Look, they managed to achieve it (i.e. scar free healing) in mice. This is the same approach they are using here. They didn't mention that they are sure to achieve the same in people as they haven't tested on people yet. The most they can do is give people an update on where they are now and that's what makes it interesting.

 

https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html

At the bottom of that page they mention an extended abstract that isn't uploaded. I'm assuming they will at some point do so.

Where's the bit about scarless healing? All I see is: "Burn wounds treated with dextran hydrogels showed enhanced re-epithelialization, hair follicle recruitment and neovasculargenesis during the healing process."

That's so vauge as to be capable of meaning anything. Enhanced by how much? 2%? 90%? I admit I haven't read much on this, but that abstract doesn't seem like much to get excited about.

Hi folks, I wil try to contact with the researchers by email, that is all I can do, I hope will help if they reply.

 

https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html

At the bottom of that page they mention an extended abstract that isn't uploaded. I'm assuming they will at some point do so.

Where's the bit about scarless healing? All I see is: "Burn wounds treated with dextran hydrogels showed enhanced re-epithelialization, hair follicle recruitment and neovasculargenesis during the healing process."

That's so vauge as to be capable of meaning anything. Enhanced by how much? 2%? 90%? I admit I haven't read much on this, but that abstract doesn't seem like much to get excited about.

I covered this a few pages back. The gist is that these terms are used alongside complete tissue regeneration and scar free healing in the paper. The terms used in the release are the accepted technical way of describing the healing results compared to the control and other dressings they applied to the wounds. It's a comparison against those methods (e.g. it enhanced healing beyond what they could do). But as Lapis pointed out, the paper uses the term complete tissue regeneration and scar free healing.

Hi folks, I wil try to contact with the researchers by email, that is all I can do, I hope will help if they reply.

I'm going to as well. Although, I've only ever heard from Dr. Sun and he no longer works there. Someone else on those board had success talking to Dr. Harmon so he might be our best bet.

Golfphanter, can you please try with Dr Sun also, I know he no longer Works there but for sure he knows more than us, he is researcher and for sure still in touch with the previous colleagues.

 

https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2013/webprogram/Paper337043.html

At the bottom of that page they mention an extended abstract that isn't uploaded. I'm assuming they will at some point do so.

Where's the bit about scarless healing? All I see is: "Burn wounds treated with dextran hydrogels showed enhanced re-epithelialization, hair follicle recruitment and neovasculargenesis during the healing process."

That's so vauge as to be capable of meaning anything. Enhanced by how much? 2%? 90%? I admit I haven't read much on this, but that abstract doesn't seem like much to get excited about.

I covered this a few pages back. The gist is that these terms are used alongside complete tissue regeneration and scar free healing in the paper. The terms used in the release are the accepted technical way of describing the healing results compared to the control and other dressings they applied to the wounds. It's a comparison against those methods (e.g. it enhanced healing beyond what they could do). But as Lapis pointed out, the paper uses the term complete tissue regeneration and scar free healing.

>Hi folks, I wil try to contact with the researchers by email, that is all I can do, I hope will help if they reply.

I'm going to as well. Although, I've only ever heard from Dr. Sun and he no longer works there. Someone else on those board had success talking to Dr. Harmon so he might be our best bet.

Golfphanter, can you please try with Dr Sun also, I know he no longer Works there but for sure he knows more than us, he is researcher and for sure still in touch with the previous colleagues.

Why are they testing the gel on pigs before people? If this is primarily being developed as a treatment for humans why not go straight to human trials or least do them side by side with pig trials. And If it doesn't work on pigs then what? That won't necessarily mean it won't work on people, so what has been achieved by doing the pig trials first? And I see they're talking about human trials being several years away. WTF? If it's shown efficacy start testing already. The testing regime these people follow seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome to me.

Why are they testing the gel on pigs before people? If this is primarily being developed as a treatment for humans why not go straight to human trials or least do them side by side with pig trials. And If it doesn't work on pigs then what? That won't necessarily mean it won't work on people, so what has been achieved by doing the pig trials first? And I see they're talking about human trials being several years away. WTF? If it's shown efficacy start testing already. The testing regime these people follow seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome to me.

Where did you read that human trials are several years away?

 

Why are they testing the gel on pigs before people? If this is primarily being developed as a treatment for humans why not go straight to human trials or least do them side by side with pig trials. And If it doesn't work on pigs then what? That won't necessarily mean it won't work on people, so what has been achieved by doing the pig trials first? And I see they're talking about human trials being several years away. WTF? If it's shown efficacy start testing already. The testing regime these people follow seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome to me.

Where did you read that human trials are several years away?

One of the researchers said: "it could be approved for clinical use after just a few years of testing" at the link below. Thtat's not quite what I said in my post but you see my point. And I know the quote is from Dec 2011, but what testing has been done since then? So, it seems like there's still a few years of testing to be done.

http://ccne.inbt.jhu.edu/2011/12/13/engineered-hydrogel-helps-grow-new-scar-free-skin/

e researchers said: "it could be approved for clinical use after just a few years of testing" at the link below. Thtat's not quite what I said in my post but you see my point. And I know the quote is from Dec 2011, but what testing has been done since then? So, it seems like there's still a few years of testing to be done.

http://ccne.inbt.jhu.edu/2011/12/13/engineered-hydrogel-helps-grow-new-scar-free-skin/

They've been testing on bigger animals such as pigs.

http://inbt.jhu.edu/2013/07/09/burn-healing-gel-could-soon-be-commercialized-for-veterinary-use/

I have a question if anyone is willing to answer it... in this article it states, "Use of the hydrogel was tested on mice, and after just a few weeks, skin had regrown to a nearly scar-free state that could even regrow hair."

Nearly doesn't mean completely, right? So is this not completely scar free?

http://inbt.jhu.edu/2013/07/09/burn-healing-gel-could-soon-be-commercialized-for-veterinary-use/

I have a question if anyone is willing to answer it... in this article it states, "Use of the hydrogel was tested on mice, and after just a few weeks, skin had regrown to a nearly scar-free state that could even regrow hair."

Nearly doesn't mean completely, right? So is this not completely scar free?

That is a journalist, who may or may not be informed on the subject. Anyway If you regenerate appendages then there can be no scar... Appendages do not regenerate in scar tissue. The paper also stated complete regeneration...

 

http://inbt.jhu.edu/2013/07/09/burn-healing-gel-could-soon-be-commercialized-for-veterinary-use/

I have a question if anyone is willing to answer it... in this article it states, "Use of the hydrogel was tested on mice, and after just a few weeks, skin had regrown to a nearly scar-free state that could even regrow hair."

Nearly doesn't mean completely, right? So is this not completely scar free?

That is a journalist, who may or may not be informed on the subject. Anyway If you regenerate appendages then there can be no scar... Appendages do not regenerate in scar tissue. The paper also stated complete regeneration...

Hmmm, but it's published on John Hopkins website. Would they review the article first to make sure it's correct? Regardless, I wanna thank you Seabs because your posts give me hope that this hydrogel could actually work!

Nearly scar free, if you achieve that consistently, you've still done something which is remarkable and of great use to many. Life altering perhaps even for many.

--
Guoming Sun, Ph.D.
Center for Craniofacial Regeneration
Columbia University Medical Center
630 West 168th Street, VC12-210A
New York, NY 10032

Only Guoming Sun has replied to my emails

On 11/14/2013 at 1:22 AM, REPOLA said:

Hi,Pablo,

Thanks for your email!

I am not involved in the larger animal study since I left JHU, but I think they are working on large animal now. I don't know the detail either.

I believe hydrogel can help scar removal in the future. I have learned more in this area.

I am writing a short communication and can send you a copy once I finish.

Best

Guoming Sun

On 11/12/2013 6:32 PM, pablo andrade pereira wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Guoming Sun,

 

Thank you for your time.

 

I have been in contact with some burn suffers and facial trauma scarring including acn©,

 

I am member of

www.acne.org

;

 

 

I am also suffering from facial trauma scarring.

 

I Heard that you are not yet working with the wound healing dextran hydrogel scaffold

 

Can you please tell us if you know or if you hear anything about the large animals trials?

 

Do you think in the near future the hydrogel may improve scar revisi³n?

 

Thanks a lot and good luck.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Pablo Andrade.

 

 

 

--

Guoming Sun, Ph.D.

Center for Craniofacial Regeneration

Columbia University Medical Center

630 West 168th Street, VC12-210A

New York, NY 10032

Only Guoming Sun has replied to my emails

Nice! Thanks for posting Repola. He's the only one that's responded to me in the past as well. Part of me wonders if the others (Harmon, Gerecht etc.) don't respond for confidentiality reasons. They likely don't want things getting out to the public before they're ready with either a press release or published paper. Although, Harmon was talking to someone on this board not too long ago.

On 11/12/2013 at 9:27 AM, CollegeKidd said:

On 11/12/2013 at 6:48 AM, seabs135 said:

On 11/12/2013 at 5:24 AM, CollegeKidd said:

http://inbt.jhu.edu/2013/07/09/burn-healing-gel-could-soon-be-commercialized-for-veterinary-use/

I have a question if anyone is willing to answer it... in this article it states, "Use of the hydrogel was tested on mice, and after just a few weeks, skin had regrown to a nearly scar-free state that could even regrow hair."

Nearly doesn't mean completely, right? So is this not completely scar free?

That is a journalist, who may or may not be informed on the subject. Anyway If you regenerate appendages then there can be no scar... Appendages do not regenerate in scar tissue. The paper also stated complete regeneration...

Hmmm, but it's published on John Hopkins website. Would they review the article first to make sure it's correct? Regardless, I wanna thank you Seabs because your posts give me hope that this hydrogel could actually work!

I noticed this too, but the paper very clearly says complete regeneration with the same skin morphology as healthy tissue. Why the discrepancy? Not really sure but maybe it was just the article's author putting their own spin on it.

Why are they testing the gel on pigs before people? If this is primarily being developed as a treatment for humans why not go straight to human trials or least do them side by side with pig trials. And If it doesn't work on pigs then what? That won't necessarily mean it won't work on people, so what has been achieved by doing the pig trials first? And I see they're talking about human trials being several years away. WTF? If it's shown efficacy start testing already. The testing regime these people follow seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome to me.

The FDA does indeed have a lot of cumbersome regulations and guidelines that researchers are forced to follow. It stems from a good place after a horrible tragedy in the past, but it's probably time for a lot of reform. But the safety guidelines do have their purpose and that's why we don't see human trials start immediately after success in mice.

In terms of being years, the only quote I've read from Gerecht about the timeline was 18-24 months for human use in an article published on the tech-transfer JHU website earlier this year. That may change of course.

Seabs, I have a question for you. I know in past posts you said all scaffolds degrade the same in all mammals...where did you read this? I mean, if this is true, that would mean that the dextran hydrogel would HAVE to work the same in humans, right?

Seabs, I have a question for you. I know in past posts you said all scaffolds degrade the same in all mammals...where did you read this? I mean, if this is true, that would mean that the dextran hydrogel would HAVE to work the same in humans, right?

Collegekidd, being anthrocentric, despite the fact we are mammals, people seem to fall into the trap that we humans are a special organism.. People also seem to think scaffolds (which are consumed) are living bits of tissue and scaffolds are little micro mechanics or even choose the tissue. But imo something like a scaffolds can not choose the tissue??? Or can it? I've rehashed this loads of times that I'd imagine this will get seriously annoying to some, lol, but again all scaffolds are is dead bits of tissue, or fuel, protein, a resource... etc. And just to state this again, all scaffold do when applied to a wound is either get digested or rejected by the body (just like you can eat chicken but cant eat wood or stone, you reject it.) And if a scaffold is rejected or partly rejected, or slowly rejected by the body, the body has a scarring response, just like it would trying to remove a spelk of wood. Now onto where I have read this bit about digestion, I have read bits of information in the past, like quotes and such from various websites stating this, and these websites have changed, however, my information really comes from literally thousands and thousands of bits of data. And if you look around there have literally been thousands and thousands of bits of information with regards to scaffolds which highlights they do not go differently in tissues or species; especially if it is treated equally in all species. And it has never been stated that any scaffold behaves and digests any differently in any tissue over those thousands of times, for instance the control in the paper has been used thousands of times, the behaviour has to be well known... So to me using that data I reckon I imo have a reasonable expectancy that scaffolds should digest similar in all tissues. I expect it to work, I expect (which I think is within reason) it to digest in all living tissues no matter the species, in the pattern of other scaffolds...

 

Seabs, I have a question for you. I know in past posts you said all scaffolds degrade the same in all mammals...where did you read this? I mean, if this is true, that would mean that the dextran hydrogel would HAVE to work the same in humans, right?

Collegekidd, being anthrocentric, despite the fact we are mammals, people seem to fall into the trap that we humans are a special organism.. People also seem to think scaffolds (which are consumed) are living bits of tissue and scaffolds are little micro mechanics or even choose the tissue. But imo something like a scaffolds can not choose the tissue??? Or can it? I've rehashed this loads of times that I'd imagine this will get seriously annoying to some, lol, but again all scaffolds are is dead bits of tissue, or fuel, protein, a resource... etc. And just to state this again, all scaffold do when applied to a wound is either get digested or rejected by the body (just like you can eat chicken but cant eat wood or stone, you reject it.) And if a scaffold is rejected or partly rejected, or slowly rejected by the body, the body has a scarring response, just like it would trying to remove a spelk of wood. Now onto where I have read this bit about digestion, I have read bits of information in the past, like quotes and such from various websites stating this, and these websites have changed, however, my information really comes from literally thousands and thousands of bits of data. And if you look around there have literally been thousands and thousands of bits of information with regards to scaffolds which highlights they do not go differently in tissues or species; especially if it is treated equally in all species. And it has never been stated that any scaffold behaves and digests any differently in any tissue over those thousands of times, for instance the control in the paper has been used thousands of times, the behaviour has to be well known... So to me using that data I reckon I imo have a reasonable expectancy that scaffolds should digest similar in all tissues. I expect it to work, I expect (which I think is within reason) it to digest in all living tissues no matter the species, in the pattern of other scaffolds...

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing it up!

Collegekidd, being anthrocentric,

WE NEVER GONNA FIND A SOLUTION

Very cool. So he's going to inform on the current status and get back to you, if I understood correctly?

On 11/14/2013 at 1:22 AM, REPOLA said:

Hi,Pablo,
Thanks for your email!
I am not involved in the larger animal study since I left JHU, but I think they are working on large animal now. I don't know the detail either.
I believe hydrogel can help scar removal in the future. I have learned more in this area.
I am writing a short communication and can send you a copy once I finish.
Best
Guoming Sun
On 11/12/2013 6:32 PM, pablo andrade pereira wrote:

--
Guoming Sun, Ph.D.
Center for Craniofacial Regeneration
Columbia University Medical Center
630 West 168th Street, VC12-210A
New York, NY 10032

Dear Guoming Sun,

Thank you for your time.
I have been in contact with some burn suffers and facial trauma scarring including acne,
I am member of www.acne.org ;
I am also suffering from facial trauma scarring.

I Heard that you are not yet working with the wound healing dextran hydrogel scaffold
Can you please tell us if you know or if you hear anything about the large animals trials?
Do you think in the near future the hydrogel may improve scar revision?
Thanks a lot and good luck.
Yours faithfully
Pablo Andrade.

Only Guoming Sun has replied to my emails

Could this work even on nose scars please? Thanks.

So when does everyone honestly see this hydrogel being available for use? I read on here the average time it takes a device to go through the wringer and get FDA approved is 2.5 years, but is that once human clinical trials start? If so this shouldn't be on the market for AT LEAST another 3 years, correct? -___-

Collegekidd, it was cited earlier this year, 18 to 24months.

Collegekidd, it was cited earlier this year, 18 to 24months.

I thought it was 18-24 months until human clinical trials? I mean when will it be available to the public.