Acne.org Products
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?
Seabs is too overly optimistic sometimes. I remembered he said the same thing with Acell being able to regenerate all tissues back in 2008. If your point is correct that a scaffold cannot discriminate and will regenerate any kind of tissue then why isn't this Acell being used on humans now to deliver scarfree healing?
Please explain whats the difference between Acell and Hydrogel. What is the difference in your opinion that Hydrogel has that convinces you it is different from Acell? If it is no different, then whats the enthusiasm about? Since Acell is already in the market since 2008 and no one has removed that acne scars using it.
AIforever is xyz sometimes, therefore don't look at his information. <<<< Btw, what has you being perceived xyz by me, got to do with information you put up? Absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm not blindly optimistic about anything, though I do actually bang my head on the wall sometimes at ignorance. If I was blindly optimistic (with no facts) about something happening I'd not be pushy or motivated to pass on information and I'd not come on here. I'd be ignorant and chilled... Anyway, what is different between this a scaffold and another scaffold (any scaffold). Digestion rate, "the fact that the hydrogel regenerated tissue, with appendages, and a current state of the art control did not, as typical." Again that is not optimism, that is stating facts.
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?
Seabs is too overly optimistic sometimes. I remembered he said the same thing with Acell being able to regenerate all tissues back in 2008. If your point is correct that a scaffold cannot discriminate and will regenerate any kind of tissue then why isn't this Acell being used on humans now to deliver scarfree healing?
Please explain whats the difference between Acell and Hydrogel. What is the difference in your opinion that Hydrogel has that convinces you it is different from Acell? If it is no different, then whats the enthusiasm about? Since Acell is already in the market since 2008 and no one has removed that acne scars using it.
AIforever is xyz sometimes, therefore don't look at his information. <<<< Btw, what has you being perceived xyz by me, got to do with information you put up? Absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm not blindly optimistic about anything, though I do actually bang my head on the wall sometimes at ignorance. If I was blindly optimistic (with no facts) about something happening I'd not be pushy or motivated to pass on information and I'd not come on here. I'd be ignorant and chilled... Anyway, what is different between this a scaffold and another scaffold (any scaffold). Digestion rate, "the fact that the hydrogel regenerated tissue, with appendages, and a current state of the art control did not, as typical." Again that is not optimism, that is stating facts.
Do you have proof that Acell or any ECM can fully regenerate the dermis on humans? Again, I don't think all tissues should be grouped in one category. For example, your lips don't scar easily but the skin scars easily. How can you say that their regenerative properties are the same? Thus, how can the skin of a mouse be compared to the skin of a human? What researchers have proven are only that it can regenerate earlobes on mice, that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to jump for joy if scars can be removed but we need to be subjective and not blindly believe everything.
Every scaffold, treated the same before implantation into a wound, generally behaves the same in any tissue, it gets eaten by the immune response, the neutrophils and macrophages. All they do is get digested or slowly rejected. Again something that is eaten cannot discriminate. It is dead material.The control material in the experiment which is the latest state of the art control, has been tested in literally thousands of mammals. The control has all the objective data, it has a typical response that is known. The objective data is there on how scaffold behaves, there is no subjective beliefs. You can reasonably and logically 'expect' because of the control.
AIforever is xyz sometimes, therefore don't look at his information. <<<< Btw, what has you being perceived xyz by me, got to do with information you put up? Absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm not blindly optimistic about anything, though I do actually bang my head on the wall sometimes at ignorance. If I was blindly optimistic (with no facts) about something happening I'd not be pushy or motivated to pass on information and I'd not come on here. I'd be ignorant and chilled... Anyway, what is different between this a scaffold and another scaffold (any scaffold). Digestion rate, "the fact that the hydrogel regenerated tissue, with appendages, and a current state of the art control did not, as typical." Again that is not optimism, that is stating facts.
Do you have proof that Acell or any ECM can fully regenerate the dermis on humans? Again, I don't think all tissues should be grouped in one category. For example, your lips don't scar easily but the skin scars easily. How can you say that their regenerative properties are the same? Thus, how can the skin of a mouse be compared to the skin of a human? What researchers have proven are only that it can regenerate earlobes on mice, that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to jump for joy if scars can be removed but we need to be subjective and not blindly believe everything.
AIforever is xyz sometimes, therefore don't look at his information. <<<< Btw, what has you being perceived xyz by me, got to do with information you put up? Absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm not blindly optimistic about anything, though I do actually bang my head on the wall sometimes at ignorance. If I was blindly optimistic (with no facts) about something happening I'd not be pushy or motivated to pass on information and I'd not come on here. I'd be ignorant and chilled... Anyway, what is different between this a scaffold and another scaffold (any scaffold). Digestion rate, "the fact that the hydrogel regenerated tissue, with appendages, and a current state of the art control did not, as typical." Again that is not optimism, that is stating facts.
Do you have proof that Acell or any ECM can fully regenerate the dermis on humans? Again, I don't think all tissues should be grouped in one category. For example, your lips don't scar easily but the skin scars easily. How can you say that their regenerative properties are the same? Thus, how can the skin of a mouse be compared to the skin of a human? What researchers have proven are only that it can regenerate earlobes on mice, that is all.
Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to jump for joy if scars can be removed but we need to be subjective and not blindly believe everything.
Yes, you're right to point out that mice and humans are different. It's the obvious reason why we should all be cautious about its prospects for humans.
But in terms of ACell vs. the hydrogel, I think there are some key differences. For starters, ACell never achieved the same results as the hydrogel (complete regeneration with skin appendages) and it's made from an entirely different substance (pig bladder). So while they both are scaffolds, it's not really comparing apples to apples (as Sun pointed out in his email that I quoted above).
Also, the hydrogel wasn't tested on earlobes, but on a large portion of the mice's backs that had suffered 3rd degree burns. I think the research you're thinking about is Ellen Heber-Katz's that happened unexpectedly with MRL mice and led to WNT Signalling becoming a possible pathway for complete regeneration. That's extremely different because it involves altering gene expression (which is why it's probably way far away from, if ever, becoming a reality).
I think you meant objective and not subjective and I definitely agree in regards to that. That's why I think everyone should just stick with what has been documented about specific types of treatments instead of being needlessly negative (or positive) about the hydrogel.
I was doing some searches looking for products that already have dextran sulfate in it. And found that a cream called ..Topialyse palpebral .. used for irritated eyelids contains Dextran sulfate. Here is the link incase anyone wants to try on their scars. *Moderator edit, URL removed - read the board rules*
Has the "complete regeneration with skin appendages" achieved on test subjects like mice ever before?
The only other things I can think of off the top of my head are the Chinese researchers that used Wharton's Jelly and MSC's, Wnt signalling manipulation (MRL mouse) and the African Spiny Mouse; which just has that ability innately.
Here's a link to the Chinese paper's abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23089966
But again, these things are more complicated and would not be considered a device like the hydrogel. Still, great to know that other avenues are being explored and yielding results.
I agree it was a breakthrough study, but we have to keep in mind that there are significant differences between human skin and mouse skin. I haven't read the other paper you mentioned, but if it uses autologous stem cells I don't see why it would take longer for approval. If anything, it would probably take less time as I don't think the approval process is quite as long in Asia.
Are larger animal studies that important? It will either work or it won't. Either way, they won't really know why. There's nothing unfamiliar about this hydrogel, and it poses no health risk. The best way to solicit investment would have been to show that it regenerates human skin. I know human trials haven't started, that was my point. But once they do it should be fairly quick.
The fact that they had difficultly attracting investors means everything. The wound care market is already worth billions of dollars per year. If this works it would substantially increase that market, and render most other products obsolete. Also, why wasn't AFIRM involved with this research?
I don't take Wikipedia as gospel, especially un-cited content. Scarless is scar-free, though I agree the term is misused.
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 posted here a few years ago, and I've never understood much of what you've written. It's not just your English, though admittedly I studied French throughout elementary until my sophmore year of High School, and your English is still better than my French. I apologise if English is in fact your first language. Anyway, I digress. I agree that it's very easy (and quick) to test. The control scaffold used was Integra, which is the burn dressing used at JHU. Integra is collagen matrix, the hyrdrogel is a water based dextran polymer. They're completely different. It's not correct to say that this hydrogel will work in humans, just because integra performed similarly in mice as it does in humans, or other mammals. My skepticism primarily comes from their difficulty obtaining funds to continue their research, especially considering that it wasn't a large investment.
Scarless isn't ambiguous at all. Don't be ridiculous.
Fallacious? Scar tissue is misaligned collagen. If decorin arrests fibroblast proliferation, you wouldn't be able to create new collagen (skin or scar). You would constantly reiterate your rant on decorin, that scarless (or should I say scar-free) healing already exists. You were a bit of a dick, to be fair. You thought you were right, and that everyone else is wrong.
You don't need to reply. I'm sure you'll write something wordy and confusing, but I'm not going to come back here anyway. Maybe I will again in a few years. But why?
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.
I agree it was a breakthrough study, but we have to keep in mind that there are significant differences between human skin and mouse skin. I haven't read the other paper you mentioned, but if it uses autologous stem cells I don't see why it would take longer for approval. If anything, it would probably take less time as I don't think the approval process is quite as long in Asia.
Are larger animal studies that important? It will either work or it won't. Either way, they won't really know why. There's nothing unfamiliar about this hydrogel, and it poses no health risk. The best way to solicit investment would have been to show that it regenerates human skin. I know human trials haven't started, that was my point. But once they do it should be fairly quick.
The fact that they had difficultly attracting investors means everything. The wound care market is already worth billions of dollars per year. If this works it would substantially increase that market, and render most other products obsolete. Also, why wasn't AFIRM involved with this research?
I don't take Wikipedia as gospel, especially un-cited content. Scarless is scar-free, though I agree the term is misused.
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 don't think anyone here is arguing that mice and humans don't have different skin types. For one thing, humans have sweat glands almost everywhere on their bodies and mice only have them in their paws. For another, there are differences in tensile strength and elasticity. The research is just a very promising first step towards seeing if it can work on humans. Pigs are up next and according to people who have talked to the researchers (myself included) they heal more like humans and actually better than mice in most cases. But it's really just conjecture to get into what might happen.
While I wish it were as simple as cutting a scar out of a human and slapping on the hydrogel there is no way JHU and Gerecht's team would ever do this. For one, since they wouldn't have followed established methodology for testing the FDA probably would have immediately stamped out their research. But it would have never made it that far to begin with. The research is being funded by the NHLBI (National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute); a government agency. If they'd submitted a proposal saying, "Hey, our plan is to cut a scar out of a person and try this out," they would have received zero funding and probably a reprimand that would have resulted in Gerecht being fired and her team disbanded. If they'd lied and then turned around and tried it on humans, they probably could have been charged with defrauding the government out of money.
And while hydrogels have a long track record of safety and efficacy, they are all different in subtle ways as both you and Dr. Sun have pointed out. The FDA goes overboard with safety (following the thalidomide tragedy in 1959) but there are reasons why.
Regarding the Chinese paper, it is entirely possible that China doesn't have the same regulatory practices and that it's way ahead of what a US schedule would be with a similar product. But I do know that in the US anything with stem cells is considered a drug, not a device, and faces a much more rigorous and exhaustive pathway to approval. Hence my thinking that those types of treatments, while possibly successful, are realistically much further away.
With AFIRM, their funding was set from a budget initiated in 2008. Applicants had to bring forth a very robust proposal featuring teams of doctors across institutions. I don't think the specific hydrogel research we're discussing had even started being researched at JHU at that time. So there's no way they could have gotten funding for phase 1. Next year is phase 2, maybe they've applied and will get funding.
In terms of investors, they've admitted to having at least one, maybe there are others. The patent seemed to be a sore spot for Sun and Gerecht and until an investor knows who actually controls it there would little reason to give money. I mean, who would you really be giving it to until you knew? Bet on the wrong horse and you end up with no leverage. In terms of the market being huge, yes, that's very true. But it's also inundated with people all trying for the same things and investors (if you read some investor sites and blogs) are very cautious and even a little bit behind us one some of this stuff. Lastly, the hydrogel is still some time away from commercial sales. If I'm an investor being cautious, I'd rather wait until Gerecht's startup is up and running and there's an infrastructure in place for marketing, sales and distribution.
One last thing about the term scarless when it comes to research. You can find dozens, probably hundreds, of papers that use the term scarless but when you actually read their conclusions they'll state that their method, "lead to a smaller area of scar." I don't know if that's the way the medical and research community want the term used, but it's definitely not being used in the same sense as scar free healing and complete regeneration in a lot of research teams' papers.
Scarless isn't ambiguous at all. Don't be ridiculous.
Fallacious? Scar tissue is misaligned collagen. If decorin arrests fibroblast proliferation, you wouldn't be able to create new collagen (skin or scar). You would constantly reiterate your rant on decorin, that scarless (or should I say scar-free) healing already exists. You were a bit of a dick, to be fair. You thought you were right, and that everyone else is wrong.
That's the thing I don't think I'm right, a reliable testable scientific document trumps me and you every time. I also don't claim authority, or base anything off revelation, or blind belief. Never have. But my cited logic then was sound and it still is, nothing has come up to change the logic. Anyway what I say is mainly cited by the latest sources. And a lot of others have the same standards, if not they should have imo.
1. I try to remove ambiguity, to remove ambiguous speak. 2. I try to use cited sources, the most scientific and testable the better. 3. I try to use clear logic by cited sources if I'm having a pov. 4. I do not reinforce somethng at point zero when it is not, and instead I highlight progress by using citations.
I was a bit of a dick? I have never had anyone attack me over a cited theory. Or debate something cited that has nothing to do with me, so I can be all irrational and bigoted and pump my chest. Anyway keep at your French. Magnafique. I'll not respond to the insults. And I could write a wordy response.. But instead a quick note, with no insults, regarding decorin and scarless:
"If decorin arrests fibroblast proliferation???" you stated.
It did at a tiny 200nm, in a scientific paper. But in the absence of mechanical stress. And it did so with no apoptosis of fibroblasts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374457
"If decorin arrests fibroblast proliferation, you wouldn't be able to create new collagen (skin or scar)." you stated
You assume it stops needed collagen growth??? And you assume too that it would kill the fibroblast; and stops the fibroblast from sealing a wound?
If so this is wrong. There is nothing cited that says it stops 'needed; collagen growth or kills the fibroblasts already needed to seal a wound. There was no apoptosis to the fibroblasts.
Also here is a logical life example.
Our tissues in our non wounded bodies are constantly flooded with decorin; our collagen in our tissues also have limited mechanical stress. And in that state, I and you, still have sealed skin and working muscles over our bones. With this flooding of decorin: decorin has not killed off my skin or muscles, by arresting fibroblast proliferation. My skin is still sealed from the environment despite being flooded with decorin. (I have also seen nothing cited that states decorin kills off skin and muscle growth or leads the fibroblasts to apoptosis btw.)
The reason for this is decorin stops or inhibits the proliferation of fibrobasts (it arrests, the proliferation of excess fibroblasts, it doesn't kill the fibroblasts). Decorin does not stop collagen growth at all, and decorin does not stop collagen remodelling in skin turnover. I have also seen no scientific paper that states it stops the remodelling of collagen or wound sealing. And the citation I brought up in the past, which I have cited in this post, states there was no apoptosis (no death) of the fibroblasts.
All decorin is, pardon my basic language, is something that arrests the 'proliferation' of excess fibroblasts. And you miss the point or the understanding of decorin:
Decorin is absent in a new sealed wound, and in that time it is absent, when the wound has been sealed, fibroblasts proliferate.
In fact it takes months to reach its pre wounding levels of decorin. 'It is a long term process to return to normal decorin levels.'
Scarring is also a 'long term process' that takes many months, over many months fibroblasts proliferate into the sealed wound.
Over the many months, were decorin is absent and scarring occurs:
the fibroblasts, probably in the absence of decorin, continue to proliferate more and more excess fibroblasts into the wound, whereby under mechanical stress these 'proliferating' fibroblasts, transform into contractile 'myofibroblasts.' These contractile myofibroblasts, created by stress, and proliferating fibroblasts, then create excess collagen on the collagen fibers, misaligning the collagen, creating excess collagen, a scar. Yes scarring is misaligned collagen, but formed over many months, perhaps via the lack of decorin? and the resulting fibroblast proliferation after the wound has been sealed. That's my final word on decorin.
On to the scarless term.
Scarless has more than one definition, therefor it is ambiguous. E.g.
1. Something that just beats a control of saline and has reduced a scar by 23.5% (23.5% reduced scar) and therefore gets 'incomplete regeneration' can be called scar'less.' And has been called scarless.
2. Something that gets complete regeneration (100% scar free), and gets all appendages regenerated, can also be called scar'less.'
Also the term scarless has also been used with antiquity to mean with reduced scar.
Scarless healing is not solely defined as scar free; scar free implies complete regeneration always (not ambiguous in the slightest), scarless means reduced scar or scar free (totally ambiguous).
There is also the fact that something suffixed 'less' can be used with double speak.
E.g. Somethng could be tested against against saline, could hypothetically reduce scarring by 43.6%, however because the term scarless has been interchanged with scar free, someone else could then think it means scars free. They could then waste time investing emotion into a product that gets scarless
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
It definitely is frustrating that things take so long and yes, I do think researchers should be more forthcoming.
That being said, Dr. Sun was incredibly helpful and responsive and uses the Facebook page that was set up for the dextran hydrogel. I contacted Erkki Ruoslahti a while back about CAR-decorin and he was also quite nice and informative. I don't think it's an intentional thing. More likely they're just too busy and concerned with their research to spend too much time on message boards and such. I think we might see that change though as crowdfunding becomes more and more popular.
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
It definitely is frustrating that things take so long and yes, I do think researchers should be more forthcoming.
That being said, Dr. Sun was incredibly helpful and responsive and uses the Facebook page that was set up for the dextran hydrogel. I contacted Erkki Ruoslahti a while back about CAR-decorin and he was also quite nice and informative. I don't think it's an intentional thing. More likely they're just too busy and concerned with their research to spend too much time on message boards and such. I think we might see that change though as crowdfunding becomes more and more popular.
Crowdfunding? Like Kickstarter? Yeah, that's one of the coolest things to happen recently. It would be awesome to have that happen for things like acne scarring and skin diseases!
Also, I realize that they are busy, but there are people in the world that are suffering and in need of medical breakthroughs, so it would be nice to get some more frequent updates on the upcoming technologies. Companies are way too protective of their technologies, it just slows everything down needlessly. The underlying problem is greed and capitalism. Sigh.
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
It definitely is frustrating that things take so long and yes, I do think researchers should be more forthcoming.
That being said, Dr. Sun was incredibly helpful and responsive and uses the Facebook page that was set up for the dextran hydrogel. I contacted Erkki Ruoslahti a while back about CAR-decorin and he was also quite nice and informative. I don't think it's an intentional thing. More likely they're just too busy and concerned with their research to spend too much time on message boards and such. I think we might see that change though as crowdfunding becomes more and more popular.
Crowdfunding? Like Kickstarter? Yeah, that's one of the coolest things to happen recently. It would be awesome to have that happen for things like acne scarring and skin diseases!
Also, I realize that they are busy, but there are people in the world that are suffering and in need of medical breakthroughs, so it would be nice to get some more frequent updates on the upcoming technologies. Companies are way too protective of their technologies, it just slows everything down needlessly. The underlying problem is greed and capitalism. Sigh.
A poster on this board was talking to Dr. Harmon (involved in the hydrogel research) a while back and evidently he was very interested in using crowdfunding to help with research costs. That being said the poster, chuckstonchew, hasn't posted in a while and maybe they don't feel they need it anymore. But there are sites out there that do crowdfunding for research; they just haven't taken off like Kickstarter has.
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
It definitely is frustrating that things take so long and yes, I do think researchers should be more forthcoming.
That being said, Dr. Sun was incredibly helpful and responsive and uses the Facebook page that was set up for the dextran hydrogel. I contacted Erkki Ruoslahti a while back about CAR-decorin and he was also quite nice and informative. I don't think it's an intentional thing. More likely they're just too busy and concerned with their research to spend too much time on message boards and such. I think we might see that change though as crowdfunding becomes more and more popular.
Crowdfunding? Like Kickstarter? Yeah, that's one of the coolest things to happen recently. It would be awesome to have that happen for things like acne scarring and skin diseases!
Also, I realize that they are busy, but there are people in the world that are suffering and in need of medical breakthroughs, so it would be nice to get some more frequent updates on the upcoming technologies. Companies are way too protective of their technologies, it just slows everything down needlessly. The underlying problem is greed and capitalism. Sigh.
A poster on this board was talking to Dr. Harmon (involved in the hydrogel research) a while back and evidently he was very interested in using crowdfunding to help with research costs. That being said the poster, chuckstonchew, hasn't posted in a while and maybe they don't feel they need it anymore. But there are sites out there that do crowdfunding for research; they just haven't taken off like Kickstarter has.
It unfortunately feels like crowdfunding for medical research would be a weird investment. For example with dextran hydrogel, if it turned out to not work on humans, then the investors would be SOL. Projects on Kickstarter WILL work or you get your investment back, because they aren't relying on unknown parameters. That's likely why medical research hasn't "taken off" so to speak. You wouldn't be guaranteed to get a tangible result for your investment. With that in mind, I'd still invest in these sorts of research endeavors. I'm just not sure how big of a market there is for people who are willing to gamble on an investment. 
Why do they have to lure me into interest about this!!? It seems ridiculous that it would take so long to finally get around to testing on humans. It's always like that. There's some hope-filled article, then it submerges for 5 years, and either reappears in a different form with another timetable or disappears entirely.
I guess we humans are so adamant about admitting that we are incompetent that we just fill up the internet with false hope everywhere.
Doctors should start communicating more with the community with blogs and such so that I know whether or not to abandon hope or not. Or maybe I should just stop reading internet forums.
It definitely is frustrating that things take so long and yes, I do think researchers should be more forthcoming.
That being said, Dr. Sun was incredibly helpful and responsive and uses the Facebook page that was set up for the dextran hydrogel. I contacted Erkki Ruoslahti a while back about CAR-decorin and he was also quite nice and informative. I don't think it's an intentional thing. More likely they're just too busy and concerned with their research to spend too much time on message boards and such. I think we might see that change though as crowdfunding becomes more and more popular.
Crowdfunding? Like Kickstarter? Yeah, that's one of the coolest things to happen recently. It would be awesome to have that happen for things like acne scarring and skin diseases!
Also, I realize that they are busy, but there are people in the world that are suffering and in need of medical breakthroughs, so it would be nice to get some more frequent updates on the upcoming technologies. Companies are way too protective of their technologies, it just slows everything down needlessly. The underlying problem is greed and capitalism. Sigh.
A poster on this board was talking to Dr. Harmon (involved in the hydrogel research) a while back and evidently he was very interested in using crowdfunding to help with research costs. That being said the poster, chuckstonchew, hasn't posted in a while and maybe they don't feel they need it anymore. But there are sites out there that do crowdfunding for research; they just haven't taken off like Kickstarter has.
It unfortunately feels like crowdfunding for medical research would be a weird investment. For example with dextran hydrogel, if it turned out to not work on humans, then the investors would be SOL. Projects on Kickstarter WILL work or you get your investment back, because they aren't relying on unknown parameters. That's likely why medical research hasn't "taken off" so to speak. You wouldn't be guaranteed to get a tangible result for your investment. With that in mind, I'd still invest in these sorts of research endeavors. I'm just not sure how big of a market there is for people who are willing to gamble on an investment.
Well, Kickstarter isn't very different. Your not really an investor, you're just donating the money. And while their terms of service state that something must be produced they also provide lots of wiggle room to the creators and don't get involved with what happens after something fails. Basically, you give your money on good faith, which is a lot like funding research, and you're never going to get anything back except for the rewards offered. Here's a link to their blog about this issue:
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter
I never would have thought sites like IndieGoGo and Kickstarter would have caught on. I mean, you're just giving money away to someone for their project and you get little in return and none of the profits. But people do it for all sorts of things; even research. I remember a team at a University, might have been M.I.T., working on a creating a spider like robot. It wasn't for any commercial prospects, not directly anyway, just for proof of concept and work toward future improvements.
I think the real issue is that because Kickstarter doesn't allow medical funding there isn't a big enough outlet for these types of research projects to get noticed. Petridish.org tried it but a recent trip to their site makes me think they've stopped. There's at least one other one out there but I can't remember the site's name off the top of my head.
That's interesting about Kickstarter, I guess I just assumed that it was that way considering that it's so easy to mock up a fake project and make money off of the starry eyed masses. I guess there's just a lot more good will out there than I thought, or Kickstarter will be a crash test in crowdfunding as the years go by.
But I digress. I guess we just don't care enough about our health. We'd rather have a new cool gadget or game to play instead.
I try enjoy my life as much as I can. I'm a game developer myself. I understand the Kickstarter craze all-too-well. But there are days when I glance into a brightly lit mirror and start swelling up with tears. I have suffered from body-wide Keratosis Pilaris all of my 29 years of life, which has ravaged my face, as well as having horrible allergies, and 15 years of acne and the horrible scars it has left behind. I have never had a girlfriend. I have been friendzoned brutally by every girl I have ever been close with...
Hopefully they hurry up, seems like we get enough posts on here to demonstrate a reasonable demographic in need of help.
That's interesting about Kickstarter, I guess I just assumed that it was that way considering that it's so easy to mock up a fake project and make money off of the starry eyed masses. I guess there's just a lot more good will out there than I thought, or Kickstarter will be a crash test in crowdfunding as the years go by.
But I digress. I guess we just don't care enough about our health. We'd rather have a new cool gadget or game to play instead.
I try enjoy my life as much as I can. I'm a game developer myself. I understand the Kickstarter craze all-too-well. But there are days when I glance into a brightly lit mirror and start swelling up with tears. I have suffered from body-wide Keratosis Pilaris all of my 29 years of life, which has ravaged my face, as well as having horrible allergies, and 15 years of acne and the horrible scars it has left behind. I have never had a girlfriend. I have been friendzoned brutally by every girl I have ever been close with...
Hopefully they hurry up, seems like we get enough posts on here to demonstrate a reasonable demographic in need of help.
Very sorry to hear about your condition. You definitely deserve to have a scar free treatment option available to you.
I'm not sure it's really about us caring more about cool gadgets and tech. I think it's just that sites like Kickstarter have done so much better of a job bringing that stuff to our attention whereas medical research has been largely done in some far away university with little outreach. That might changing though. JHU didn't even have their technology transfer until a couple of years ago and they seemed genuinely interested in crowd funding; at least for a time.
I actually don't think crowd funding for a game or for something like research on the hydrogel is all that different. In both cases, you're basically saying, "Here's some money, I hope it works out." There's no guarantee that a game will be good if it does come out or that a new technology will work just as they said it would. In all likelihood, even if the dextran hydrogel does not give the exact same results for humans, it will be on the market eventuallyfor humans and in your vet's office.
Forget hydrogel 3d printed skin graft is coming. The clinical trials have already started I think. There is a company in the europe named skinprint.
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/wake-forest-3d-prints-skin-cells-burn-wounds
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/bioprinted-human-skin-horizon
http://www.betakit.com/university-of-toronto-team-creates-3d-printer-capable-of-printing-skin/
That's interesting about Kickstarter, I guess I just assumed that it was that way considering that it's so easy to mock up a fake project and make money off of the starry eyed masses. I guess there's just a lot more good will out there than I thought, or Kickstarter will be a crash test in crowdfunding as the years go by.
But I digress. I guess we just don't care enough about our health. We'd rather have a new cool gadget or game to play instead.
I try enjoy my life as much as I can. I'm a game developer myself. I understand the Kickstarter craze all-too-well. But there are days when I glance into a brightly lit mirror and start swelling up with tears. I have suffered from body-wide Keratosis Pilaris all of my 29 years of life, which has ravaged my face, as well as having horrible allergies, and 15 years of acne and the horrible scars it has left behind. I have never had a girlfriend. I have been friendzoned brutally by every girl I have ever been close with...
Hopefully they hurry up, seems like we get enough posts on here to demonstrate a reasonable demographic in need of help.
Very sorry to hear about your condition. You definitely deserve to have a scar free treatment option available to you.
I'm not sure it's really about us caring more about cool gadgets and tech. I think it's just that sites like Kickstarter have done so much better of a job bringing that stuff to our attention whereas medical research has been largely done in some far away university with little outreach. That might changing though. JHU didn't even have their technology transfer until a couple of years ago and they seemed genuinely interested in crowd funding; at least for a time.
I actually don't think crowd funding for a game or for something like research on the hydrogel is all that different. In both cases, you're basically saying, "Here's some money, I hope it works out." There's no guarantee that a game will be good if it does come out or that a new technology will work just as they said it would. In all likelihood, even if the dextran hydrogel does not give the exact same results for humans, it will be on the market eventuallyfor humans and in your vet's office.
http://www.betakit.com/university-of-toronto-team-creates-3d-printer-capable-of-printing-skin/
Forget hydrogel 3d printed skin graft is coming. The clinical trials have already started I think. There is a company in the europe named skinprint.
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/wake-forest-3d-prints-skin-cells-burn-wounds
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/bioprinted-human-skin-horizon
http://www.betakit.com/university-of-toronto-team-creates-3d-printer-capable-of-printing-skin/
Again.I have yet to see one single person in a forum be benefited by these so called revolutionary methods.
Forget about anything you read.
Forget hydrogel 3d printed skin graft is coming. The clinical trials have already started I think. There is a company in the europe named skinprint.
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/wake-forest-3d-prints-skin-cells-burn-wounds
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/bioprinted-human-skin-horizon
http://www.betakit.com/university-of-toronto-team-creates-3d-printer-capable-of-printing-skin/
Yeah, they're doing something similar at Wake Forest University with Dr. Anthony Atala's team. However, it's important to note that this method would likely still lead to scarring around the edges of where the transplant took place. Atala's team was working on printing the skin directly onto the patient. But in both cases, these treatments are probably years awaymuch longer than the 5 years van Hengel was quoted as sayingbecause the safety standards and testing phase would be much more rigorous since it wouldn't be defined as a medical device (at least not in the USA).
I'd also be curious to see if it could print all the skin's appendages (hair, sebaceous and sweat glands etc.) or if it would be void of those features like current skin grafts. Still, this is another promising line of research, no doubt about that. I'm still more interested in the dextran hydrogel for now because it has pre-clinical proof of concept and could get to the market much faster.
Forget hydrogel 3d printed skin graft is coming. The clinical trials have already started I think. There is a company in the europe named skinprint.
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/wake-forest-3d-prints-skin-cells-burn-wounds
http://www.3dprinter-world.com/article/bioprinted-human-skin-horizon
http://www.betakit.com/university-of-toronto-team-creates-3d-printer-capable-of-printing-skin/
Again.I have yet to see one single person in a forum be benefited by these so called revolutionary methods.
Forget about anything you read.
panos, I try to be respectful of your posts but this is just completely illogical. Any new and potentially groundbreaking pursuit in any field is going to take years to implement. Before its "discovery" in 1928, penicillin's potential uses in medicine was documented in 1877. Should people have just ignored it and forgotten what they'd read?
I get that you want things fastfaster than is possiblebut using the fact that research takes time as an impetus to discount it entirely is just bogus. The dextran hydrogel or skin printing might not end up being the answer for scars, but that doesn't mean the entire study of regenerative medicine is meaningless.
BTW, a little girl did have a windpipe made from fibers and stem cells implanted successfully into her throat. She went on to die from lung complications but at the time of her death the new windpipe was working beautifully.