Acne.org Products
i hate to burst the bubble on this fundraising initiative, but don't you think that if the scientists demonstrated that this hydrogel technique showed real promise there'd be like a world of venture capitalists and investors begging to be a part of this?
rez77 very true which is why ive been thinking that spreading the word is the key here. Getting the right people interested. I figured maybe not enough people know? that could just be my naive view of it all too.
or are you saying maybe there is perhaps no real promise in the research?
trust me brother, if something comes of this, no one would be happier than me, and so I applaud your efforts. But the people to ask would be the docs who performed the experiment. i can't read this whole thread.
if this hydrogel could really promote scarless healing it would FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY --like one of the most significant medical/scientific findings of ALL TIME --and this is why I'm pretty skeptical that it actually works, it would have been mainstreamed, replicated, applied to humans SOMEWHERE in the world a long, long time ago already.
But you know, let see...
We've had the discussion about venture capitalists and investors before on the thread. Like you, I thought that they would come running.
However, I was wrong and someone corrected me. At this stage in the game it's far too early for them to be interested. So many factors contributing to this.
One, it's only been tested on mice so you'd be funding R&D that's unproven in other mammals and with no clear path to market. Investors like to make money.
Two, JHU themselves have said they don't really understand how they got the results they obtained.
Three, there are a whole host of scam artists out there that have probably made investors extremely uneasy and dubious about spending their money in this market (Renovo for example).
Four, it seems like there are IP issues so until that's settled I can't imagine anyone even being able to consider investing. Investors want a return on their investment and if the IP isn't settled they don't know if their 5% return is going to be with someone who owns the patent outright, owns 50% or owns 0% in the end. You wait to place a bet until you're as sure as you can be that the horse is going to be the winner. And on top of all of that no one knows for sure if it will work in humans anyway.
Dr. Sun didn't quite, the funding for his position ran out per his conversation with chuckstonchew. Who knows though, the IP issue might have had something to do with it. Dr. Gerecht and Dr. Harmon are still at JHU with Dr. Harmon working hard to get the ball rolling.
It's hard to find a reason to believe that this is a scam at this particular juncture. All JHU has done is tested the hydrogel and had their findings vetted for publication in a medical journal. If we help with this through indiegogo we should all be aware of the very real possibility that it won't work. That's not being scammed, that's making an informed decision and recognizing the possible outcomes. Right now I have no reason to doubt their intentions and the possibilities of the hydrogel and I don't think anyone else really does either.
I don't want to sound too negative, and I definitely don't know all the ins and outs of how projects like this are funded etc.. But my common sense says the following. All this technology involved was creating an injury in a mouse and then covering it with this hydrogel substance and allowing it to heal, voila, scarless healing. They should at least be able to replicate this result a hundred times without any need for major funding. Have they been able to do that? I don't know I'm asking, or was it just a one-off? If they've been able to replicate the results in mice predictably then it should be fairly corroborated that the technique works, right?
I mean the implications for this are FAR BEYOND acne scarring --indeed ANY operation procedure or injury would benefit. This invention would make its developers the richest people in the world potentially. This is why I'm skeptical that if it really worked they're not doing anything they can to jump on it. I would be satisfied at this stage to even learn that it's replicable in mice. Is it?
Broken record time, my apologies... They havent replicated it beyond this scope yet, as they are following a code of ethics no doubt. But it has been replicated and can be replicated again and again as it is a factual document, there is nothing hidden. Any scholar with curiosity could replicate this easily. BTW the only way this would not work, going on the logic in the paper is if, the formula was changed, like say the speed of digestion was slowed down and the porosity was changed (e.g a 60:40 ratio porosity instead of a 8020, or the hydrogel and so on). Also by logic, all scaffolds do is degrade in mammals; they behave the same in all mammals they cannot discriminate. With regards to this wait for funding, I have been like you are for over a year. This needs funding.
Hey, could you do me a favor? Could you just message me whenever there is any actual development on this or the possibility for a real cure for acne scarring? I've waited for this now for what feels like several years. I have bad scarring and I need a cure, but I'm wasting my life away constantly looking at these forums and updates for the newest thing and they never arrive. Id appreciate it my friend if whenever something truly helpful is developed you might message me. Thank you.
i hope this time its different, for you and us all:)
i hate to burst the bubble on this fundraising initiative, but don't you think that if the scientists demonstrated that this hydrogel technique showed real promise there'd be like a world of venture capitalists and investors begging to be a part of this?
rez77 very true which is why ive been thinking that spreading the word is the key here. Getting the right people interested. I figured maybe not enough people know? that could just be my naive view of it all too.
or are you saying maybe there is perhaps no real promise in the research?
trust me brother, if something comes of this, no one would be happier than me, and so I applaud your efforts. But the people to ask would be the docs who performed the experiment. i can't read this whole thread.
if this hydrogel could really promote scarless healing it would FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY --like one of the most significant medical/scientific findings of ALL TIME --and this is why I'm pretty skeptical that it actually works, it would have been mainstreamed, replicated, applied to humans SOMEWHERE in the world a long, long time ago already.
But you know, let see...
We've had the discussion about venture capitalists and investors before on the thread. Like you, I thought that they would come running.
However, I was wrong and someone corrected me. At this stage in the game it's far too early for them to be interested. So many factors contributing to this.
One, it's only been tested on mice so you'd be funding R&D that's unproven in other mammals and with no clear path to market. Investors like to make money.
Two, JHU themselves have said they don't really understand how they got the results they obtained.
Three, there are a whole host of scam artists out there that have probably made investors extremely uneasy and dubious about spending their money in this market (Renovo for example).
Four, it seems like there are IP issues so until that's settled I can't imagine anyone even being able to consider investing. Investors want a return on their investment and if the IP isn't settled they don't know if their 5% return is going to be with someone who owns the patent outright, owns 50% or owns 0% in the end. You wait to place a bet until you're as sure as you can be that the horse is going to be the winner. And on top of all of that no one knows for sure if it will work in humans anyway.
Dr. Sun didn't quite, the funding for his position ran out per his conversation with chuckstonchew. Who knows though, the IP issue might have had something to do with it. Dr. Gerecht and Dr. Harmon are still at JHU with Dr. Harmon working hard to get the ball rolling.
It's hard to find a reason to believe that this is a scam at this particular juncture. All JHU has done is tested the hydrogel and had their findings vetted for publication in a medical journal. If we help with this through indiegogo we should all be aware of the very real possibility that it won't work. That's not being scammed, that's making an informed decision and recognizing the possible outcomes. Right now I have no reason to doubt their intentions and the possibilities of the hydrogel and I don't think anyone else really does either.
I don't want to sound too negative, and I definitely don't know all the ins and outs of how projects like this are funded etc.. But my common sense says the following. All this technology involved was creating an injury in a mouse and then covering it with this hydrogel substance and allowing it to heal, voila, scarless healing. They should at least be able to replicate this result a hundred times without any need for major funding. Have they been able to do that? I don't know I'm asking, or was it just a one-off? If they've been able to replicate the results in mice predictably then it should be fairly corroborated that the technique works, right?
I mean the implications for this are FAR BEYOND acne scarring --indeed ANY operation procedure or injury would benefit. This invention would make its developers the richest people in the world potentially. This is why I'm skeptical that if it really worked they're not doing anything they can to jump on it. I would be satisfied at this stage to even learn that it's replicable in mice. Is it?
Broken record time, my apologies... They havent replicated it beyond this scope yet, as they are following a code of ethics no doubt. But it has been replicated and can be replicated again and again as it is a factual document, there is nothing hidden. Any scholar with curiosity could replicate this easily. BTW the only way this would not work, going on the logic in the paper is if, the formula was changed, like say the speed of digestion was slowed down and the porosity was changed (e.g a 60:40 ratio porosity instead of a 8020, or the hydrogel and so on). Also by logic, all scaffolds do is degrade in mammals; they behave the same in all mammals they cannot discriminate. With regards to this wait for funding, I have been like you are for over a year. This needs funding.
Hey, could you do me a favor? Could you just message me whenever there is any actual development on this or the possibility for a real cure for acne scarring? I've waited for this now for what feels like several years. I have bad scarring and I need a cure, but I'm wasting my life away constantly looking at these forums and updates for the newest thing and they never arrive. Id appreciate it my friend if whenever something truly helpful is developed you might message me. Thank you.
You know what? I'm actually through with this frankly. Something terribly frightening just happened. I was looking at an old thread, a bunch of people were discussing a potential cure for acne scarring that was going to be out in "a year," , and then I realize the last message on that thread was from 2001!!!!
Those people thought the cure was around the corner and they've been waiting 12 goddamn years, maybe many of them totally forgot about their scars or don't even care anymore! I'm sorry, but I've been on these forums since at least 2009. I don't want to spend my entire life on these forums, hoping, praying wishing for something that could help me where's nothing yet and perhaps won't be in our generation. I know this sounds negative, but that post from 2001 freaked me out, again people were commenting "oh x cure will be here in like 2 years tops" and well, it's 10 years later. My friends, I'm in this with you all and I want a cure mroe than anyone, but I can't let this control my life anymore, it's too painful to always be thinking about what's wrong with you.
i hate to burst the bubble on this fundraising initiative, but don't you think that if the scientists demonstrated that this hydrogel technique showed real promise there'd be like a world of venture capitalists and investors begging to be a part of this?
rez77 very true which is why ive been thinking that spreading the word is the key here. Getting the right people interested. I figured maybe not enough people know? that could just be my naive view of it all too.
or are you saying maybe there is perhaps no real promise in the research?
trust me brother, if something comes of this, no one would be happier than me, and so I applaud your efforts. But the people to ask would be the docs who performed the experiment. i can't read this whole thread.
if this hydrogel could really promote scarless healing it would FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY --like one of the most significant medical/scientific findings of ALL TIME --and this is why I'm pretty skeptical that it actually works, it would have been mainstreamed, replicated, applied to humans SOMEWHERE in the world a long, long time ago already.
But you know, let see...
We've had the discussion about venture capitalists and investors before on the thread. Like you, I thought that they would come running.
However, I was wrong and someone corrected me. At this stage in the game it's far too early for them to be interested. So many factors contributing to this.
One, it's only been tested on mice so you'd be funding R&D that's unproven in other mammals and with no clear path to market. Investors like to make money.
Two, JHU themselves have said they don't really understand how they got the results they obtained.
Three, there are a whole host of scam artists out there that have probably made investors extremely uneasy and dubious about spending their money in this market (Renovo for example).
Four, it seems like there are IP issues so until that's settled I can't imagine anyone even being able to consider investing. Investors want a return on their investment and if the IP isn't settled they don't know if their 5% return is going to be with someone who owns the patent outright, owns 50% or owns 0% in the end. You wait to place a bet until you're as sure as you can be that the horse is going to be the winner. And on top of all of that no one knows for sure if it will work in humans anyway.
Dr. Sun didn't quite, the funding for his position ran out per his conversation with chuckstonchew. Who knows though, the IP issue might have had something to do with it. Dr. Gerecht and Dr. Harmon are still at JHU with Dr. Harmon working hard to get the ball rolling.
It's hard to find a reason to believe that this is a scam at this particular juncture. All JHU has done is tested the hydrogel and had their findings vetted for publication in a medical journal. If we help with this through indiegogo we should all be aware of the very real possibility that it won't work. That's not being scammed, that's making an informed decision and recognizing the possible outcomes. Right now I have no reason to doubt their intentions and the possibilities of the hydrogel and I don't think anyone else really does either.
I don't want to sound too negative, and I definitely don't know all the ins and outs of how projects like this are funded etc.. But my common sense says the following. All this technology involved was creating an injury in a mouse and then covering it with this hydrogel substance and allowing it to heal, voila, scarless healing. They should at least be able to replicate this result a hundred times without any need for major funding. Have they been able to do that? I don't know I'm asking, or was it just a one-off? If they've been able to replicate the results in mice predictably then it should be fairly corroborated that the technique works, right?
I mean the implications for this are FAR BEYOND acne scarring --indeed ANY operation procedure or injury would benefit. This invention would make its developers the richest people in the world potentially. This is why I'm skeptical that if it really worked they're not doing anything they can to jump on it. I would be satisfied at this stage to even learn that it's replicable in mice. Is it?
Broken record time, my apologies... They havent replicated it beyond this scope yet, as they are following a code of ethics no doubt. But it has been replicated and can be replicated again and again as it is a factual document, there is nothing hidden. Any scholar with curiosity could replicate this easily. BTW the only way this would not work, going on the logic in the paper is if, the formula was changed, like say the speed of digestion was slowed down and the porosity was changed (e.g a 60:40 ratio porosity instead of a 8020, or the hydrogel and so on). Also by logic, all scaffolds do is degrade in mammals; they behave the same in all mammals they cannot discriminate. With regards to this wait for funding, I have been like you are for over a year. This needs funding.
Hey, could you do me a favor? Could you just message me whenever there is any actual development on this or the possibility for a real cure for acne scarring? I've waited for this now for what feels like several years. I have bad scarring and I need a cure, but I'm wasting my life away constantly looking at these forums and updates for the newest thing and they never arrive. Id appreciate it my friend if whenever something truly helpful is developed you might message me. Thank you.
You know what? I'm actually through with this frankly. Something terribly frightening just happened. I was looking at an old thread, a bunch of people were discussing a potential cure for acne scarring that was going to be out in "a year," , and then I realize the last message on that thread was from 2001!!!!
Those people thought the cure was around the corner and they've been waiting 12 goddamn years, maybe many of them totally forgot about their scars or don't even care anymore! I'm sorry, but I've been on these forums since at least 2009. I don't want to spend my entire life on these forums, hoping, praying wishing for something that could help me where's nothing yet and perhaps won't be in our generation. I know this sounds negative, but that post from 2001 freaked me out, again people were commenting "oh x cure will be here in like 2 years tops" and well, it's 10 years later. My friends, I'm in this with you all and I want a cure mroe than anyone, but I can't let this control my life anymore, it's too painful to always be thinking about what's wrong with you.
Its the rolling unwritten agreement said every year, every year its, 'next x years,' 'next x years...' (usually three) And most of it came with theory. Which is why I get frustrated when people talk of the future and use theory and ignore facts or results. Cemented facts are what is important.
this is all a bunch of BS. If it worked they'd have at least replicated in like a 100 mice by now. The newspapers seize on any headline just to generate buzz, even the new york times. How many times have you read "scientists closer than ever to a cure for baldness" -they've been touting that shit since 1980 at least. 30 years later, we're not even a step closer.
But with regards to acne here's the most horrible realization I've come across. If you have real acne scarring, NONE of the therapies have ever done shit. And I mean none. They say "well you can't expect perfection, at best a 40-80 percent improvement" FUCK MAN I WOULD BE THRILLED WITH EVEN A 30 percent improvement at this point. But all these goddman pics by doctors are all in different light, different angles. The depressions are still there or the fillers are temporary.
That's why I feel like I've already wasted 3 goddamn years of my life browsing these forums waiting for some miracle to come. and there's been NOTHING.
oh and here you go, i was just looking for what else was on the horizon, this promising more help, and it too is obviously complete fucking bullshit because it's from 2 years ago!!
this is all a bunch of BS. If it worked they'd have at least replicated in like a 100 mice by now. The newspapers seize on any headline just to generate buzz, even the new york times. How many times have you read "scientists closer than ever to a cure for baldness" -they've been touting that shit since 1980 at least. 30 years later, we're not even a step closer.
But with regards to acne here's the most horrible realization I've come across. If you have real acne scarring, NONE of the therapies have ever done shit. And I mean none. They say "well you can't expect perfection, at best a 40-80 percent improvement" FUCK MAN I WOULD BE THRILLED WITH EVEN A 30 percent improvement at this point. But all these goddman pics by doctors are all in different light, different angles. The depressions are still there or the fillers are temporary.
That's why I feel like I've already wasted 3 goddamn years of my life browsing these forums waiting for some miracle to come. and there's been NOTHING.
It is replicated in 6 or 8 mice, I'm not sure for the exact number of mice, I just know that 40% of the control mice did not survive burns and full tickeness excision injuries while the survival rate of the mice treated with hydrogel was 100%. And the standard deviation is pretty high, so the mice treated with hydrogel grew different number of hair follicles.
BTW 30 years ago there were no research in regenerative medicine, biotechnology and stem cells, not at all, those things simply did not exist back then. And do you really think that in 30 years from now there will be no cure or at least an effective treatment for baldness? 
this is all a bunch of BS. If it worked they'd have at least replicated in like a 100 mice by now. The newspapers seize on any headline just to generate buzz, even the new york times. How many times have you read "scientists closer than ever to a cure for baldness" -they've been touting that shit since 1980 at least. 30 years later, we're not even a step closer.
But with regards to acne here's the most horrible realization I've come across. If you have real acne scarring, NONE of the therapies have ever done shit. And I mean none. They say "well you can't expect perfection, at best a 40-80 percent improvement" FUCK MAN I WOULD BE THRILLED WITH EVEN A 30 percent improvement at this point. But all these goddman pics by doctors are all in different light, different angles. The depressions are still there or the fillers are temporary.
That's why I feel like I've already wasted 3 goddamn years of my life browsing these forums waiting for some miracle to come. and there's been NOTHING.
It is replicated in 6 or 8 mice, I'm not sure for the exact number of mice, I just know that 40% of the control mice did not survive burns and full tickeness excision injuries while the survival rate of the mice treated with hydrogel was 100%. And the standard deviation is pretty high, so the mice treated with hydrogel grew different number of hair follicles.
BTW 30 years ago there were no research in regenerative medicine, biotechnology and stem cells, not at all, those things simply did not exist back then. And do you really think that in 30 years from now there will be no cure or at least an effective treatment for baldness?
Vladislav, thanks for your response. 2 quick points: 1) YOU DON'T HAVE FUCKING ACNE SCARS WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING ON THIS SITE!!!! I WOULD GIVE UP MY LEFT GODDAMN ARM TO HAVE THAT LITTLE PING YOU HAVE UNDERNEATH YOUR EYE. ARE YOU ACTUALLY INSANE!!!!??? WHY DO YOU EVEN GIVE A SHIt ABOUT THAT? WHY ARE YOU ON THIS SITE? YOU DO NOT HAVE ACNE SCAAAAARSSSS@!!!!!!!
Okay, I apologize for that rant, I know all things are relative. But hell man. You're also a kid, like what 20 years old? I'm a lot older than you, I'll be in my fucking 60s 30 years from now, and I doubt I'll give a flying fuck about being bald or having fucking acne scars by then. So I will not give a shit.
Could you if you have a chance paste a link to the actual scientific article about this hydrogel stuff. thanks.
Well not all of us on this site have acne scars, and you're right, I don't give a shit about that little scar anymore, but I have a surgical scar across my entire abdomen (I lost my spleen but it is not a problem because it is not a vital organ like a kidney, heart, liver, pancreas,...I simply get 3 different vaccine every few years as a protection from certain bacteria and I have trouble with normal breathing because my nasal septum was distorted but again it is not a problem, it is easily fixable/curable with nose surgery). And your acne scars look OK to me, why do you think it is an obstacle for anything in your life for you? In my most honest opinion that could be the real obstacle for you only if you want to be a male model or something like that 
that guy Ernesto had a serious problem with acne scars, you don't have it.
And here is the scientific paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/52/20976.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
interesting/disheartening? need to look into this a bit further
patent (filed in 1969!!?):
Well not all of us on this site have acne scars, and you're right, I don't give a shit about that little scar anymore, but I have a surgical scar across my entire abdomen (I lost my spleen but it is not a problem because it is not a vital organ like a kidney, heart, liver, pancreas,...I simply get 3 different vaccine every few years as a protection from certain bacteria and I have trouble with normal breathing because my nasal septum was distorted but again it is not a problem, it is easily fixable/curable with nose surgery). And your acne scars look OK to me, why do you think it is an obstacle for anything in your life for you? In my most honest opinion that could be the real obstacle for you only if you want to be a male model or something like that
And here is the scientific paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/52/20976.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
Well thanks V. for saying my acne scars are "okay" --but yeah I do want to do something on television and that's why my acne scars bother me it's true. Sorry to hear about your abdomen scar and I didn't mean to judge you, we all have our own idiosyncracies and issues so you can never tell.
I wonder if that guy Ernesto's results are real? I mean I don't think they possibly could be because if he could get that much improvement on his absolutely disfiguring scars (I mean he got at least 30 percent improvement I would say) then I would be thrilled with that.
Yes and thank you for the paper, it sounds a bit more rigorous than I thought, but why the delay then? It just doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever if this technology was actually working.
Anyway, I wanted to tell you guys one thing for sure --I checked out a bunch of stuff about CO2 in combination with RECELL --TOTALLY DOES NOT WORK!
I'm in one of those moods over the past few days where I thought I'd do extensive research once again to see if there was any innovation in the world of scar treatment to see if my acne scars could be solved to a degree that was acceptable. I don't mean an ambiguous "20 percent depending on what lighting you are using and what deceptive angle you are photographing the 'after' picture from" I mean a legitimate 30-80 percent improvement. And let me tell you the examples of RECELL i saw didn't even give 10 percent improvement!!!
It's just so unethical for these docs and the company to be advertizing this shit as a cure for acne scarring when it doesn't even give 10 percent improvement!!
And it's so bloody expensive!!
So I've decided to give it all a rest for four months. I will not visit any of these sites or even think about my scars for four months. When I return I hope and pray to read something positive on these boards. Good luck friends.
@chuck, if you have any opportunity and feel that it is appropriate, it would be great if you could probe a little whether Harmon is planning to do any trials where the wound is just cut out, not leaving any "burn margin" around the wound that may distort the results.
I know some members on here are convinced that the fact that the regenerated hairs grew only from the center was solely because they left a margin around the excision. I'm not fully convinced about that yet though (and, taken from your past conversations with the lab, I don't think they are either.) Ideally, for our purposes, we need to establish whether there will be any scarred margins and whether the regenerated area is the same in terms of adnexal denisty etc. as normal skin. If those two things turn out positive, even in mice, then the outlooks about this definitely look good.
went, that pdf is about juvista
doh, i got confused and posted both as if they were related. Read only the patent. I will edit my post
I see 
That patent is intriguing. Seems like they have done some kind of animal experiments with positive results. It's hard to tell though, the patent mostly states that the lotion "promotes" scar-free healing, which could mean pretty much anything. We're also still talking about gashes, i.e. not excising anything and letting the skin form anew as with the hydrogel.
Rez77 you say you are tired of waiting so many years till something come out...
you know what?the problem is all of those people with the same attitude ,full of passiveness
''waiting for a miracle''instead of helping in every possible way to make something true and functional...
its a completely passive approach to approach your problem by waiting.
good luck but this forum had enough of attitudes like yours...
Seabs said that it is theoretically possible to stop over proliferation of fibroblast cells by using decorin at 200nm and thus achieving scar free healing, well if it is not possible to stop over proliferation of fibroblast cells with decorin at 200nm then maybe it is possible to convert them into some other cell types (maybe into keratinocytes or epithelial cells??), discovery of iPS cells (induced pluoripotent stem cells) was awarded with the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2012, awarded scientists have been successful in converting fibroblast cells into heart cells, brain cells, lung cells, spinal cord cells and embryonic stem cells, it is a technology that allows the direct conversation of one adult cell type into another adult cell type (and optionally into embryonic stem cell), it could be a superior method of treating and curing many diseases compared to adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, it could be a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, stroke, spinal cord injuries, although I can't be 100% sure whether it has any relevance for us or not, but anyway it is interesting:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/16598813/skin-cells-as-stem-cells
SAN FRANCISCO, CA (Ivanhoe Newswire) - Stem cells, they could hold the key to the treatment and cure of more than 70 major diseases and conditions. A science lab is taking stem cell technology another step into the future.
From broken hearts to severed spines to damaged brains. The answer to heal them all may be found inside a lab.
...
"We had a major breakthrough," Deepak Srivastava, M.D., from the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, said.
Doctor Deepak Srivastava and doctor Sheng Ding are two of the many minds at Gladstone Institute using not adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, but your own skin cells to repair bodies from the inside out.
"It means in the future one might be able to create new heart cells, new lung cells, new spinal cord cells, starting with your own cells from your skin," Dr. Srivastava said.
Doctor Srivastava is taking adult skin cells, and turning them into beating heart cells. It's called direct reprogramming.
"We've been able to create a beating heart cells that used to be on someone's skinwhich is really like science fiction," Dr. Srivastava said.
The same approach could be used to repair spinal cord injuries and practically any other part of the body.
"We've been working on new methods that can convert cells from the skin to brain cells," Sheng Ding, Ph.D., at the Gladstone institute, said.
Doctor Ding has transformed the adult skin cells into neurons that are capable of transmitting brain signals. They hope this could reverse the effects of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and stroke.
"It's the ultimate in personalized medicine," Dr. Srivastava said.
Doctors say because they're using a patient's own skin cells, there's little to no chance of rejection. These skin cells could also be used to test new drugs and each patient's possible response to those drugs. Allowing doctors to better personalize medicine.
interesting/disheartening? need to look into this a bit further
patent (filed in 1969!!?):
This has been put forward before, it was something someone claimed happened, but this to my knowledge has never been tested scientifically. The same thing with the chicken feet.
interesting/disheartening? need to look into this a bit further
patent (filed in 1969!!?):
This has been put forward before, it was something someone claimed happened, but this to my knowledge has never been tested scientifically. The same thing with the chicken feet.
we need real facts seabs...tests on mouse (like on hydrogel), it's don't any sense to me
I think this type of gel is already on the market which are injected using dermapen and edermastamp
There are tons of hydrogels on the market for various applications but the specific one were talking about has its own "recipe" and is the only one that has achieved scar free healing in any mammal. And in the tests JHU ran it wasn't an injectable.
Not sure if this has been posted before but here goes:
http://www.jhttonline.jhu.edu/TechnologyDetail.aspx?TechID=17F88F05-55C4-497F-A9AA-AE3618A8D0D9
I don't know about you guys but if I'm an investor and see something written like that (even if I regularly invest in wound healing) I would probably just space out and get lost amidst the jargon. It seems this probably part of the problem. JHU's technology transfer is supposed to help the university take things from the lab and commercialize them but this document reads like a text book, not a marketing tool. Albeit, it shouldn't come across like some huckster selling a cure all tonic but jeez, could you try to make it a bit more accessible for the people with money to fund things?
Anyway, thought I'd pass that along. Not sure what kind of marketing they actually do with the document (who they send it to, if they put it in publications etc.) if at all.
interesting/disheartening? need to look into this a bit further
patent (filed in 1969!!?):
This has been put forward before, it was something someone claimed happened, but this to my knowledge has never been tested scientifically. The same thing with the chicken feet.
we need real facts seabs...tests on mouse (like on hydrogel), it's don't any sense to me
I wasn't even talking about the hydrogel here.
Also if say I was, are you trying to say that passing on a document is a property of a messengers opinion and therefor an opinion, again?
This is a paper that shows scar free healing (complete regeneration) from a full thickness third degree burn in a mammal, where the state of the art control did not get scar free healing <<< it has nothing to do with your opinion or anyone elses. It is not an opinion.
And real facts? You cant turn cited facts into non cited facts, they are cited facts, or they are until papers are burned. But you can talk conjecture or nonsense to smoke over facts.
Do you believe that the hydrogel will regenerate perfect textures? That is the only important thing, everything else is irrelevant. And I hope that scar free healing really means scar free healing and not scarless healing and that complete regeneration really means complete regeneration and not incomplete regeneration! And do you believe that if they found a way to somehow further increase hydrogel's pore size then maybe the reepithelization process would be further accelerated? And what do you think about induced pluripotent stem cells? It is the fact that it is now possible to convert fibroblast cells into any other type of cells, you've mentioned that decorin at 200nm can stop over proliferation of fibroblasts and thus achieving scar free healing.
Do you believe that the hydrogel will regenerate perfect textures? That is the only important thing, everything else is irrelevant. And I hope that scar free healing really means scar free healing and not scarless healing and that complete regeneration really means complete regeneration and not incomplete regeneration! And do you believe that if they found a way to somehow further increase hydrogel's pore size then maybe the reepithelization process would be further accelerated? And what do you think about induced pluripotent stem cells? It is the fact that it is now possible to convert fibroblast cells into any other type of cells, you've mentioned that decorin at 200nm can stop over proliferation of fibroblasts and thus achieving scar free healing.
Do I believe? That would convey an opinion. Its a fact it got eaten rapidly, created cells and got perfect textures (it got complete regeneration, full structural appendages). The paper has shown complete regeneration. And, again, if there was imperfect tissues there would be 'incomplete regeneration', which would involve scar blocking off the complete regeneration giving imperfect texture. In the paper the only thing that got incomplete regeneration was the control; the gel got complete regeneration with no scar blocking off the regeneration. If it stated anything with incomplete regeneration Id ignore it, or if it had no results and theorised something, I personally would not give it attention.
And do I believe with regards to a bigger pore size... I think we can say they must have spent a long time discussing, optimizing and retesting the gel and the control and have optimized the loose hydrogel and have then proven it digests the fastest in this paper... However, with regards to the pore size, going on the paper the 8020 had a bigger pore size than the 6040 and way bigger than the control and how the 8020, with a bigger pore size, degraded fastest I can see the clear link you are seeing, that I also share btw, between the pore size of the control and the hydrogel. But there is also one more strong variable and that variable could just be a digestable component??? Like something edible combined with the gel pore size for the digestion??? I mean most organisms digest. But looking at the scale of the pore size there looks like some logic here with a bigger pore size could help it soak and digest more. In the paper there looks like a link here between pore size , and digestion. That imo is a good point. However my logical belief here is it is an edible content alongside the pore size that allowed speedy infiltration and digestion by the whiteblood cells (most organisms eat carbs when they access them). It is not just the porosity. I bet someone could engineer some piece of metal with porosity, but the white blood cells would not eat the metal.
Do you believe that the hydrogel will regenerate perfect textures? That is the only important thing, everything else is irrelevant. And I hope that scar free healing really means scar free healing and not scarless healing and that complete regeneration really means complete regeneration and not incomplete regeneration! And do you believe that if they found a way to somehow further increase hydrogel's pore size then maybe the reepithelization process would be further accelerated? And what do you think about induced pluripotent stem cells? It is the fact that it is now possible to convert fibroblast cells into any other type of cells, you've mentioned that decorin at 200nm can stop over proliferation of fibroblasts and thus achieving scar free healing.
Do I believe? That would convey an opinion. Its a fact it got eaten rapidly, created cells and got perfect textures (it got complete regeneration, full structural appendages). The paper has shown complete regeneration. And, again, if there was imperfect tissues there would be 'incomplete regeneration', which would involve scar blocking off the complete regeneration giving imperfect texture. In the paper the only thing that got incomplete regeneration was the control; the gel got complete regeneration with no scar blocking off the regeneration. If it stated anything with incomplete regeneration Id ignore it, or if it had no results and theorised something, I personally would not give it attention.
And do I believe with regards to a bigger pore size... I think we can say they must have spent a long time discussing, optimizing and retesting the gel and the control and have optimized the loose hydrogel and have then proven it digests the fastest in this paper... However, with regards to the pore size, going on the paper the 8020 had a bigger pore size than the 6040 and way bigger than the control and how the 8020, with a bigger pore size, degraded fastest I can see the clear link you are seeing, that I also share btw, between the pore size of the control and the hydrogel. But there is also one more strong variable and that variable could just be a digestable component??? Like something edible combined with the gel pore size for the digestion??? I mean most organisms digest. But looking at the scale of the pore size there looks like some logic here with a bigger pore size could help it soak and digest more. In the paper there looks like a link here between pore size , and digestion. That imo is a good point. However my logical belief here is it is an edible content alongside the pore size that allowed speedy infiltration and digestion by the whiteblood cells (most organisms eat carbs when they access them). It is not just the porosity. I bet someone could engineer some piece of metal with porosity, but the white blood cells would not eat the metal.
Fact: hydrogel only been tested on mice, so that work in humans just an opinion, nothing more than that, it's like saying hydrogel work in all people, when perhaps hydrogel not do at all, it should be remembered there are different types of scarring for different kinds of people and different types of diseases that affect the same.usted simply is giving an opinion in the future. you just think.
I hope you're right path, it just an opinion
nothing more, just an opinion