Acne.org Products
LOL. I have heard it all. It really is actually like banging your head against a brick wall on here, it really is. The ignorance is not just unfortunate ignorance btw... A dreamer would tell you he believes something in his gut without any quality 'evidence.' E.g. he would tell you he read a testimonial from an anonymous guy on the internet and therefor it is his gut feel to tell you, you should try this concoction on your scars. He would also probably make use of meaningless platitudes.
I have read external English documents note: that state >>>'testable' scientific truths<<<, (go to babelfish and translate the words, objective, tested or testable, please.) I only use objective evidence and stick to objective evidence, especially if it is, again, >>>testable<<<. I do no more than that.
For instance, I do not go onto Spanish web forums and translate Spanish documents, with meaningless platitudes I think I've translated with my paranoia, to Spanish speaking people, who can translate these Spanish documents. I just stick to the truths that are stated in scientific documents.
I do not use meaningless soundbites, like 'nature heals itself.' Or human life decays in nature? What objective guideline can you get out of a meaningless platitude? I do not dream that turnip paste will work on scars and wounds. I require scientific truths.
you all must put hydrogel in some web of foundation donations people interesest like that: crowdfounding
by the way i think
seab is a dreamer man
so i just read an interview with a scientist about the hydrogel --says clinical trials on humans are at least 5 years away and
a few say closer to 10. Either way, as I said before, don't expect any significant news on this till 2020. Adieu and good luck,
it ain't happening any time soon. I will not be visiting this board again.
The body and nature heals itself.
Not scientists.They cant see other things than their eduation.
the slaves here can not understand nothing
Well since people are quoting me I'm coming back to clearly explain as succinctly as possible why i'm pessimistic about this happenening:
1) yes, Seabs I understand you are quoting things from "scientific, testable, objective" papers --but you have to understand that those experiments happen within a much larger social context, the social context of scientists and then even the broader social context of the media, and then culture as a wider sphere.
Let me put it this way, Let's say scientists say,
Scientist: "Oh we've developed a way to synthesize chlorophyl in a lab, and then they say. we've used rigorous scientific testing and the implications are we can synethesize as much living chlorophyl as we want!!"
Scientist: "chlorophyl is a living constituent part of a super hero plant monster called the SWAMP THING, he's a large man like creature made of plants! This discovery could one day be used towards building a real life swamp thing!!"
Journalist: "Oh wow, that's amazing, how long do you think it will take?"
Scientist: "Well several challenges remain, we still face problem of how to splice human DNA with the chlorophyl DNA to create a living plant man, but we should begin clinical trials in about 5-10 years."
Now note here this may have all started off as some rigorous scientific experiment, but spun out of control with all sorts of assumptions and inferences that the scientists know NOTHING about and it's just a media spin or one even developed by the scientists to generate funding dollars (which is what scientists do for 90 percent of the time).
then the scientists go to a big military company: "he we've developed blah blah, plant monsters, they'll make cheap soldiers cause we can grow them out of plants!"
Top military scientist: "Really, wow's that's amazing, how long can you give us our first prototype or proof of cocnept?
Scientist: "Oh sorry this just implies it's possible, we haven't built anything. We don't even know if the plant and human dna can splice together, we do have a lot of chlorophyl though! I would say we cold make some major advancements if you give us 20 million dollars to fund out lab for the next 10 years so all the scientists and teams of grad students get all their salaries and we can buy all the millions of dollars of equipment we need. We could have something for you in 15 years for sure, at a viable swamp dog!!"
Top military scientist or Venture capitalis: GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Which is basically what I have to say to this thread: GO FUCK YOURSELF.
In your metaphor, though Rez77, you make an assertion about dna slicing and complexity and you also make an assertion that there is no proof of concept in a product. Yet the thing we are talking about actually has a proof of concept, a result, it is physical, you can put it in your hands and it was tested against a another scalable material. Your metaphor does not fit. If I accepted the metaphor I reckon that would be validating a strawman argument. You also make an assumption that funding, or lack of funding is proof of any scientific truth. But a scientific truth is proof of a scientific truth, nothing else.
hey rez do u have some type of issue with people that have hope for a better future? if u disagree with what's going on here and it enrages u for whatever reason u don't have to read it.. that simple! advancements in any drug or technology is a crawl and we all get that! mainly by the hurdles created by the FDA i feel.. but please don't ventilate ur anger on people and hinder them from discussing and being optimistic for the future.. stop being such a downer man
hey rez do u have some type of issue with people that have hope for a better future? if u disagree with what's going on here and it enrages u for whatever reason u don't have to read it.. that simple! advancements in any drug or technology is a crawl and we all get that! mainly by the hurdles created by the FDA i feel.. but please don't ventilate ur anger on people and hinder them from discussing and being optimistic for the future.. stop being such a downer man
i have an issue with people quoting bs. I've even heard 70 years from scientists about the issue of scarless healing. what does that tell you? 70!!?? I'm talking out of my ass, i've there are biotech forums where active profs and grad students are discussing this shit --just google it biotech grad student forum, and you'll find the grad students working on these projects and sure they're discussing experiments like these but they make jokes about any of their clinical applications or availability. One dermatologist on the forum said to one of the bioengineering students: "maybe I should change my residency, cause people will be able to solve most of their skin problems without me if they develop tissue engineering," and the biotech student responded: "listen i've read all the literature now, we're 50 years at least away from any of that being viable for the general public" go read these forums --all those people know WAY more about this stuff then I do. I only became angry and pessimistic when i started to read the real science behind it all and talked to actual scientists. I've been investigating this stuff from a number of different positions: skin, hair, teeth, bone --these are structurally basic things --for at least teeth and bone they've said 30-50 years at least. Hair, may NEVER be solved (and again, please don't post any of the BS press releases, they demonstrate less than nothing). And this skin stuff hasn't even gained media traction yet. So okay, you want optimism? I think there will be human clinical trials of this or these types of things in 20 years. approx. 2040.
Waitingforacure, I generally agree with your statement, but note there is no optimism or pessimism from me. There maybe for others, but not me. And I know it is semantics but I do not like using the words pessimism or optimism. But I agree anyone should leave if he doesn't like something reported as it has been reported.
Regarding myself, I just go with what has been objectively reported, and what is testable and testable at a future date (just no bs forensic evidence), and what cannot be twisted when examined in peer reviews. And I either quote word for word or if I paraphrase, generally it is almost exact to what has been reported in scientific documents. I protect evidence so it can be examined for truth and never be fallaciously reported. Ironically btw, I once thought it would be better to close, or even regulate this thread with mods because people either go off topic, talk bs, become paranoid, use platitudes, or fight. I now genuinely hope they lock this thread, I really do.
Rez77, you say that you have a problem with people using quotes and then you turn around and do it yourself. And then you expect us to discount every research scientist ever seemingly, except for the ones you've talked to and you based on whatever unverifiable research you've done. Taking your advice, why on Earth would we ever do this?
I am curious to see the link to the article you read that quoted a JHU researcher saying that the hydrogel was 5 years away from testing since other articles were posted here saying 18-24 months. So please post if you have time.
I'd also like to know what message boards you're reading with biotech students making the claims about it taking 50 years before any results will be achieved. Again, it's a little odd to me that you fly in the face of your own logic by putting complete faith in this alleged biotech students while completely discounting scientists that are actually conducting the research. I'm not trying to be a dick by asking, just genuinely want to read the posts.
Again, I don't understand why this has to be such a rage-filled board. It's sad and pointless. Debates between us about what will happen, might happen or never happen have no value. None of us are scientists (as far as I know) and none of us are working on the hydrogel or any of the other methods that have been posted. The only time I post something other than a link to a paper or article is if I've been forced to defend myself from personal attacks (really pointless) or if I've talked to researchers involved so I can update you all with what they've said.
I'm pretty sure we all want the same thing so why not just post things that are objective and verifiable rather than what amounts to op-eds about things which I don't think any of us are really qualified to comment on based on our own expertise. That would be my hope for the board anyway.
I agree with Seabs and golfpanther and their general scientific attitude. But I became disillusioned when I delved much deeper into medical science (and trust me I have a fair bit of experience now, I don't want to go into personal details). Organized skepticism is one of the central tenets of science, but unfortunately we live in a world so heavily corporatized that virtue is for the most part out the window. What I have a problem is, with anyone making assertions about the human and clinical viability of any of this, including the scientists themselves. I'm sure you'd all agree with that. Their motivations are two obscured. So fine, everyone should just talk evidence, I agree with that. And evidence means, in this context, published results in peer reviewed journals. Agreed?
I don't know why but it's mindblowing to me that with all the technology out there today there is no cure for scars yet.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html
Hmm.. has anyone read this article yet? It says it was published Nov. 6th which obviously is wrong, but I think it was posted recently.
I don't know why but it's mindblowing to me that with all the technology out there today there is no cure for scars yet.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html
Hmm.. has anyone read this article yet? It says it was published Nov. 6th which obviously is wrong, but I think it was posted recently.
the date isn't wrong its an announcement for biotech and conference attendees for a conference which WILL happen on that date. these are blurbs of the experimental results scientists will be presenting at the conference. it's more a meet and greet and a demo of "this is what we've been up to and future prospects"....
it is interesting though
hey rez do u have some type of issue with people that have hope for a better future? if u disagree with what's going on here and it enrages u for whatever reason u don't have to read it.. that simple! advancements in any drug or technology is a crawl and we all get that! mainly by the hurdles created by the FDA i feel.. but please don't ventilate ur anger on people and hinder them from discussing and being optimistic for the future.. stop being such a downer man
no but I feel we need much more rigour in terms of how we discuss these issues. they're very complex and many scientific reports are giving skewed and false hopes.
as you'll see from what you've posted above it's just a conference, science fair and social event for scientists and a way for scientists to show their work to potential investors. Unfortunately it doesn't have a TON to tell us about the research of any of these things just sort of a kind of summary of things they're doing. We shouldn't extrapolate much in the ways of what is going on or relate it to our problems from such posts. Thats basically what I've been trying to advise/suggest. Unfortunately whenever I've tried to pin down the scientists outside of their media interviews or read them discussing assessing these things with colleagues, their prospects re far more bleak.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/programs.html
But you do not agree with myself, I'll not speak for Golfpanther.
You completely ignore 'tested' evidence, and you use 'word of mouth' to lower a reasoned expectant spotlight, which when you do that it ironically keeps people in the dark, and you consistently use fallacious reasoning and emotional outcries. If you agreed with me you would just stick to the testable truths that have been found in scientific papers.
I agree with Seabs and golfpanther and their general scientific attitude. But I became disillusioned when I delved much deeper into medical science (and trust me I have a fair bit of experience now, I don't want to go into personal details). Organized skepticism is one of the central tenets of science, but unfortunately we live in a world so heavily corporatized that virtue is for the most part out the window. What I have a problem is, with anyone making assertions about the human and clinical viability of any of this, including the scientists themselves. I'm sure you'd all agree with that. Their motivations are two obscured. So fine, everyone should just talk evidence, I agree with that. And evidence means, in this context, published results in peer reviewed journals. Agreed?
I don't know why but it's mindblowing to me that with all the technology out there today there is no cure for scars yet.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html
Hmm.. has anyone read this article yet? It says it was published Nov. 6th which obviously is wrong, but I think it was posted recently.
the date isn't wrong its an announcement for biotech and conference attendees for a conference which WILL happen on that date. these are blurbs of the experimental results scientists will be presenting at the conference. it's more a meet and greet and a demo of "this is what we've been up to and future prospects"....
it is interesting though
>hey rez do u have some type of issue with people that have hope for a better future? if u disagree with what's going on here and it enrages u for whatever reason u don't have to read it.. that simple! advancements in any drug or technology is a crawl and we all get that! mainly by the hurdles created by the FDA i feel.. but please don't ventilate ur anger on people and hinder them from discussing and being optimistic for the future.. stop being such a downer man
no but I feel we need much more rigour in terms of how we discuss these issues. they're very complex and many scientific reports are giving skewed and false hopes.
as you'll see from what you've posted above it's just a conference, science fair and social event for scientists and a way for scientists to show their work to potential investors. Unfortunately it doesn't have a TON to tell us about the research of any of these things just sort of a kind of summary of things they're doing. We shouldn't extrapolate much in the ways of what is going on or relate it to our problems from such posts. Thats basically what I've been trying to advise/suggest. Unfortunately whenever I've tried to pin down the scientists outside of their media interviews or read them discussing assessing these things with colleagues, their prospects re far more bleak.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/programs.html
But you do not agree with myself, I'll not speak for Golfpanther.
You completely ignore 'tested' evidence, and you use 'word of mouth' to lower a reasoned expectant spotlight, which when you do that it ironically keeps people in the dark, and you consistently use fallacious reasoning and emotional outcries. If you agreed with me you would just stick to the testable truths that have been found in scientific papers.
I agree with Seabs and golfpanther and their general scientific attitude. But I became disillusioned when I delved much deeper into medical science (and trust me I have a fair bit of experience now, I don't want to go into personal details). Organized skepticism is one of the central tenets of science, but unfortunately we live in a world so heavily corporatized that virtue is for the most part out the window. What I have a problem is, with anyone making assertions about the human and clinical viability of any of this, including the scientists themselves. I'm sure you'd all agree with that. Their motivations are two obscured. So fine, everyone should just talk evidence, I agree with that. And evidence means, in this context, published results in peer reviewed journals. Agreed?
Okay seabs. you post a tested paper and finding and you tell me what implications I should draw from that. Inferential reasoning from evidence is also part of the scientific method, correct? That's what's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. So far I haven't seen any test or experimental result that demonstrates to me that theres a method for scarless healing in humans.
And I will not simply ignore the social contexts, behavioural psychology of how scientists work, their institutions, the norms of validation and endorsement (these too my friends are academic subjects, I'm a PhD by the way, though not a scientist) but the "sociology of science" is discipline invented by Thomas Kuhn since his writing of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS --there he writes that scientists who practice "normal" every day, not revolutionary science are incredibly resistant to change and it requires something like a "paradigm shift" for things to change. That was popularized in the 1960s. But Kuhn used his thesis to demonstrate how different paradigm shifts were the engine of scientific revolution and changes in practice. What Kuhn did not envision is that the while science in the 40s was deeply colluded with what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" --in other words that research was prioritized according to military priorities, this was a force which reprioritized the types of goals and motivations for scientific research and competition amongst scientists.
What kuhn did not envision was the paradigm, which would supercede that one, in other words the BIG BUSINESS/CORPORATE complex which is in bed with science. As I said before, the structure of science is compromised by getting into bed with international corporatism. One level this is good because it means more things are being researched which could help us cosmetically (if they can be shown to make a ton of money) but the downside is that marketing, hype, media spin and all sorts of huckstery is influencing the way scientists talk about their work to attract investors.
You need to know that such thinking is embedded into the very writing up of these experimental reports and how the results are presented.
I'll debate with you if you want. You show me experimental results and then you can infer what you think this might mean for us. And I'll try to respond. But I'm not going to entertain groundless projections, or "hope" or fallacious analogies to Moore's laws or any of that BS.
You should not care if a stranger has, or claims on the internet that he has a Phd in rocket science. You can be anyone on the internet. Appealing to authority is another fallacy.
Another fallacy, again, this is not a debate. That is a big fallacy, there is only one permutation here.
A debate here would be like debating if 1. surgical masks should be used in heart operations. 2. Or debating if the world is round. 3. Or debating if water freezes at zero.
The only thing that would happen if you debated 1, 2, 3, which all have one permutation is it looks like those who have debated want to hide one permutation, hence hide a truth. Fallacious.
Also what can you debate? We have a truth. Lets loop a debate with one permutation:
"Hey John, Jane does not like Ice cream", said Dave.
"Hey Dave, Jane does like Ice cream", said John.
"Jane do you want ice cream", says John in a test.
"Yes", says Jane. <<<<You have one truth.
"Jane wants ice cream Dave" says John to Dave. result.
Loop:
"Hey John, Jane does notlike Ice cream", said Dave.
"Hey Dave, Jane does like Ice cream", said John.
"Jane do you want ice cream", says John in a test.
"Yes", says Jane. <<<<You have one truth.
"Jane wants ice cream Dave" says John to Dave. result.
And so on.
Btw the only way Dave could have this fallacious debate above is if he added something via a Trojan horse. But again that would be like debating via a Trojan horse.
A debate requires more than one permutation.
Anyway the evidence we have:
1. We have two bits of scalable material to be eaten by the neutrophils and macrophages.
2. We know neutrophils eat the materials. We know neutrophils have a preference for sugar. We know macrophages eat the neutrophils.
3. We have a control that has been digested at the same rate in all mammals thousands of times.
4. We have a scalable digestible subject that was tested against a scalable control, that subject digested rapidly, and was rapidly digested by the neutrophils, and got complete regeneration.
We have, clear objective expectancy and sunlight that can be tested.
Or you could loop a debate with one permutation via a Trojan horse.
And Loop, and loop.
"And I will not simply ignore the social contexts, behavioural psychology..." you stated. << This is a Trojan horse for a false debate and has nothing to do with the evidence we have and is a distraction. Look up the Chewbacca defence.
I don't know why but it's mindblowing to me that with all the technology out there today there is no cure for scars yet.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html
Hmm.. has anyone read this article yet? It says it was published Nov. 6th which obviously is wrong, but I think it was posted recently.
the date isn't wrong its an announcement for biotech and conference attendees for a conference which WILL happen on that date. these are blurbs of the experimental results scientists will be presenting at the conference. it's more a meet and greet and a demo of "this is what we've been up to and future prospects"....
it is interesting though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hey rez do u have some type of issue with people that have hope for a better future? if u disagree with what's going on here and it enrages u for whatever reason u don't have to read it.. that simple! advancements in any drug or technology is a crawl and we all get that! mainly by the hurdles created by the FDA i feel.. but please don't ventilate ur anger on people and hinder them from discussing and being optimistic for the future.. stop being such a down
er manlockquote>
no but I feel we need much more rigour in terms of how we discuss these issues. they're very complex and many scientific reports are giving skewed and false hopes.
as you'll see from what you've posted above it's just a conference, science fair and social event for scientists and a way for scientists to show their work to potential investors. Unfortunately it doesn't have a TON to tell us about the research of any of these things just sort of a kind of summary of things they're doing. We shouldn't extrapolate much in the ways of what is going on or relate it to our problems from such posts. Thats basically what I've been trying to advise/suggest. Unfortunately whenever I've tried to pin down the scientists outside of their media interviews or read them discussing assessing these things with colleagues, their prospects re far more bleak.
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/programs.html
lockquote>
>
But you do not agree with myself, I'll not speak for Golfpanther.
You completely ignore 'tested' evidence, and you use 'word of mouth' to lower a reasoned expectant spotlight, which when you do that it ironically keeps people in the dark, and you consistently use fallacious reasoning and emotional outcries. If you agreed with me you would just stick to the testable truths that have been found in scientific papers.
I agree with Seabs and golfpanther and their general scientific attitude. But I became disillusioned when I delved much deeper into medical science (and trust me I have a fair bit of experience now, I don't want to go into personal details). Organized skepticism is one of the central tenets of science, but unfortunately we live in a world so heavily corporatized that virtue is for the most part out the window. What I have a problem is, with anyone making assertions about the human and clinical viability of any of this, including the scientists themselves. I'm sure you'd all agree with that. Their motivations are two obscured. So fine, everyone should just talk evidence, I agree with that. And evidence means, in this context, published results in peer reviewed journals. Agreed?
Okay seabs. you post a tested paper and finding and you tell me what implications I should draw from that. Inferential reasoning from evidence is also part of the scientific method, correct? That's what's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. So far I haven't seen any test or experimental result that demonstrates to me that theres a method for scarless healing in humans.
And I will not simply ignore the social contexts, behavioural psychology of how scientists work, their institutions, the norms of validation and endorsement (these too my friends are academic subjects, I'm a PhD by the way, though not a scientist) but the "sociology of science" is discipline invented by Thomas Kuhn since his writing of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS --there he writes that scientists who practice "normal" every day, not revolutionary science are incredibly resistant to change and it requires something like a "paradigm shift" for things to change. That was popularized in the 1960s. But Kuhn used his thesis to demonstrate how different paradigm shifts were the engine of scientific revolution and changes in practice. What Kuhn did not envision is that the while science in the 40s was deeply colluded with what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" --in other words that research was prioritized according to military priorities, this was a force which reprioritized the types of goals and motivations for scientific research and competition amongst scientists.
What kuhn did not envision was the paradigm, which would supercede that one, in other words the BIG BUSINESS/CORPORATE complex which is in bed with science. As I said before, the structure of science is compromised by getting into bed with international corporatism. One level this is good because it means more things are being researched which could help us cosmetically (if they can be shown to make a ton of money) but the downside is that marketing, hype, media spin and all sorts of huckstery is influencing the way scientists talk about their work to attract investors.
You need to know that such thinking is embedded into the very writing up of these experimental reports and how the results are presented.
I'll debate with you if you want. You show me experimental results and then you can infer what you think this might mean for us. And I'll try to respond. But I'm not going to entertain groundless projections, or "hope" or fallacious analogies to Moore's laws or any of that BS.
Patience guys! Your optimism or pessimism is not going to change anything. Any product development will take its cycle and has the risk/benefit of being a failure/success.
And I have a feeling this hydrogel has more chance of success than failure!
I get what seabs is saying in terms of "logic" --but debates are not won nor are they lost based on logic but based on rhetoric, which I'm fairly certain he knows well since he cited a rhetorical trope: that of "argument from authority". I should say, though I never claimed to be a scientist even though I know quite a bit about the culture of scientists and the scientific method. It is irrelevant that I have a PhD, other than it demonstrates I'm not a complete idiot, and it's even worth mentioning but that PhD is from Harvard. Regardless, I agree with seabs on most points, I'm just not persuaded that the scientific evidence here indicates we have a form of scarless healing applicable to our acne or other scar cases. But then that is my shortcoming because I definitely don't understand the science as well as he purports to. I am testing this from another point of view. In my view, if the findings were as applicable to creating complete skin regeneration as reported, it would surely be a revolutionary finding and it would have been fast tracked to be made available in the quickest amount of time possible. That this does not seem to be the case suggests to me that there is something very wrong somewhere. Of course if seabs understands the science so well, and has access to a rudimentary lab, he should just assemble the materials, burn himself with a match and produce the supposed regeneration. I think I agree with seabs actually I don't think he's actually claiming that this experiment will necessarily lead to scarless healing in humans. And if that's the case, then well there's really no cause for continuing the discussion till some new tests or evidence is found.
Hey Rez77, you make the same fallacy as previously mentioned, you claim instead of xyz/ or lack of xyz that now time is now proof of a scientific truth, when only a testable scientific truth is proof of a scientific truth. Note if there was a delay there are numerous reasons why there could have been a delay. Some are boring and some could be even contra to yours. With regards to what I expect. I expect only off what the science or knowledge leads me to expect. My spotlight is expecting complete regeneration. The knowledge and science here is extremely strong that all other tissues with neutrophils and macrophages (every mammal has neutrophils and macrophages) will also digest the scalable material the same way and you will get complete regeneration.
Yo Rez, what do you think about the viability of temporary swelling? You having a strong science background and all. I made a thread on this just now. Please answer lol.
so temporary swelling is just swelling induced for a few days either through laser application or sometimes derma needling. It lasts a few weeks and then you're back with the same level of scarring you had before. I don't have a science background, I just know a lot of people who work in the science community/biotech and how all of that works so I'm quite cynical. But what's the point of temporary swelling, it doesn't solve the problem?
Seabs is a smart guy, and I agree with him, but I'm still skeptical because even if the experimental evidence shows something is possible, i feel that there are way too many obstacles from the inception of something to it's being finally realized and available. Frankly, I don't know.
Let me give you an example of another area where there was a supposed breakthrough and it lead to nothing. A lot of times to fix jaw and dental problems people need jaw surgery. Many times you don't have enough bone for the surgery so they try and graft bones from other parts of the body, but it usually resorbs. Earlier in the century a Russian scientist Illarazov found that when wounded soldiers had a space from a fracture on their leg and you incrementally distracted the fracture, your own bone would fill in the space and you'd have more new bone. It's called "distraction osteogenesis" Major breakthrough, and it's used today to make short people taller, it's called leg lengthening through distraction osteogenesis. Well in the past decade they tried the technique for jaw surgery, when people are born with retruded jaws or jaws that are too small, instead of bone grafting from other parts of the body or using synthetic implants, thy create a tiny fracture, insert a metal distractor and actually grow the jaw, the bone fills in and the patients have the same result. About a decade ago there were hundreds of papers demonstrating this and it's still done today, so you would think jaw surgery has changed, right? No, 100 percent of surgeons still do it the old way, why? A couple of reasons, it's a much more complicated way and requires more specialized skills --not worth it for the surgeons. Second, the architecture of the jaw is much more complex than that of the legs and for some reason they don't understand why the new grown jaws are not as stable, the new bone here resorbs and shrinks. Ultimately it didn't work. I'm not saying there's an analogy here between scarless healing and bone regeneration. I'm just saying, we need to totally temper our expectations with this because if it were as simple and as easy as these initial papers demonstrate I think it would be here by now.
Anyway, I'm going to stop chiming in here, because I'm not really contributing anything. I'll just check back occasionally to see if there's any progress. But i'm sure if there's scarless healing it'll be all over the place and I'll hear about it anyway.
Yo Rez, what do you think about the viability of temporary swelling? You having a strong science background and all. I made a thread on this just now. Please answer lol.
so temporary swelling is just swelling induced for a few days either through laser application or sometimes derma needling. It lasts a few weeks and then you're back with the same level of scarring you had before. I don't have a science background, I just know a lot of people who work in the science community/biotech and how all of that works so I'm quite cynical. But what's the point of temporary swelling, it doesn't solve the problem?
Seabs is a smart guy, and I agree with him, but I'm still skeptical because even if the experimental evidence shows something is possible, i feel that there are way too many obstacles from the inception of something to it's being finally realized and available. Frankly, I don't know.
Let me give you an example of another area where there was a supposed breakthrough and it lead to nothing. A lot of times to fix jaw and dental problems people need jaw surgery. Many times you don't have enough bone for the surgery so they try and graft bones from other parts of the body, but it usually resorbs. Earlier in the century a Russian scientist Illarazov found that when wounded soldiers had a space from a fracture on their leg and you incrementally distracted the fracture, your own bone would fill in the space and you'd have more new bone. It's called "distraction osteogenesis" Major breakthrough, and it's used today to make short people taller, it's called leg lengthening through distraction osteogenesis. Well in the past decade they tried the technique for jaw surgery, when people are born with retruded jaws or jaws that are too small, instead of bone grafting from other parts of the body or using synthetic implants, thy create a tiny fracture, insert a metal distractor and actually grow the jaw, the bone fills in and the patients have the same result. About a decade ago there were hundreds of papers demonstrating this and it's still done today, so you would think jaw surgery has changed, right? No, 100 percent of surgeons still do it the old way, why? A couple of reasons, it's a much more complicated way and requires more specialized skills --not worth it for the surgeons. Second, the architecture of the jaw is much more complex than that of the legs and for some reason they don't understand why the new grown jaws are not as stable, the new bone here resorbs and shrinks. Ultimately it didn't work. I'm not saying there's an analogy here between scarless healing and bone regeneration. I'm just saying, we need to totally temper our expectations with this because if it were as simple and as easy as these initial papers demonstrate I think it would be here by now.
Anyway, I'm going to stop chiming in here, because I'm not really contributing anything. I'll just check back occasionally to see if there's any progress. But i'm sure if there's scarless healing it'll be all over the place and I'll hear about it anyway.
Well the big deal is that suppose you induce micro swelling once a week for the rest of your life. That would essentially mean walking around scar free year round for just a 10-15 min time commitment on weekends. A year of being scar free would require an infinitesmal amount of time to maintain. Heck even if you're in a relationship, your significant other won't even realize it. This is if there's a way to do such a thing, which I'm sure someone can come up with.
Are you referring to Newton's Laws of motion? Is that what you're referencing in terms of me taking a physics course (which I've taken 4 at a college level)?
Well, they work great in macroscopic conditions but they are inappropriate for things that are incredibly small, move at extremely fast speeds or very strong forces of gravity. Like anything in science (as of now) there are always exceptions and anomalies that preclude any absolute. That may be the end goal for science; the absolute truth of the universe and all of its operations, but it hasn't happened as of yet and likely never will. Look at any science that has proclaimed something to be a definite, an absolute. Something always comes along to show that it's not absolute in all cases thanks to better analysis and tools.
I agree that we can draw a parrallel between understanding the mechanism of scarless healing and gravity, scientists have no idea where gravity comes from, it is the most mysterious of the four fundamental forces in physics, it is assumed that there are subatomic particles that are called 'gravitons' which are carriers of gravitational force, but this is only a theoretical assumption (one day in the far distant future maybe we will detect gravitons like we have detected Higgs bosons by using an accelerator that is zillions of times more powerful than LHC) and yet even though we know absolutely nothing about gravity we still have Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's theory of relativity, so we have no clue what causes gravity, but we know very well all the effects of gravity.