- the healing phase. You would have to initiate the healing phase. The initiation of the healing process is obviously contingent upon the creation of a new wound.
This is how I see it playing out.