If there was anything at all wrong with any texture you'd not have any appendages.

That's what I'm thinking too.

@scarminator - my comment was more just commenting on the debate in general and I think it's good you are skeptical and that we can have healthy debate on here - it's interesting what others find - and think of - and it means questions can be brought up that we can ask JH or someone else who works in this field when the next opportunity arises

it's interesting too, the whole 'complete regeneration' debate - I can see it from both sides - but lean towards the side who think that by the scientists from JH saying 'complete regeneration' that this includes texture too - I guess the only way we'll truly know is by asking them more directly about texture next time

which brings me to...

@chuckstonchew - hi there chuck, do you have any time set for next talking to the scientist from JH - did you say you'll talk before the end of the year or anything like that? Or will you just talk when they get word from the army on funding? Thanks for being the thread's rep! mars

...

@mars - No set time, no. I actually emailed him a couple of days ago though. He hasn't responded yet but he typically takes a couple of days to do so. Sooo, hopefully he gets back to me soon!

Thanks @chuckstonchew! It's back to waiting for their news then - and hoping all moves as fast as it can mars

This sounds interesting:

http://www.ats.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7689&news_iv_ctrl=0

@scarminator - my comment was more just commenting on the debate in general and I think it's good you are skeptical and that we can have healthy debate on here - it's interesting what others find - and think of - and it means questions can be brought up that we can ask JH or someone else who works in this field when the next opportunity arises

 

it's interesting too, the whole 'complete regeneration' debate - I can see it from both sides - but lean towards the side who think that by the scientists from JH saying 'complete regeneration' that this includes texture too - I guess the only way we'll truly know is by asking them more directly about texture next time

 

which brings me to...

 

@chuckstonchew - hi there chuck, do you have any time set for next talking to the scientist from JH - did you say you'll talk before the end of the year or anything like that? Or will you just talk when they get word from the army on funding? Thanks for being the thread's rep! mars

 

the regenerated skin texture is similar to the natural skin. If you look at the HE images of day 21 and day 35, you will find out that. THe remodeling does take a while though

 

@scarminator - my comment was more just commenting on the debate in general and I think it's good you are skeptical and that we can have healthy debate on here - it's interesting what others find - and think of - and it means questions can be brought up that we can ask JH or someone else who works in this field when the next opportunity arises

 

it's interesting too, the whole 'complete regeneration' debate - I can see it from both sides - but lean towards the side who think that by the scientists from JH saying 'complete regeneration' that this includes texture too - I guess the only way we'll truly know is by asking them more directly about texture next time

 

which brings me to...

 

@chuckstonchew - hi there chuck, do you have any time set for next talking to the scientist from JH - did you say you'll talk before the end of the year or anything like that? Or will you just talk when they get word from the army on funding? Thanks for being the thread's rep! mars

 

 

the regenerated skin texture is similar to the natural skin. If you look at the HE images of day 21 and day 35, you will find out that. THe remodeling does take a while though

 

Complete regeneration, just means complete regeneration, and that means 'the same as before'.. Again, if it wasn't complete it would be 'incomplete' as in incomplete regeneration. There is no debate about complete regeneration, it states in the paper it degraded rapidly and the wound got complete regeneration.

These people use these words sooo loosely. I remember when there were these debates regarding "scarless" and "scar-free" healing... These doctors probably don't have the slightest clue that some consider it two different things. In fact, that dispute probably only existed in these forums.

If they see anything that remotely resembles something fully healing, they'll immediately tag it as complete regeneration. They are not mathematicians who carefully construct definitions or statements, so don't take anything they say literally or attempt to apply logic to it to derive conclusions.

In the end of the day if the Army got handed something that supposedly brings about 'complete regeneration', to which I'm sure they have demanded proof, and to which I'm sure that such proof was provided.. I highly doubt that they will deny it funding. Unless the said proof is inconclusive, inconsistent with the said proposition (exaggerated), or outright fabrication.

I'm going to sleep.

These people use these words sooo loosely. I remember when there were these debates regarding "scarless" and "scar-free" healing... These doctors probably don't have the slightest clue that some consider it two different things. In fact, that dispute probably only existed in these forums.

 

If they see anything that remotely resembles something fully healing, they'll immediately tag it as complete regeneration. They are not mathematicians who carefully construct definitions or statements, so don't take anything they say literally or attempt to apply logic to it to derive conclusions.

 

In the end of the day if the Army got handed something that supposedly brings about 'complete regeneration', to which I'm sure they have demanded proof, and to which I'm sure that such proof was provided.. I highly doubt that they will deny it funding. Unless the said proof is inconclusive, inconsistent with the said proposition (exaggerated), or outright fabrication.

 

I'm going to sleep.

 

But there is pathological proof of 'complete regeneration'. If it wasn't fully regenerated it would be 'incomplete regeneration.' There is nothing loose at all. Also if you didnt take scientific papers literally then that would be circular and there would never be progress. What would be the point of proving something if you dont take it literally? Scientific papers are taken literally.

Has this already been postet ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419870

I think it sounds interesting, although it only achieved complete regeneration in second-degree scalding injuries.

These people use these words sooo loosely. I remember when there were these debates regarding "scarless" and "scar-free" healing... These doctors probably don't have the slightest clue that some consider it two different things. In fact, that dispute probably only existed in these forums.

 

If they see anything that remotely resembles something fully healing, they'll immediately tag it as complete regeneration. They are not mathematicians who carefully construct definitions or statements, so don't take anything they say literally or attempt to apply logic to it to derive conclusions.

 

In the end of the day if the Army got handed something that supposedly brings about 'complete regeneration', to which I'm sure they have demanded proof, and to which I'm sure that such proof was provided.. I highly doubt that they will deny it funding. Unless the said proof is inconclusive, inconsistent with the said proposition (exaggerated), or outright fabrication.

 

I'm going to sleep.

 

hm, that's a very good point. there must be a reason why the army is hesitant to fund an alleged miracle cure for skin wounds and scarring. Looking forward to chuckstonchew's email response.

But there is pathological proof of 'complete regeneration'. If it wasn't fully regenerated it would be 'incomplete regeneration.' There is nothing loose at all. Also if you didnt take scientific papers literally then that would be circular and there would never be progress. What would be the point of proving something if you dont take it literally? Scientific papers are taken literally.

 

A scientific paper is just a report of findings that were derived through research or experimentation. Based on these results the author may also make conclusions and/ or forecast future findings. Now.. for the results to be considered valid or factual, it will have to go through rigorous peer review from unbiased parties and experiments must be fully replicated time and time again to provide assureness that the findings were not the result of a glitch. The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions. If the proposed methods are in any way fishy or funky, (basically not rigorous), then that just sends up red flags and no one will even bother to attempt to replicate these findings.

I am just providing reasons for why the Army may be taking its time jumping on this bandwagon. But of course there is always the possibility that they are just that thick, and if this solution is real and they dismiss it.. I'm sure it is not the first time that it has happened.

Goes to sleep again.

 

But there is pathological proof of 'complete regeneration'. If it wasn't fully regenerated it would be 'incomplete regeneration.' There is nothing loose at all. Also if you didnt take scientific papers literally then that would be circular and there would never be progress. What would be the point of proving something if you dont take it literally? Scientific papers are taken literally.

 

 

A scientific paper is just a report of findings that were derived through research or experimentation. Based on these results the author may also make conclusions and/ or forecast future findings. Now.. for the results to be considered valid or factual, it will have to go through rigorous peer review from unbiased parties and experiments must be fully replicated time and time again to provide assureness that the findings were not the result of a glitch. The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions. If the proposed methods are in any way fishy or funky, (basically not rigorous), then that just sends up red flags and no one will even bother to attempt to replicate these findings.

 

I am just providing reasons for why the Army may be taking its time jumping on this bandwagon. But of course there is always the possibility that they are just that thick, and if this solution is real and they dismiss it.. I'm sure it is not the first time that it has happened.

 

Goes to sleep again.

 

A result is not a forecast. A theory is a forecast. This paper has results, not theory.

"The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions." you said. If you actually read the paper it has disclosed the methods of their experimentation; there is actually a sub heading called "materials and methods."

You talk about reviews, btw all scientific papers have reviews, this one was recieved on 9/30/2011 and approved on 11/25/2011. Again its valid. Also a scientific paper is not a paper written by farmers, it is taken literally. Literal terms are used. If you look at the paper it is a pathological study on how a dextran hydrogel degraded rapidly and got 'complete regeneration'. 'Complete regeneration' is a pathological term which means the same tissue as before. The good thing about this paper is it is easy to replicate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/13/1115973108.abstract

Edited by Robert Langer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 25, 2011 (received for review September 30, 2011)

What is that exactly mean 'edited by Robert Langer'?

Here is something who is he:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/prized-science-robert-langer-a-founding-father-of-tissue-engineering-and-controlled-drug-release

And he is one the founders of InVivo Therapeutics, another company that is using very similar approach for a treatment of spinal cord scarring:

http://www.invivotherapeutics.com/about-us/our-team/bob-langer-sc-d/

http://www.pnas.org/...973108.abstract

 

Edited by Robert Langer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 25, 2011 (received for review September 30, 2011)

 

What is that exactly mean 'edited by Robert Langer'?

Here is something who is he:

http://www.kurzweila...ed-drug-release

And he is one the founders of InVivo Therapeutics, another company that is using very similar approach for a treatment of spinal cord scarring:

http://www.invivothe...ob-langer-sc-d/

 

He edited it. It was reviewed by Prof Jason Burdick.

This particular case is interesting:

http://www.codathera...-financing.html

So they are developing a drug for diabetic foot ulcers and they are not funded by SBIR, NIH, DoD or US venture capital funds, they are funded by Rusnano, that is a government run fund similar to SBIR, you can call it 'Russian SBIR', so they threw $40 million in that trash drug (phase 2 trial showed it is effective in only 33% cases after 4 weeks).

So chuckstonchew I dont know if dr Harmon knows about CoDa Therapeutics and Rusnano, if he doesnt know and there are no funding from SBIR, NIH or DoD maybe you should suggest him to try to contact Rusnano, $40 million is a serious amount of money, there is no scientist that will be indifferent when he hears $40 million for a drug for diabetic foot ulcers. And that fund will invest $760 million in 20 different US life sciences companies:

http://www.fiercebio...plan/2012-03-06

It's worth revisiting this article from hopkinsmedicine.org when talking about funding:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/translation_bench_bedside/201207_commercialization.html

In the article, dated July 2012 it states

''Sharon Gerecht is one example. An assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, Gerecht has developed a special biological material called hydrogel that could help severely burned patients grow healthy new skin. She has shown that hydrogel stimulates the growth of tiny blood vessels in wounded tissue that help nourish newly growing skin. Shes also shown that hydrogel helps mice regenerate new skin and hair in burned regions, research shes conducted with John Harmon, a surgeon at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Burn Center, and Professor of Pathology Charles Steenbergen.

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.''

The article is all about how JH didn't have a history of bringing discoveries in the lab to commercialization themselves - and also, to be blunt, not making any dollars from them - and it's clear that the hydrogel team want to do the next stage testing - and also to set up some kind of business - and perhaps business relationship with someone from outisde JH, before they do the testing - all things that take a lot of time, consideration and red tape

I'm just wondering though what the actual amount they need to do the next stage testing, just out of interest.

It would would would be great if we got some positive news before the year was finished.

 

 

But there is pathological proof of 'complete regeneration'. If it wasn't fully regenerated it would be 'incomplete regeneration.' There is nothing loose at all. Also if you didnt take scientific papers literally then that would be circular and there would never be progress. What would be the point of proving something if you dont take it literally? Scientific papers are taken literally.

 

 

A scientific paper is just a report of findings that were derived through research or experimentation. Based on these results the author may also make conclusions and/ or forecast future findings. Now.. for the results to be considered valid or factual, it will have to go through rigorous peer review from unbiased parties and experiments must be fully replicated time and time again to provide assureness that the findings were not the result of a glitch. The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions. If the proposed methods are in any way fishy or funky, (basically not rigorous), then that just sends up red flags and no one will even bother to attempt to replicate these findings.

 

I am just providing reasons for why the Army may be taking its time jumping on this bandwagon. But of course there is always the possibility that they are just that thick, and if this solution is real and they dismiss it.. I'm sure it is not the first time that it has happened.

 

Goes to sleep again.

 

 

A result is not a forecast. A theory is a forecast. This paper has results, not theory.

"The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions." you said. If you actually read the paper it has disclosed the methods of their experimentation; there is actually a sub heading called "materials and methods."

You talk about reviews, btw all scientific papers have reviews, this one was recieved on 9/30/2011 and approved on 11/25/2011. Again its valid. Also a scientific paper is not a paper written by farmers, it is taken literally. Literal terms are used. If you look at the paper it is a pathological study on how a dextran hydrogel degraded rapidly and got 'complete regeneration'. 'Complete regeneration' is a pathological term which means the same tissue as before. The good thing about this paper is it is easy to replicate.

 

In scientific papers the writers often have their own definition for what a term means. So for one scientist complete regeneration can mean X but for another it may mean Y. Usually they explain their own vocabulary somewhere in the paper. I haven't read these papers so I can't comment on the specifics but if there was no explanation for what complete regeneration means to them, it could mean anything.

Also, in your response to the poster which you quoted. He never said that results are forecasts but rather scientists will hypothesize based off results.

 

 

 

But there is pathological proof of 'complete regeneration'. If it wasn't fully regenerated it would be 'incomplete regeneration.' There is nothing loose at all. Also if you didnt take scientific papers literally then that would be circular and there would never be progress. What would be the point of proving something if you dont take it literally? Scientific papers are taken literally.

 

 

A scientific paper is just a report of findings that were derived through research or experimentation. Based on these results the author may also make conclusions and/ or forecast future findings. Now.. for the results to be considered valid or factual, it will have to go through rigorous peer review from unbiased parties and experiments must be fully replicated time and time again to provide assureness that the findings were not the result of a glitch. The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions. If the proposed methods are in any way fishy or funky, (basically not rigorous), then that just sends up red flags and no one will even bother to attempt to replicate these findings.

 

I am just providing reasons for why the Army may be taking its time jumping on this bandwagon. But of course there is always the possibility that they are just that thick, and if this solution is real and they dismiss it.. I'm sure it is not the first time that it has happened.

 

Goes to sleep again.

 

 

A result is not a forecast. A theory is a forecast. This paper has results, not theory.

"The researchers must disclose the methods of their experimentations that led them to their conclusions." you said. If you actually read the paper it has disclosed the methods of their experimentation; there is actually a sub heading called "materials and methods."

You talk about reviews, btw all scientific papers have reviews, this one was recieved on 9/30/2011 and approved on 11/25/2011. Again its valid. Also a scientific paper is not a paper written by farmers, it is taken literally. Literal terms are used. If you look at the paper it is a pathological study on how a dextran hydrogel degraded rapidly and got 'complete regeneration'. 'Complete regeneration' is a pathological term which means the same tissue as before. The good thing about this paper is it is easy to replicate.

 

 

 

In scientific papers the writers often have their own definition for what a term means. So for one scientist complete regeneration can mean X but for another it may mean Y. Usually they explain their own vocabulary somewhere in the paper. I haven't read these papers so I can't comment on the specifics but if there was no explanation for what complete regeneration means to them, it could mean anything.

 

Also, in your response to the poster which you quoted. He never said that results are forecasts but rather scientists will hypothesize based off results.

 

You are correct in what you are saying about the forcasting, I jumped the gun. You are correct in that they could use some glossary if they are using new non standardised terms as descriptions. But complete regeneration is a standardised pathological term, incomplete regeneration is also a standard pathological term. Complete regeneration means the tissues have regenerated exactly as before (exactly like has happened in this paper, were the 8020 got complete regeneration; and were the control did not get complete regeneration as conveyed in the paper). Incomplete regeneration is also a pathological term that describes a healing that happens when the tissues have not regenerated exactly as before. Also do you actually think anyone would publish a paper if both the test and the control got either 'complete regeneration' or 'incomplete regeneration'? Can you you see that the 8020 stands out as it got 'complete regeneration' and the control got 'incomplete regeneration'

Complete regeneration a standardised term:

http://books.google....eration&f=false

http://books.google.....ration&f=false

These two sentences are key if you ask me:

By day 21, burn wounds treated with hydrogel developed a mature epithelial structure with hair follicles and sebaceous glands. After 5 weeks of treatment, the hydrogel scaffolds promoted new hair growth and epidermal morphology and thickness similar to normal mouse skin.

BTW 8mm full tickness excision is a very serious wound for a small mouse, many of the poor control mice haven't even survived such injury:

We noticed a significant improvement in the survival of mice with wounds treated with hydrogel and control scaffold compared to mice treated with dressing alone (100% vs 60%, respectively; we did not observe differences in survival rate between mice treated with hydrogel and controlled scaffolds).

...

Umm.. Yeah lol, I was talking about scientific papers in general.. not any particular one. If any of you believe that this hydrogel is real.. I can assume that you are jumping around in joy that your troubles are soon coming to an end. But I'm pretty sure none of you are doing that because you know that it is probably more likely that it doesn't work. But I am hopeful..

@scars4life - I just noticed that you joined here in 2009 and choose the username 'Scars4life' - I think it's cool that you are skeptical - and it's everyone's right to say anything they want - but am just wondering why you choose that username - was it something to do with renovo or other projects that didn't work out?

anyway - one thing I will say about the gel is this - it managed after third degree burns to grow new skin with hair and appendages on all the mice with hydrogel - and this has NEVER happened in the test mouse's skin before in all of history - heck, 40% of the mice is a control group didn't even survive - what they did was a breakthrough - and if it does the same thing on a larger animals skin - like a pig - and by 'completely regenerated' this means that their skin texture and color returns to normal then we really will have a great hope - I know until the larger animals experiments are done - which I believe they will be - that no one should pin their hopes on this - but as it stands I give this gel a 50/50 chance of helping my scars in the future which is better than the 0% chance I had with anything in development before

anyway - one thing I will say about the gel is this - it managed after third degree burns to grow new skin with hair and appendages on all the mice with hydrogel - and this has NEVER happened in the test mouse's skin before in all of history - heck, 40% of the mice is a control group didn't even survive - what they did was a breakthrough - and if it does the same thing on a larger animals skin - like a pig - and by 'completely regenerated' this means that their skin texture and color returns to normal then we really will have a great hope - I know until the larger animals experiments are done - which I believe they will be - that no one should pin their hopes on this - but as it stands I give this gel a 50/50 chance of helping my scars in the future which is better than the 0% chance I had with anything in development before

 

This is one of my problems with your and seab's reasoning. Regrowth of appendages happens all the time. It happened in the control mice (see pic below) just as it happened in the fifties when this form of regeneration in adult skin first was discovered. There is no sharp line between perfect regeneration and no regeneration at all.