Acne.org Products
this is definetely not a scam...its a study of john hopkins's university...i can find you scams in a minute and all look the same...
thing is, what can we do about that?...it would be really valuable if we could dermabrade the scar tissue,then apply hydrogel and achieving comlete regeneration..
but as it is stated, its not tested on human...but the results on mice are amazin g...the wound is really big in relation to the mice whole body...
is there anything we can do... ?
.
this is definetely not a scam...its a study of john hopkins's university...i can find you scams in a minute and all look the same...
thing is, what can we do about that?...it would be really valuable if we could dermabrade the scar tissue,then apply hydrogel and achieving comlete regeneration..
but as it is stated, its not tested on human...but the results on mice are amazin g...the wound is really big in relation to the mice whole body...
is there anything we can do... ?
.
If you want to contribute, you can send an email to the creator of hydrogel and ask if it is a device and is so easy to make, why there is no single test shot with a human? if only one gel is why they need money for tests? Why the circus? should learn from the scientists who experimented with topiramate. they experimented with human and did not ask any money.
by the way...'new member'
Malditon, here are the facts. it degraded in under 7 days, it got "complete regeneration," with no scarring, fact, on the other hand the control got incomplete regeneration (scarring). And at the 3week mark the hydrogel treated wounds had appendages growing the control did not.
its a scam
It is impossible for it to be a scam, it has a permanent 'factual basis,' that can be tested, it is not elusive, it has no get out clause, it is not built on solely one theory promoted by an authority who has no factual basis..
it is a 'peer reviewed paper' that proved 'complete regeneration' after rapid digestion. Not only that but there is nothing weaseling about it in any way. It is not elusive, as in a future sounding statement that promises you something if you follow this step or trust in that step.. It is just facts.<<< It is easily replicated (scams are nonsense that cant be replicated) by those with an enquiring mind, , it could be tested by anyone if they want to test it. There are no get out clauses In fact this is one of a few things that is definately not a scam, its factual basis makes it stand out.
Scams are full of future promises, they have no 'factual basis,' no foundation. Scams have promises and theories that either fail or cant be tested or cant be tested for years, they rely on distractions. Scams play on the human psychology of the dream of a better future. example if you 'follow this step, you'll get onto the next.' Scams are elusive. Scams use and over emphasis authority to cover for the fact they have no factual basis, scams use vague slogans.
This is what I mean.
Through these years we have read news scars cure rate, the solution has arrived, etc. craps news like this:
Decorin at 600nm inhibits collagen,TGF B3 + down fibrosis.ACELL crap finger grow.car decorin.hydrogel.and do not know what else they come every year to distract us and give us the dream.
I did not discuss the methods of action of drugs why? because as you know, we discussed here in the past and we know scientifically increased tgf b3 reduces fibrosis, and yet, Juvista failure. Why? we do not know. so say that the mechanism of action of a drug is going to work is really something illogical since in drug matters this is a Pandora's box, anything can happen, so says Juvista. and more hydrogel that has not yet been tested in humans. you can not say that it can function in humans something that has been tested only in mice. You want me to believe that hydrogel will work in humans? well, then first answer me why it failed Juvista? if there are several scientific studies (several have I put on the forum) which verifies the effectiveness of the tgf b3 in reducing fibrosis. seabs this is medicine, nothing is perfect in medicine, the human body is the most imperfect machine of the universe, hopefully the drug (actually the gel) work. but it is likely that a simple gel with sugar chains as hydrogel, actually not. is even more difficult to explain as topiramate actually work (I like that you can explain to me seabs, his theory of how it works topiramate,for example, this drug is the only photo showing human reduction of fibrosis, be something good for the forum content).
Greetings.
Because TGFb3 plays only a minor role in the regeneration of the skin in embryo, all of Ferguson's studies were fake, he is not a real scientist, he is a con artist:
http://en.wikipedia....onfidence_trick
And many doctors are quacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
And here is an interesting discussion:
http://www.politics....-ireland-2.html
Tea Party Patriot
Leaving this whole appointment aside I cannot understand the ire on this site by many of the posters against those who have had failed companies or business. Companies fail all the time, there is no shame in it, and in this case it was because the drugs they were working on were not successful, anyone who bought shares knew the high level of risk involved in investing in R&D and yes people lost their jobs but on the other hand they had jobs for a while they may not have otherwise held at all.
Without innovators who start business where would all those afraid to go out on their own and take real risks ever get a job.
If there is anyone here who has not failed at something or other in their life time they are very unusual beings indeed.
As for Science Foundation Ireland, well I would need to read up more on what it does before condoning or condemning it, however if it is involved in the promotion of science then I can't see how you would get a highly qualified scientist for much less than ‚250K a year. And even if the person in question has had a failed business it is still more business experience than most of the clowns elected to the D¡il will have in their entire lives.
aldiper
TPP, with all due respect, I think you have missed the point regards the appointment of this individual. From this article from the Network for Irish Educational Standards.
Originally Posted by Science Foundation Ireland, the Director General and the Renovo Debacle
Between 2006 and 2011 the total paid to Renovo™s board of directors (including termination payments) was over £11 million (Renovo 2006 to 2011). Mark Ferguson was the highest earner with a total of £3.6 million over the five years. This included bonuses of £971,000 and a payment of £700,000 that was made in June 2011 when his contract as chief executive officer was terminated (Renovo 2011, p17). Renovo also paid an additional total amount of £451,118 into his pension fund over the five years (Renovo 2006 to 2011).
Sharon O™Kane earned a total of £1.6 million over her four years at the company (Renovo 2006 to 2011). This included a post-cessation payment of £200,488 on her resignation as chief scientific officer in February 2010 (Renovo 2010, p36).
In 2007, Ferguson and O™Kane also made huge gains by exercising Renovo share options. On 26 June, under the directors share option scheme, Ferguson and O™Kane acquired over 4.7 million Renovo shares for .004 pence per share (Renovo 2007, p35). They then sold them on to investors at the market price of £2 per share on 2 July (Renovo, 2007). The company had announced the Shire licensing deal on 20 June 2007 and the shares were at their zenith. In a single trade, Ferguson was enriched by £5.9 million and O™Kane by £3.5 million.
The aggregate scale of the directors™ pay and the share rewards is remarkable in light of the fact that Renovo never successfully commercialised a product from any of the drug developments.
Quite simply, the man had his head in the trough, gorging on other people's money with absolutely nothing to show for it. I have no sympathy really for private investors, but the British tax-payer had no choice in having their money shoveled into this man's greedy gob.
The issue with SFI is that they do not mean to merely promote science, they mean to distort it; their strategy of research commercialization and focus on short-term financial gain will serve only to twist science in favour of the spoofer, who can, through jargon, charisma, bribes and flashing lights, convince a room full of bloated bureaucrats that his snake-oil is a guaranteed source of jobs, tax, innovation or whatever is most fashionable.
They have clearly demonstrated their intention to indulge spoofers by their employment of this man; if he had an ounce of decency, he'd have taken a working wage and returned investor's (and taxpayers!) money, as best as he could. The situation has certain, unfortunate, overtones of Sean Gallagher description as an ''entrepreneur'', as opposed to a ''jerk who ran off with tax-payer's money''.
Lar G Rection
Nothing wrong at all with a business failing, however it appears than he managed to extract a lot of cash out of the company. I have no problem with anybody making money, but only when a company proves itself and is a success. This company clearly was not success.
Malditon, if you look at the history of the thread I have not even acknowledged any once taken injectable and any nonsense mechanism since 2008 (I dont think you were on the thread then btw), or discussed any once taken pill at all. I have not given credit to anything that uses 'slogans' with you or uses an authority to disguise for a lack of a factual basis.I have never acknowledged anything that uses nonsense technical speak to hide over the fact it has no factual basis or results to a working theory. So when you say something like, we (me and you) in the past acknowledged a pill or any once taken injection, or we acknowledged a technical mechanism (tgf bs) put forward by some authority who has onlytheory with no factual basis, you are actually highlighting a conversation I never took part in with you... You fell into the trap of acknowledging a nonsence theory about some mechanism that has no results, you are the one who has talked about a nonsense elusive technology, you are the one who fell for the technical talk of mechanisms not backed up by results, you are the one who has fell for promises with no factual basis.
Back on to thegel, Malditon, again it is impossible for anything to be a scam if it has a permament 'factual basis' which it has, is easily understood, 'it just degrades rapidly', pathologically proven results, and is peer reviewed and is 'easily replicated.' This is easily replicated, any historian, any scholar in the present or future will be able to test this. A scam would have a get out clase that would not let you do this testing. (BTW if you call something that has a peer review and that has a factual basis 'a scam,' The world would you live in would actually be kept in the dark ages, you would not have your computer or mobile phone. This shows how wrong your liberal use of the word scam is. I would actually laugh at your statement here if you did not have the excuse that you speak a different language)
Anyway If you look at this thread there really are few things that have a 'factual basis', or any results, the majority of this thread is basically untested theory or junk science which get you talking nonsense and future theory distractions. And if you look at this thread a lot of the stuff that has no factual basis is a scam.
things is can we do anything for that except from waiting? i suppose none of the people here work in a lab to perform these things... they can just post a study
critisize the study with valid/invalid knowledge and call it legit or scam...so the last thing we need here is aggresive talking...
call it a scam or not it really doesnt matter...but its really interesting why it hasnt been tested on humans? that doesnt mean necessarily that it hasnt tested on humans..its just what is published.doesnt mean is a scam....but really how can a study of john hopkins's university can be a scam...maybe it failed..but the rat had complete regenaration of 3rd degree burn... why should a team of university post this without being true...?
things is can we do anything for that except from waiting? i suppose none of the people here work in a lab to perform these things... they can just post a study
critisize the study with valid/invalid knowledge and call it legit or scam...
We are doing things. If you look back throughout the thread, I've been in contact with the JHU team on behalf of our group. They're doing their best to keep things progressing and moving forward and are potentially interested in our help with gathering funding if the army doesn't come through. We're doing what we can without overdoing it - patience is a virtue.
so the last thing we need here is aggresive talking...
call it a scam or not it really doesnt matter...but its really interesting why it hasnt been tested on humans? that doesnt mean necessarily that it hasnt tested on humans..its just what is published.doesnt mean is a scam....but really how can a study of john hopkins's university can be a scam...maybe it failed..but the rat had complete regenaration of 3rd degree burn... why should a team of university post this without being true...?
It is absolutely not a 'scam', for Maldition do say that is just absurd and ignorant. The mouse they tested got complete regeneration - fact. They didn't make this up. Why would they make that up? They never said it worked on humans. They've never made any promises. All they've done is publish their findings. It hasn't been tested on humans because it's not that simple - They have to gather funds to do so and this unfortunately isn't so easy. But they are trying - http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/publications/dome/dome_october_2012/how_finding_industry_partners_can_lead_to_new_treatments
totally agreed! hm capitalism creates unfortunately so many obstacles... would it be possible for the hydrogel to treat other types of scars?
according to the team it is possible that is the structure of the hydrogel that encourages the step by step complete healing regenaration...
or they speculate that it encourages stem cells from bone marrow ... but why FDA would want approve this...this will help problems ...ths system creates problems...
cause problems means finding therapy for the problem which mean cyclic money consumption...
things is can we do anything for that except from waiting? i suppose none of the people here work in a lab to perform these things... they can just post a study
It needs funding, therefor it needs brought up. This is exiting for the reason all it does is get digested by the neutrophils of a body, when it is digested, cells are created.
Because TGFb3 plays only a minor role in the regeneration of the skin in embryo, all of Ferguson's studies were fake, he is not a real scientist, he is a con artist:
http://en.wikipedia....onfidence_trick
And many doctors are quacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
And here is an interesting discussion:
http://www.politics....-ireland-2.html
This is what I mean.
seabs
Discuss several here in the past years on tgf b3 you too, on Juvista, and especially you repeated your constantly on your fascination for decorin and some acell, now your new fascination is in hydrogel hope you do not disappoint hydrogel by hope of all we want a solution.
I think more serious research profile of Vladislav (is long term but the only real solution is to find), the rest I see everything scam, really really sad for our generation.
seabs
Discuss several here in the past years on tgf b3 you too, on Juvista, and especially you repeated your constantly on your fascination for decorin and some acell, now your new fascination is in hydrogel hope you do not disappoint hydrogel by hope of all we want a solution.
I think more serious research profile of Vladislav (is long term but the only real solution is to find), the rest I see everything scam, really really sad for our generation.
Serious research? He is a messenger who points to articles on a website like everyone else. No offense to Vlad but this is as serious as you can get, it is a peer reviewed paper that proved 'complete regeneration.' And if you want to point to who you regard as your authority, I could then point to John Hopkins University. But I will not do that as it has a factual basis and I dont use authority to help me digest information, I use facts. Anyway a 'peer reviewed paper', not me, you, john doe, proved all this and get this, this is as serious research as you can get. Get this, this has a permanent 'factual basis.' All this is 'past tense' facts, not theories without facts. And all this is easily replicated. This is not my 'opinion', your opinion, some authorities opinion, my 'conjecture,' or your conjecture. This is fact.
BTW I have never opened or acknowledged in detail ANY detailed tgb bs discussion since the phase 2 trial in 2008. I have never since then acknowledged any 'once only injectable.' Since before you were here. It has no credibility to me and therefor when people discussed it I ignored it.
With decorin this has some factual credibility and has something. It actually stopped fibroblast proliferation at 200nm, fibroblast proliferation is what produces scar. Then you have the fact that decorin is absent when you scar and only returns to normal levels over12month, however when it returns your scar has formed. However decorin usage is impractical, it would need 247 application, not a once only injection or pill and to treat a small wound would probably cost the same as a house. I have stopped talking about this for about 2years now, but I have never took away any credit from it.
Actually I'm a newbie here but I'm learning fast, and when I joined this forum 7-8 months ago maybe I was kind of annoying, I'm aware of that and I'm sorry, I was inexperienced, back then I was offered some kind of stem cells treatment that supposed to reduce scars by 60-70%, now I understand it was either a scam or ineffective PRP treatment, it is true it was offered to me by a well-respected plastic surgeon but it wasn't offered to me in his clinic, he offered me it in a clinic owned by some other doctor that is well-known by her very bad reputation among patients, so they do business together, back then I was so naive that I really thought that all scientists and doctors are people who selflessly help others. 
Here is another scam, junk, quack, trash, hoax, fraud... call it whatever you want:
http://en.rusnano.co...of-year-nominee
Phase 2 clinical trial showed their wound healing drug for diabetic foot ulcers is effective in only 33% of patients after 4 weeks (and in 6% of placebo patients) and Russians who threw $40 million in that drug are now calling it 'the deal of the year'! 
Anyway this is interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12885271
China 'to overtake US on science' in two yearsChina is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 - far earlier than expected.
That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK's national science academy.
The country that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper and printing is set for a globally important comeback.
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
The study, Knowledge, Networks and Nations, charts the challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States, Europe and Japan.
The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier.
In 1996, the first year of the analysis, the US published 292,513 papers - more than 10 times China's 25,474.
By 2008, the US total had increased very slightly to 316,317 while China's had surged more than seven-fold to 184,080.
Previous estimates for the rate of expansion of Chinese science had suggested that China might overtake the US sometime after 2020.
But this study shows that China, after displacing the UK as the world's second leading producer of research, could go on to overtake America in as little as two years' time.
"Projections vary, but a simple linear interpretation of Elsevier's publishing data suggests that this could take place as early as 2013," it says.
Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, chair of the report, said he was "not surprised" by this increase because of China's massive boost to investment in R&D.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
"I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent."
The report stresses that American research output will not decline in absolute terms and raises the possibility of countries like Japan and France rising to meet the Chinese challenge.
"But the potential for China to match American output in terms of sheer numbers in the near to medium term is clear."
Quality questions
The authors describe "dramatic" changes in the global scientific landscape and warn that this has implications for a nation's competitiveness.
According to the report, "The scientific league tables are not just about prestige - they are a barometer of a country's ability to compete on the world stage".
Along with the growth of the Chinese economy, this is yet another indicator of China's extraordinarily rapid rise as a global force.
However the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
"It will take some time for the absolute output of emerging nations to challenge the rate at which this research is referenced by the international scientific community."
The UK's scientific papers are still the second most-cited in the world, after the US.
Dr Cong Cao, associate professor at Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, agrees with the assessment that the quantity of China's science is yet not matched by its quality.
A sociologist originally from Shanghai, Dr Cao told the BBC: "There are many millions of graduates but they are mandated to publish so the numbers are high.
"It will take many years for some of the research to catch up to Western standards."
As to China's motivation, Dr Cao believes that there is a determination not to be dependent on foreign know-how - and to reclaim the country's historic role as a global leader in technology.
So many countries around the world like BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and even small countries are now investing a lot of money in many different fields of science including regenerative medicine and stem cells research, things are now totally different than they were 10 or 20 years ago, the number of regenerative medicine and stem cells related publications are now having an explosive growth, it is doubling every 5 years globally! 
And it is interesting to note that from 1996 to 2008 in the US there was only a modest growth in the total number of published scientific papers (from 292,513 to 316,317) but at the same time the number of regenerative medicine and stem cells related papers had a quadruple growth (300% growth), and in the case of China this growth is even more extreme, it's a good thing because that means that regenerative medicine is one the fastest growing field of ‹‹science and as the time goes on things are happening faster and faster! And those trends are unstoppable, so I believe that it is reasonable and realistic to think that we will be the first generation with scar free healing solutions, we now have that stuffs from John Hopkins University and from Chinese PLA General Hospital, taking into account those trends I believe in the coming years we will be flooded with new scar free healing discoveries, scaffolds, hydrogels, ECMs, stem cells,...
Here is another scam, junk, quack, trash, hoax, fraud... call it whatever you want:
http://en.rusnano.co...of-year-nominee
Phase 2 clinical trial showed their wound healing drug for diabetic foot ulcers is effective in only 33% of patients after 4 weeks (and in 6% of placebo patients) and Russians who threw $40 million in that drug are now calling it 'the deal of the year'!
Anyway this is interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12885271
China 'to overtake US on science' in two yearsChina is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 - far earlier than expected.
That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK's national science academy.
The country that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper and printing is set for a globally important comeback.
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
The study, Knowledge, Networks and Nations, charts the challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States, Europe and Japan.
The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier.
In 1996, the first year of the analysis, the US published 292,513 papers - more than 10 times China's 25,474.
By 2008, the US total had increased very slightly to 316,317 while China's had surged more than seven-fold to 184,080.
Previous estimates for the rate of expansion of Chinese science had suggested that China might overtake the US sometime after 2020.
But this study shows that China, after displacing the UK as the world's second leading producer of research, could go on to overtake America in as little as two years' time.
"Projections vary, but a simple linear interpretation of Elsevier's publishing data suggests that this could take place as early as 2013," it says.
Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, chair of the report, said he was "not surprised" by this increase because of China's massive boost to investment in R&D.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
"I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent."
The report stresses that American research output will not decline in absolute terms and raises the possibility of countries like Japan and France rising to meet the Chinese challenge.
"But the potential for China to match American output in terms of sheer numbers in the near to medium term is clear."
Quality questions
The authors describe "dramatic" changes in the global scientific landscape and warn that this has implications for a nation's competitiveness.
According to the report, "The scientific league tables are not just about prestige - they are a barometer of a country's ability to compete on the world stage".
Along with the growth of the Chinese economy, this is yet another indicator of China's extraordinarily rapid rise as a global force.
However the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
"It will take some time for the absolute output of emerging nations to challenge the rate at which this research is referenced by the international scientific community."
The UK's scientific papers are still the second most-cited in the world, after the US.
Dr Cong Cao, associate professor at Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, agrees with the assessment that the quantity of China's science is yet not matched by its quality.
A sociologist originally from Shanghai, Dr Cao told the BBC: "There are many millions of graduates but they are mandated to publish so the numbers are high.
"It will take many years for some of the research to catch up to Western standards."
As to China's motivation, Dr Cao believes that there is a determination not to be dependent on foreign know-how - and to reclaim the country's historic role as a global leader in technology.
So many countries around the world like BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and even small countries are now investing a lot of money in many different fields of science including regenerative medicine and stem cells research, things are now totally different than they were 10 or 20 years ago, the number of regenerative medicine and stem cells related publications are now having an explosive growth, it is doubling every 5 years globally!
thanks for the info, you're a good investigador.no as others here will do nothing and just repeated theories and do not take the time to seek information and provide the forum.
seabs
Discuss several here in the past years on tgf b3 you too, on Juvista, and especially you repeated your constantly on your fascination for decorin and some acell, now your new fascination is in hydrogel hope you do not disappoint hydrogel by hope of all we want a solution.
I think more serious research profile of Vladislav (is long term but the only real solution is to find), the rest I see everything scam, really really sad for our generation.
Serious research? He is a messenger who points to articles on a website like everyone else. No offense to Vlad but this is as serious as you can get, it is a peer reviewed paper that proved 'complete regeneration.' And if you want to point to who you regard as your authority, I could then point to John Hopkins University. But I will not do that as it has a factual basis and I dont use authority to help me digest information, I use facts. Anyway a 'peer reviewed paper', not me, you, john doe, proved all this and get this, this is as serious research as you can get. Get this, this has a permanent 'factual basis.' All this is 'past tense' facts, not theories without facts. And all this is easily replicated. This is not my 'opinion', your opinion, some authorities opinion, my 'conjecture,' or your conjecture. This is fact.
BTW I have never opened or acknowledged in detail ANY detailed tgb bs discussion since the phase 2 trial in 2008. I have never since then acknowledged any 'once only injectable.' Since before you were here. It has no credibility to me and therefor when people discussed it I ignored it.
With decorin this has some factual credibility and has something. It actually stopped fibroblast proliferation at 200nm, fibroblast proliferation is what produces scar. Then you have the fact that decorin is absent when you scar and only returns to normal levels over12month, however when it returns your scar has formed. However decorin usage is impractical, it would need 247 application, not a once only injection or pill and to treat a small wound would probably cost the same as a house. I have stopped talking about this for about 2years now, but I have never took away any credit from it.
I will start to report scammers scientists and companies, will start with hydrogel, I will send an email and if they do not clarify their experiment and what they really need to continue, I will report them. I'm tired of being ripped off desperate people.
Here is another scam, junk, quack, trash, hoax, fraud... call it whatever you want:
http://en.rusnano.co...of-year-nominee
Phase 2 clinical trial showed their wound healing drug for diabetic foot ulcers is effective in only 33% of patients after 4 weeks (and in 6% of placebo patients) and Russians who threw $40 million in that drug are now calling it 'the deal of the year'!
Anyway this is interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12885271
China 'to overtake US on science' in two yearsChina is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 - far earlier than expected.
That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK's national science academy.
The country that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper and printing is set for a globally important comeback.
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
The study, Knowledge, Networks and Nations, charts the challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States, Europe and Japan.
The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier.
In 1996, the first year of the analysis, the US published 292,513 papers - more than 10 times China's 25,474.
By 2008, the US total had increased very slightly to 316,317 while China's had surged more than seven-fold to 184,080.
Previous estimates for the rate of expansion of Chinese science had suggested that China might overtake the US sometime after 2020.
But this study shows that China, after displacing the UK as the world's second leading producer of research, could go on to overtake America in as little as two years' time.
"Projections vary, but a simple linear interpretation of Elsevier's publishing data suggests that this could take place as early as 2013," it says.
Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, chair of the report, said he was "not surprised" by this increase because of China's massive boost to investment in R&D.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
"I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent."
The report stresses that American research output will not decline in absolute terms and raises the possibility of countries like Japan and France rising to meet the Chinese challenge.
"But the potential for China to match American output in terms of sheer numbers in the near to medium term is clear."
Quality questions
The authors describe "dramatic" changes in the global scientific landscape and warn that this has implications for a nation's competitiveness.
According to the report, "The scientific league tables are not just about prestige - they are a barometer of a country's ability to compete on the world stage".
Along with the growth of the Chinese economy, this is yet another indicator of China's extraordinarily rapid rise as a global force.
However the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
"It will take some time for the absolute output of emerging nations to challenge the rate at which this research is referenced by the international scientific community."
The UK's scientific papers are still the second most-cited in the world, after the US.
Dr Cong Cao, associate professor at Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, agrees with the assessment that the quantity of China's science is yet not matched by its quality.
A sociologist originally from Shanghai, Dr Cao told the BBC: "There are many millions of graduates but they are mandated to publish so the numbers are high.
"It will take many years for some of the research to catch up to Western standards."
As to China's motivation, Dr Cao believes that there is a determination not to be dependent on foreign know-how - and to reclaim the country's historic role as a global leader in technology.
So many countries around the world like BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and even small countries are now investing a lot of money in many different fields of science including regenerative medicine and stem cells research, things are now totally different than they were 10 or 20 years ago, the number of regenerative medicine and stem cells related publications are now having an explosive growth, it is doubling every 5 years globally!
thanks for the info, you're a good investigador.no as others here will do nothing and just repeated theories and do not take the time to seek information and provide the forum.
seabs
Discuss several here in the past years on tgf b3 you too, on Juvista, and especially you repeated your constantly on your fascination for decorin and some acell, now your new fascination is in hydrogel hope you do not disappoint hydrogel by hope of all we want a solution.
I think more serious research profile of Vladislav (is long term but the only real solution is to find), the rest I see everything scam, really really sad for our generation.
Serious research? He is a messenger who points to articles on a website like everyone else. No offense to Vlad but this is as serious as you can get, it is a peer reviewed paper that proved 'complete regeneration.' And if you want to point to who you regard as your authority, I could then point to John Hopkins University. But I will not do that as it has a factual basis and I dont use authority to help me digest information, I use facts. Anyway a 'peer reviewed paper', not me, you, john doe, proved all this and get this, this is as serious research as you can get. Get this, this has a permanent 'factual basis.' All this is 'past tense' facts, not theories without facts. And all this is easily replicated. This is not my 'opinion', your opinion, some authorities opinion, my 'conjecture,' or your conjecture. This is fact.
BTW I have never opened or acknowledged in detail ANY detailed tgb bs discussion since the phase 2 trial in 2008. I have never since then acknowledged any 'once only injectable.' Since before you were here. It has no credibility to me and therefor when people discussed it I ignored it.
With decorin this has some factual credibility and has something. It actually stopped fibroblast proliferation at 200nm, fibroblast proliferation is what produces scar. Then you have the fact that decorin is absent when you scar and only returns to normal levels over12month, however when it returns your scar has formed. However decorin usage is impractical, it would need 247 application, not a once only injection or pill and to treat a small wound would probably cost the same as a house. I have stopped talking about this for about 2years now, but I have never took away any credit from it.
I will start to report scammers scientists and companies, will start with hydrogel, I will send an email and if they do not clarify their experiment and what they really need to continue, I will report them. I'm tired of being ripped off desperate people.
LOL.
Do you understand what documentation is Malditon?
LOL.
Do you understand what documentation is Malditon?
yes i did.
first quote to vladislav congratulating him on his contribution. is obvious that the regeneration breakthrough will come for the BRIC countrys. (until the same kitoscell came from a country in the developing countrys), if kitoscell had been invented by the United States, as of today would not be anywhere for sale by the FDA ... crap
then I'll quote you, and I said I'll report scammers as the inventor of hydrogel, a con man who only wants to raise money. with sponsors like you.
And yes...China go fast and usa go slow (thanks fda)
LOL.
Do you understand what documentation is Malditon?
yes i did.
first quote to vladislav congratulating him on his contribution. is obvious that the regeneration breakthrough will come for the BRIC country. (until the same kitoscell came from a country in the developing world), if kitoscell had been invented by the United States, as of today would not be anywhere for sale by the FDA ... crap
I think hydrogel is invention within the United States? If so, forget that it goes on sale within this decade.
then I'll quote you, and I said I'll report scammers as the inventor of hydrogel, a con man who only wants to raise money. with sponsors like you.
You really dont understand the concept of documentation do you? If you ran a marathon, you'd probably not notice or take any documentation that you'd finished, or are 9/10ths of the way there, you'd think you've ran a mile and run into the horizon and collapse.
BTW you can quote a messenger all you want, the messenger then quotes his cites and so on, you follow the documentation.
You cant do that with anyone who predicts a future like a scam artist as they cant use past tense documentation.
I'm someone with a scarring problem who comes on this messageboard who has never put foot in the USA in his life. I have every fucking right to speak my mind about scarring using facts. I have discussed everything, from bee venom (I have even discussed this), to acell, decorin, to juvista until 2008 way before the phase 3 fail and way before you were here (though you think I opened or had many detailed debates with you when you were talking about nonsense mechanisms.). Since 2008 I have never talked about any projections, scam artists talk projections that are elusive or discuss nonsense mechanisms over facts. My interest is facts, facts and facts not projections. Only documentation interests me. And only the best cases interests me. Everything I have ever said on this board, comes from documented results and 'facts,' A position comes from facts, not future projections, a position comes from 'past tense' verifiable facts which you document. I have never ever claimed anything outside of documented 'facts.'
My interest is facts, facts and facts not projections.
ok, it seems perfect to focus on the facts. not my style but it's respectable. if you have patience I congratulate you. I'm tired of waiting years and all I see something like scam, Maybe I'm wrong, I hope you are right and not a scam.
ABOUT HYDROGEL:
Digital color images of the researchers and the hydrogel available; contact Mary Spiro or Phil Sneiderman
Here some of my research of the past, from 2009 until 2011 but I am since 2008 but was not registered.
Juvista
http://www.acne.org/...270482-juvista/
About the reducers of TGF-B1
http://www.acne.org/...cers-of-tgf-b1/
Apitherapy
http://www.acne.org/...123-apitherapy/
Blocking of calcium channels
http://www.acne.org/...lcium-channels/
About TGF-B3 Modulation on Scar Tissue Formation
http://www.acne.org/...ssue-formation/
Hyaluronic acid
http://www.acne.org/...yaluronic-acid/
Kitoscell