Acne.org Products
@golfpanther The perfect deal is having hydrogel for sale next year in veterinary sale
Honestly, I could see it happening before the end of this year. Their timeline was 6-12 months so depending on when exactly they were quoting that timeline in the article it could be before the end of this year. The JHU engineering school magazine is only published bi-yearly so they could have gathered those quotes anytime before its publication.
But I can't imagine it won't be available next year for veterinary use. The moment of truth is drawing ever closer.
I just WISH nothing goes wrong
I'm a pretty happy person but I'd definately be happier without what scarring I have. I'm not all messed up mentally because of it anymore though. But if I had a button I could press that would reverse the physical "damage done" I'd press it in an instant.
I'm sorry to hear that you still struggle emotionally to the extent that you do.
Anyone else excited that there's actually progress related to this hydrogel and regenerative medicine?
The day when this hydrogel, or whatever treatment years down the line heals my face into something that is smooth, is the day I'll be able to open myself back up to the world and start healing the deep emotional damage I have accumulated by living with this disfigurement.
Best wishes to all other sufferers out there. If it isn't this hydrogel that will save us, it will be some other treatment in the future. Regenerative medicine is coming!
I'll be proud to know the hell I lived through when I can look myself in the face and see a new person.
This seems a little more clear, but it looks like good news to me! Could it be one of the forms of the hydrogel that they're working on? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/researchers_step_closer_to_custom_building_new_blood_vessels _
http://www.genengnews.com/keywordsandtools/print/4/31941/
These came out two days ago (:
If your virtual doctor finds something wrong, such as a diseased organ, then he might order a new one to be growndirectly from your own cells. Tissue engineering is one of the hottest fields in medicine, making possible a humanbody shop. So far, scientists can grow skin, blood, blood vessels, heart valves, cartilage, bone, noses, and ears in thelab from your own cells. The first major organ, the bladder, was grown in 2007, the first windpipe in 2009. So far, theonly organs that have been grown are relatively simple, involving only a few types of tissues and few structures.Within five years, the first liver and pancreas might be grown, with enormous implications for public health. Nobellaureate Walter Gilbert told me that he foresees a time, just a few decades into the future, when practically every organof the body will be grown from your own cells.Tissue engineering grows new organs by first extracting a few cells from your body. These cells are then injectedinto a plastic mold that looks like a sponge shaped in the form of the organ in question. The plastic mold is made ofbiodegradable polyglycolic acid. The cells are treated with certain growth factors to stimulate cell growth, causingthem to grow into the mold. Eventually, the mold disintegrates, leaving behind a perfect organ.I had the opportunity to visit Anthony Atalas laboratory at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and witnessthis miraculous technology firsthand. As I walked through his laboratory, I saw bottles that contained living humanorgans. I could see blood vessels and bladders; I saw heart valves that were constantly opening and closing becauseliquids were being pumped through them. Seeing all these living human organs in bottles, I almost felt as if I werewalking through Dr. Frankensteins laboratory, but there were several crucial differences. Back in the nineteenthcentury, doctors were ignorant of the bodys rejection mechanism, which makes it impossible to graft new organs. Plus,doctors did not know how to stop the infections that would inevitably contaminate any organ after surgery. So Atala,instead of creating a monster, is opening an entirely new lifesaving medical technology that may one day change theface of medicine.One future target for his laboratory is to grow a human liver, perhaps within five years. The liver is not thatcomplicated and consists of only a few types of tissue. Lab-grown livers could save thousands of lives, especially thosein desperate need of liver transplants. It could also save the lives of alcoholics suffering from cirrhosis. (Unfortunately,it could also encourage people to keep bad habits, knowing that they can get replacement organs for their damagedones.)If organs of the body, like the windpipe and the bladder, can be grown now, what is to prevent scientists fromgrowing every organ of the body? One basic problem is how to grow the tiny capillaries that provide blood for thecells. Every cell in the body has to be in contact with a blood supply. In addition, there is the problem of growingcomplex structures. The kidney, which purifies the blood of toxins, is composed of millions of tiny filters, so a moldfor these filters is quite difficult to create.
How many of you have trust on this dextran hydrogel? I wonder if the researchers have urge to use it on a small wound and see if it results scarless healing on humans. Would be much easier to find out whether it's the solution we're waiting for.
small wound?
if you want to go scarless on new small cuts/wounds then use cayenne pepper powder.
I believe this is scam like 100% of these so promising medicals that have never helped NOT A SINGLE PERSON
to this day.
Trust??? (As in hearsay?)
It is something that digested and proved rapid digestion and 'complete regeneration' of a third degree burn; it was wrote up in a testable peer reviewed scientific paper.
How many of you have trust on this dextran hydrogel? I wonder if the researchers have urge to use it on a small wound and see if it results scarless healing on humans. Would be much easier to find out whether it's the solution we're waiting for.
Yes, but they tried it on mice not on humans. If you are a mouse, it's great news for you then. What I mean is, do you believe it will produce scarless healing on humans as well?
Well, we can't believe yet.
But mouse skin do have simmilarities with human skin hence they use mouses.
The only way to really know is for them to test it on humans.
You are making an assumption that a scaffold can discriminate between tissue. All scaffolds do is they either 1. degrade or 2. they get rejected by the body. As the scaffolds are eaten by the immune response, logically they cannot discriminate against any tissue (e.g. a bit of chicken you ate has no choice in the matter). Btw if you look at all other scaffolds they behave similar in all tissues, so if a scaffold is digested in one tissue it will also be digestible in other tissues..
Yes, but they tried it on mice not on humans. If you are a mouse, it's great news for you then. What I mean is, do you believe it will produce scarless healing on humans as well?
You are making an assumption that a scaffold can discriminate between tissue. All scaffolds do is they either 1. degrade or 2. they get rejected by the body. As the scaffolds are eaten by the immune response, logically they cannot discriminate against any tissue (e.g. a bit of chicken you ate has no choice in the matter). Btw if you look at all other scaffolds they behave similar in all tissues, so if a scaffold is digested in one tissue it will also be digestible in other tissues..
Yes, but they tried it on mice not on humans. If you are a mouse, it's great news for you then. What I mean is, do you believe it will produce scarless healing on humans as well?
It feels like you're over simplifying the matter. I doubt the researchers themselves consider scarless healing on humans even 80% sure based on those results they got.
You've been on this board a long time. I can remember Renovo's Juvista and ACell. What else products there have been that have promised more or less scarless healing during the past years? Does this hydrogel seem the most promising to date and are there other similar products being developed at the moment?
Anyone else excited that there's actually progress related to this hydrogel and regenerative medicine?
The day when this hydrogel, or whatever treatment years down the line heals my face into something that is smooth, is the day I'll be able to open myself back up to the world and start healing the deep emotional damage I have accumulated by living with this disfigurement.
Best wishes to all other sufferers out there. If it isn't this hydrogel that will save us, it will be some other treatment in the future. Regenerative medicine is coming!
I'll be proud to know the hell I lived through when I can look myself in the face and see a new person.
you put the nail on the coffin! couldnt of said it better myself. i also relate to your situation.
are they gonna come out with clinical trials for humans anytime soon for the dextran hydrogel?
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
This has previously been discussed. The article was posted 2 1/2 years ago, but I haven't read anything about it since.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blocking-a-common-sugar
Not sure if this was posted, but it's relevant.
A few years ago I emailed one of the researchers at Stanford regarding regenerative 'dot cells'. They told me that dot cells could in fact facilitate scar free healing given the sufficient quantity, though their published research only states that they minimized scarring. I believe their published results, rather than what I was told via email.
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
there could be a number of reasons, it doesnt necessarily mean it wont work on humans. this is all new found hope for scar sufferers so lets stay positive
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
there could be a number of reasons, it doesnt necessarily mean it wont work on humans. this is all new found hope for scar sufferers so lets stay positive
I agree. And even if it doesn't result scarless free skin, being better than existing solutions would be great news too.
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
While I agree that there is no way to know for sure that the hydrogel will work in humans, the results it achieved in mice at the time were unprecedented. Sine then, there was a Chinese research team that had a paper about Wharton's Jelly combined with MSCs that had roughly the same result. A link to the paper was posted here a bit ago.
The difference is that since it used stem cells the road to approval will be much longer. The hydrogel is classified as a type 2 device by the FDA and as such should be on the market faster.
Human trials taking so long? Well, they haven't even started. I know we want things fast, fast, fast but the sad truth is that with the FDA being so stringent it causes all sorts of problems. Investors will be more hesitant, it will require more money up front and on the backend and it's a step process. It's not like, "Hey, it worked on mice. Let's cut someone's scar out and see what happens." They need to work their way up the mammalian line and see if they can replicate both the safety and efficacy of it before thinking about humans.
BTW, an article posted on here just a few pages ago said they do have an angel investor, JHU is helping them set up a way to commercialize it and that within 18-24 months it should be on the veterinary market with human application not much longer after that. Plus, Gerecht and Sun still might be at odds over the patent (one thing that would make investors very squeamish) and having to work all that out. Incidentally, Sun is still working on dextran based hydrogels at Columbia:
There is actually a clinical distinction between scarless and scar free healing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarless_wound_healing
So while the suffix "less" might mean being without something in a linguistic sense, it does not mean that in this case.
I've talked to Sun through e-mail and he's hopeful that it will work in humans like it did with mice. He didn't guarantee it; only a fool or snake-oil salesman would do that. But he gave thoughtful responses and since he's continuing the work at Columbia I think that says something about his faith in it. For myself, I'm cautiously optimistic and until a better alternative presents itself I see no reason not to throw my support behind it.
I am still here browsing forums just to see A SINGLE PERSON be benefited by these ''revolutionary discoveries''.
Evil and good doesnt mix.When you live in an evil society,with even evil education ,dont expect good things and outcomes.
Wow, that's some faulty logic. So because something hasn't helped someone yet the research is all bogus and "evil"? If that were true than things like insulin, penicillin, chemotherapy and so on would have never come to fruition or would have been lies. Things don't happen overnight just because you want them to.
BTW, in financial terms the USA has a HUGE incentive to lower its health care costs because its percentage of the country's GDP is growing at a completely unsustainable rate. The video posted on the last page had a reference that said it will be 26% by 2020 I believe. So, pharma, the government et al have a huge reason to find other means of dealing with disease and injury. In your logic, evil=those in power and with money. If they want to keep making money and being "evil", they will need something like this.
And while our education system has its flaws, what makes you say it's evil? If you ever had anything to support one shred of what you say people might give you serious consideration. I've looked up things like colloidal silver when you've posted them but never found anything to substantiate your claims.
One last thing; check out the TED talk with Anthony Atalla. He brings a kid onstage near the end that has definitely benefitted from this type of research. Or go to AFIRM's site and see some of the things it has done for soldiers. Not total cures (the ultimate aim) but I bet they might have a differing opinion about how this type of research has improved their life.
Jonas, the good thing is it is very easy to test, and test and test again. Which is what I've stated again and again and again. It means everything documented so far, on this, is reliable and in massive probability, 'trust worthy.' (Not hearsay, not what 'you say on as a little bird revealed something to you on the internet' or 'he says' or 'she says on the internet with nothing backing them up.'. Or that authority says.) The hydrogel scaffold worked against a 'control scaffold', this control scaffold has been tested on thousands of mammals. This control scaffold has digested and behaved similar in all these mammal. Using the control, the interspecies data on mammals is known with regards to digestible scaffolds, which gives the control some reliable 'scale' to use when tested on any mammal. They behave similar in all tissues.
The idea that a newer scaffold would all of a sudden change behaviour and then subjectively discriminate against a mammal tissue is not expected in probability from anyone with logical reasoning. Granted freak nuanced phenomenon can happen in anything, but then, as I have stated before, this is easily 'testable' and to use computer speak, as it is easily testable, you can easily 'debug' the process via more testing to see were a problem lays.
Btw, scarless is an ambiguous term, what is scarless? Define scarless? Who decides what is scarless? How do you measure scarless? (Anything that can have different measurements, or can be defined more than one way, is ambiguous.)
With regards to fallacious pointing and lol ridicule of me with regards to something that has nothing to do with me. As if something I have reported on as a messenger when this was immature some how destroys credibility. And as if you now have this 'authority.' Decorin is theroised to work by arresting the fibroblast in a non injured state (btw it could also be that your non injured tissue has no stress), your body is flooded with decorin when non injured and decorin is absent when injured, anyway the fibroblast is the thing that upon injury, and stress transforms into a myofibroblast and lays down lumpy collagen to fill in a tissue deficit. Again with regards to decorin I reported on a reliable 'scientific finding' (nothing to do with you or me, as it is a scientific finding that can be tested) that proved at 200nm the fibroblast remains arrested. Therefor scarring logically should be arrested. However for what ever reason no one went onto test decorin over a long period of time years ago (probably to do with cost). BTW I do not go on about a thing in the past, and just like if an engineer has built a bridge, no one worries about something that was discussed at an earlier stage that could have also built a bridge.
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
While I agree that there is no way to know for sure that the hydrogel will work in humans, the results it achieved in mice at the time were unprecedented. Sine then, there was a Chinese research team that had a paper about Wharton's Jelly combined with MSCs that had roughly the same result. A link to the paper was posted here a bit ago.
The difference is that since it used stem cells the road to approval will be much longer. The hydrogel is classified as a type 2 device by the FDA and as such should be on the market faster.
Human trials taking so long? Well, they haven't even started. I know we want things fast, fast, fast but the sad truth is that with the FDA being so stringent it causes all sorts of problems. Investors will be more hesitant, it will require more money up front and on the backend and it's a step process. It's not like, "Hey, it worked on mice. Let's cut someone's scar out and see what happens." They need to work their way up the mammalian line and see if they can replicate both the safety and efficacy of it before thinking about humans.
BTW, an article posted on here just a few pages ago said they do have an angel investor, JHU is helping them set up a way to commercialize it and that within 18-24 months it should be on the veterinary market with human application not much longer after that. Plus, Gerecht and Sun still might be at odds over the patent (one thing that would make investors very squeamish) and having to work all that out. Incidentally, Sun is still working on dextran based hydrogels at Columbia:
There is actually a clinical distinction between scarless and scar free healing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarless_wound_healing
So while the suffix "less" might mean being without something in a linguistic sense, it does not mean that in this case.
I've talked to Sun through e-mail and he's hopeful that it will work in humans like it did with mice. He didn't guarantee it; only a fool or snake-oil salesman would do that. But he gave thoughtful responses and since he's continuing the work at Columbia I think that says something about his faith in it. For myself, I'm cautiously optimistic and until a better alternative presents itself I see no reason not to throw my support behind it.
>I am still here browsing forums just to see A SINGLE PERSON be benefited by these ''revolutionary discoveries''.
Evil and good doesnt mix.When you live in an evil society,with even evil education ,dont expect good things and outcomes.
Wow, that's some faulty logic. So because something hasn't helped someone yet the research is all bogus and "evil"? If that were true than things like insulin, penicillin, chemotherapy and so on would have never come to fruition or would have been lies. Things don't happen overnight just because you want them to.
BTW, in financial terms the USA has a HUGE incentive to lower its health care costs because its percentage of the country's GDP is growing at a completely unsustainable rate. The video posted on the last page had a reference that said it will be 26% by 2020 I believe. So, pharma, the government et al have a huge reason to find other means of dealing with disease and injury. In your logic, evil=those in power and with money. If they want to keep making money and being "evil", they will need something like this.
And while our education system has its flaws, what makes you say it's evil? If you ever had anything to support one shred of what you say people might give you serious consideration. I've looked up things like colloidal silver when you've posted them but never found anything to substantiate your claims.
One last thing; check out the TED talk with Anthony Atalla. He brings a kid onstage near the end that has definitely benefitted from this type of research. Or go to AFIRM's site and see some of the things it has done for soldiers. Not total cures (the ultimate aim) but I bet they might have a differing opinion about how this type of research has improved their life.
how long before you think they will start testing on humans?
The hydrogel scaffold worked against a 'control scaffold', this control scaffold has been tested in thousands of mammals. This control scaffold has digested and behaved similar in all these mammal. The interspecies data on mammals is known with regards to digestible scaffolds, which gives some reliable 'scale' to use when tested on any mammal. They behave similar in all tissues.
The idea that a newer scaffold would all of a sudden change behaviour and then subjectively discriminate against a mammal tissue is not expected in probability from anyone with logical reasoning.
golfpanther, in your discussions with Sun, did he argument his position like seabs that it'll work on humans?
The hydrogel scaffold worked against a 'control scaffold', this control scaffold has been tested in thousands of mammals. This control scaffold has digested and behaved similar in all these mammal. The interspecies data on mammals is known with regards to digestible scaffolds, which gives some reliable 'scale' to use when tested on any mammal. They behave similar in all tissues.
The idea that a newer scaffold would all of a sudden change behaviour and then subjectively discriminate against a mammal tissue is not expected in probability from anyone with logical reasoning.
golfpanther, in your discussions with Sun, did he argument his position like seabs that it'll work on humans?
He didn't go that far and I'm glad he didn't since he'd have nothing to really back it up. Here's what he said:
"For the hydrogel, I think JHU is ready to move big animal now. I talked to student who used to work with me on this project(e.g., preclinical study). if this works , I guess they will move to clinical test soon(I hope).I personally believe that hydrogel (not all hydrogel work this way though) is a good candidate for wound healing or skin regeneration.There are many criteria for picking the right the hydrogel."
I think that's about as far as he can go. If he'd said, "It will absolutely work," I would have been worried. I pressed him a bit after this and he said he had no way of predicting the results and that he'd never personally been a part of a clinical study.
As I said, for myself I'm cautiously optimistic and I think that would apply to Sun as well. Really, there's nothing more you can be until test results come back for bigger mammals and humans.
Just because this specific hydrogel works on mice, does not at all mean it will work on humans. Let's make that clear. Also, if they had difficulty procuring funding, then that alone should be a huge red flag. The fact that human trials are taking so long is also a concern. This is one of the easiest products to test. Btw, scarless healing is not an ambiguous term at all. 'Less' as a suffix means without. Powerless, flawless, restless, etc. Also seabs, what happened to decorin? LOL.
While I agree that there is no way to know for sure that the hydrogel will work in humans, the results it achieved in mice at the time were unprecedented. Sine then, there was a Chinese research team that had a paper about Wharton's Jelly combined with MSCs that had roughly the same result. A link to the paper was posted here a bit ago.
The difference is that since it used stem cells the road to approval will be much longer. The hydrogel is classified as a type 2 device by the FDA and as such should be on the market faster.
Human trials taking so long? Well, they haven't even started. I know we want things fast, fast, fast but the sad truth is that with the FDA being so stringent it causes all sorts of problems. Investors will be more hesitant, it will require more money up front and on the backend and it's a step process. It's not like, "Hey, it worked on mice. Let's cut someone's scar out and see what happens." They need to work their way up the mammalian line and see if they can replicate both the safety and efficacy of it before thinking about humans.
BTW, an article posted on here just a few pages ago said they do have an angel investor, JHU is helping them set up a way to commercialize it and that within 18-24 months it should be on the veterinary market with human application not much longer after that. Plus, Gerecht and Sun still might be at odds over the patent (one thing that would make investors very squeamish) and having to work all that out. Incidentally, Sun is still working on dextran based hydrogels at Columbia:
There is actually a clinical distinction between scarless and scar free healing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarless_wound_healing
So while the suffix "less" might mean being without something in a linguistic sense, it does not mean that in this case.
I've talked to Sun through e-mail and he's hopeful that it will work in humans like it did with mice. He didn't guarantee it; only a fool or snake-oil salesman would do that. But he gave thoughtful responses and since he's continuing the work at Columbia I think that says something about his faith in it. For myself, I'm cautiously optimistic and until a better alternative presents itself I see no reason not to throw my support behind it.
>>I am still here browsing forums just to see A SINGLE PERSON be benefited by these ''revolutionary discoveries''.
Evil and good doesnt mix.When you live in an evil society,with even evil education ,dont expect good things and out
comes.lockquote>
Wow, that's some faulty logic. So because something hasn't helped someone yet the research is all bogus and "evil"? If that were true than things like insulin, penicillin, chemotherapy and so on would have never come to fruition or would have been lies. Things don't happen overnight just because you want them to.
BTW, in financial terms the USA has a HUGE incentive to lower its health care costs because its percentage of the country's GDP is growing at a completely unsustainable rate. The video posted on the last page had a reference that said it will be 26% by 2020 I believe. So, pharma, the government et al have a huge reason to find other means of dealing with disease and injury. In your logic, evil=those in power and with money. If they want to keep making money and being "evil", they will need something like this.
And while our education system has its flaws, what makes you say it's evil? If you ever had anything to support one shred of what you say people might give you serious consideration. I've looked up things like colloidal silver when you've posted them but never found anything to substantiate your claims.
One last thing; check out the TED talk with Anthony Atalla. He brings a kid onstage near the end that has definitely benefitted from this type of research. Or go to AFIRM's site and see some of the things it has done for soldiers. Not total cures (the ultimate aim) but I bet they might have a differing opinion about how this type of research has improved thei
r life.
how long before you think they will start testing on humans?
In my post above the quote was from an e-mail sent on May 9th of this year. If Sun's sources were correct and they were ready back then to move to bigger animal tests then I'd say we've got 18-24 months from around there until it's being used by veterinarians. This was the timeline quoted in the article that was posted on this forum a few pages ago.
In the article, the writer reported that Gerecht and her team thought that testing on humans would start very shortly after that. So, an aggressive estimate would put us around 24 months (18 months for veterinary use and 6 more before testing) from May so May of 2015. On the other side if it takes the 24 months for veterinary use then we could we looking at around 30 months; November of 2015. That's just me extrapolating from the information in the article and my discussions with Sun though. It could take longer or less time depending on the results they get.
EDIT
My mistake. The article I read actually said they planned on moving to pre-approved HUMAN clinical trials in 18-24 months! Here's the link:
http://eng.jhu.edu/wse/magazine-summer-13/item/healing-wonders-of-hydrogel/
"I personally believe that hydrogel (not all hydrogel work this way though) is a good candidate for wound healing or skin regeneration."
Realistically speaking, he can't really say that he doesn't believe it even if he doesn't. That's pretty much the answer we can expect in all circumstances. I'd have hoped he had said something along the lines that the nature of the tissue of the mice is such that it would be unlikely that it wouldn't yield similar results on humans.