Acne.org Products
But i already have the scars ? ... so how would that be of benefit ?
The idea is to remove the scarred tissue to create a new wound bed that would then have the hydrogel applied to it. The hydrogel would then enhance the body's healing process to allow for complete regeneration.
So, you would need to have the scars removed (through excision or some other means) and then the hydrogel would be applied like it was in the paper.
>
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
I won't expect stem cell therapy will be available for skin repair soon...
The biomaterials will still play the leading role in the next generation.
The only person who know the dextran hydrogel well is Dr Sun, but he is no longer in the team or works on this any more.
I therefore won't expect too much !
Agreed on stem cells. They face a much tougher road in terms of FDA regulations.
However, I don't understand why you think Sun no longer working there has any impact on the success of the device. I've talked to Sun directly and he still thinks highly of the hydrogel and has continued his work in the field in his new position at Columbia University. He only left JHU because funding ran out for his position there. So there isn't anything to glean from that in regards to the efficacy of the hydrogel.
that's what I know. You may want to ask him again...
I don't believe I've said anything irrational.
I should have said "significantly outperform existing wound care products.", though I never implied that a product which simply outperformed those currently available would have market dominance, immediate or not. However, If their hydrogel regenerated skin, there's no question it would become the industry standard product against anything directly competitive. It would likely be ineffective, as is, for non-healing wounds, and regenerative products such as Alloderm would still be used for breast reconstruction, etc.
I agree kickbacks have been rampant, especially pharmaceuticals, and that the medical knowledge of many practitioners is antiquated, but I doubt there are countless new products being offered, especially by a single company for a specific market. That would only cannabalize sales.
I don't care to argue with you, so I'll be extremely concise.
I'm aware that their original intent was to incorporate stem cells, but you're missing the point.
You seriously can't compare complex pharmaceuticals to a simple well tolerated sugar based hyrdrogel. "Many regulatory hurdles" - a product can be fast tracked without compromise.
I can assure you there is a dire need for a product that can regenerate skin.
Your last paragraph is absurd. If it regenerated skin, it couldn't be improved. No further deals could be made.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
It facilitated regeneration in a mouse. "Equally good" regarding pigs is hearsay. The article mentions clinical use on burn patients (humans!) as being "encouraging", not "remarkable". What implication of "the key is pricing the product right" don't you understand? Additives, such as stem cells, would only be considered if efficacy was lacking.
Right about what? This is vague...
The science? it got complete regeneration of a third degree burn, it 'outperformed' the state of the art standard. No amount of hearsay can prejudice that, its testable. The other pig trials are on going; no result has been released, though we have been told these are looking equally good...
The regulatory hurdle hunch? See above the pig trials are still on going and they have the same regulatory hurdles as any other device.
Competing on price? They stated 'the key is pricing the product right,' they did not state 'compete on price,' This 'getting the pricing right,' to me is a reasonable statement, as long as they do not rip off.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering." This is a good statement to question, however, prior to the hydrogel they originally had planned to do something like this. But they then found the hydrogel got complete regeneration, which surprised them.. I'd imagine though that certain wounds with diabetics will need stem cells to reepithilize faster...
Are you talking about a market? And again what has been mentioned with markets is again vague. So what conclusion has been drawn, I cannot see a conclusion?
You may be right.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I don't understand you. My logic is perfectly rational. Scarless healing, in the proper definition of the term, would be a medical marvel, but think critically.
Heroic Nymph, btw using this logic you could also conclude in many other ways, many opposing your pov.
Example if someone cant play xyz sport, down to external circumstance, therefore, insert conclusion.
"If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products."
Regenerated a full thickness burn in a mouse. Osteopontin prevents scar formation (it does not regenerate sebaceous glands, hair follicles, etc) in mice, but only reduces scar formation in humans.
What you are also reading is written by a journalist, talking about a market.
Anyway the hydrogel, proved in a testable scientific environment, complete regeneration of a third degree burn, and this was tested against a standardised control. It outperformed the standardised control.
Hey HeroicNymph, the site's quote functionality isn't working so I've copy and pasted what you wrote for reference.
I don't think you've said anything particularly irrational, but I do think you're making some far reaching inferences into what was written.
For starters, the article says nothing about testing on humans. It states, Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
All that tells us is that she's talking with the clinicians who work in the burn unit. In fact, I'd be stunned if they'd even thought about actual using the hydrogel on humans at this point when they haven't even gotten out of the pre-clinical phase (clinical testing is when you can begin testing on humans and a request for that must be approved and regulated by the FDA). The fallout of something adverse happening to a patient in that scenario would be devastating for everyone involved and in particular JHU.
Second, you state that a product can be fast tracked without compromise. There have been situations like that in the past, but it's rare and only in extreme cases. Here's a quote from the wiki about the FDA fast track program:
The FDA Fast Track Development Program is a designation of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that accelerates the approval of investigational new drugsundergoing clinical trials with the goal review time of 60 days. Such status is often given to agents that show promise in treating serious, life-threatening medical conditions for which no other drug either exists or works as well.
I've highlighted the key portion. Now, it may be possible that this criteria could extend to wound healing dressings such as the hydrogel, but i doubt it. I've read some of the FDA's guidance for the fast-track process and it focuses on diseases and conditions (HIV, cancer, lupus etc.).
I would agree that horrific scars that burn patients have to endure should classify as a dire need. But given the FDA's language and history, I don't think they would agree. AFIRM is funded by the US government and intended to treat horrible battle scars inflicted upon soldiers and their studies have shown significant improvement in the treatment of wounds. And yet, I don't think a single clinical study they've undertaken has been fast-tracked by the FDA (60 days). They're still going through the same phase I, II and III stages that most clinical trials do. It's sad that it's this way, but that's the way it is as of now. Hopefully, that changes.
I'm not sure if your last point (about the paragraph being "absurd") was directed at me or someone else. In my post, I was taking the point of view of the investor at Gemstone Therapeutics (George Davis) and it being unwise for him to reveal too much about the product's efficacy to a reporter, even if they were a major breakthrough, at this particular time. Agreed that the product could not be improved if it provided complete regeneration, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making. If it had in fact already proven 100% successful in humans, Davis would most definitely keep tight lipped so other potential investors wouldn't take an interest and offer a better deal to Gerecht in the form of more funding for research, a better percentage of the profits, ownership stake in the company etc. No need to attract competition and threats to your bottom line when Gemstone is some time away from being in a position to commercialize and profit from their investment.
Anyway, it's one article, written by a reporter that interviewed the investor (not the researchers). I think we're all guilty of trying to glean too much from it. All we know for certain right now is that clinically the dextran hydrogel, when applied to a mouse with a third degree burn wound, resulted in complete regeneration and that Gerecht's team is currently testing on pigs. That's it.
I'll try e-mailing Dr. Sun again in a few days to find out if he's heard anything from his contacts at JHU. Maybe someone else can try contacting Dr. Harmon if they're so inclined? A person on this board used to be in pretty steady communication with him.
________________________________________________________
I don't believe I've said anything irrational.
I should have said "significantly outperform existing wound care products.", though I never implied that a product which simply outperformed those currently available would have market dominance, immediate or not. However, If their hydrogel regenerated skin, there's no question it would become the industry standard product against anything directly competitive. It would likely be ineffective, as is, for non-healing wounds, and regenerative products such as Alloderm would still be used for breast reconstruction, etc.
I agree kickbacks have been rampant, especially pharmaceuticals, and that the medical knowledge of many practitioners is antiquated, but I doubt there are countless new products being offered, especially by a single company for a specific market. That would only cannabalize sales.
I don't care to argue with you, so I'll be extremely concise.
I'm aware that their original intent was to incorporate stem cells, but you're missing the point.
You seriously can't compare complex pharmaceuticals to a simple well tolerated sugar based hyrdrogel. "Many regulatory hurdles" - a product can be fast tracked without compromise.
I can assure you there is a dire need for a product that can regenerate skin.
Your last paragraph is absurd. If it regenerated skin, it couldn't be improved. No further deals could be made.
HeroricNymph, you say If it regenerated skin, it couldn't be improved. Btw, I have stated this before, many times, complete regeneration, cannot be improved only equalled. And this is why it surprised them as it got complete regeneration, they expected regeneration but not complete.. Now they may have to adjust it, or 'improve it', sometimes, for wounds with different circumstances to normal wounds, example like say, a human has a faulty immune response, or the emergency need is extra adhesive for a big burn; after all this is tuneable and it can be adjusted in many ways. But that circumstance is down to customisation to circumstances nothing else: some wounds are massive, some are small, some are non responsive like diabetics. And when you are talking about another niche market were the wound healing is significantly impaired, like say end stage diabetes which can result in limb regeneration, as these diabetic wounds do not even attempt to heal, never mind heal with incomplete or complete regeneration, you may have to adjust it. They, using data from the control can see they are dealing with a complicated wound and will in that circumstance probably have to adapt the hydrogel for that complication But a diabetic market is an apple, we are talking about an orange.
You mention the term 'hearsay' with regards to info on the pig trials, but what has been stated has come from someone involved with the trials, who is also named on the original paper; it has a source. it is also backed up by the science done earlier and it is also backed up, by scaling up the known behaviour of the control.
Also at the same time you mention the word hearsay, you do so conveying, as if this is what we are doing when we mention the paper, and other sources and yet in a contradiction you, are coincidently behaving like a harbinger of bad weather from a magazine article. <<<You are using hearsay. You completely used your hearsay to give a pov, you gave an interpretation, a wrong interpretation, of a magazine article and stressed your interpretation has more reliability than the science. To me this is hearsay???, you are using hearsay, and are pov pushing.
You can get no credibility from using the term hearsay as a complaint, when you yourself ignore the science and give credit to your interpretation of a magazine article. You have used the term hearsay as a sound bite in your hearsay.
You say 'think critically,' but if you think critically you will note the science, you will note it is testable, and way more reliable than some interpretation from a magazine article. You will also notice the control and how the control behaves in all tissues.
You get no credibility for using the phrase think critically, when you ignore the science and give credit to your interpretation of a magazine article. Imo, you have again used the terminology as a sound bite.
You use another term, you mention being concise as if youre not prejudicing something and you are shooting from the hip. Be it if you do not prejudice something you can just get to the point immediately. However, the thng is, if you were really concise you would merely just stick to the science and to the spotlight expectancy and standards from the science, like you do with science. This is all you have to do to be concise; it is not that special if there is scientific information. You would not add much that is stated outside of the science if you are concise. You have not been more concise.
You mention the term scarless healing; and do not credit that humans have noted scarless healing for thousands of years; and you can get scarless healing right now if you follow these instructions: Cut two incisional wounds into both your arms, rub the right wound with mud, and iodine, and keep it open for a few days more; and on the other arm, keep this wound clean and let it close up faster. I can guarantee you your left arm wound will scarless than your right arm wound. The term scarless is speak for something that scars relatively less than normally expected.
Whattobehandsome, it got complete regeneration of a 3rd degree burn, beating the standard control; it got complete regeneration...
So would this be considered a cure for scarring ? or what ?
It's not so hard to understand... The gel would be applied and it would enable the skin to regenerate. So do the math. But at the same time it's not as simple as that as there are certain factors one has to consider like .e.g. the place on the body that the scar is. Some scars are easier to treat than others depending on the location on the body due to tensions. Plus there's also such a thing as internal scarring but if they can figure out how exactly it works in the case it does enable complete skin regeneration then maybe they can apply the same principle in a different manner.
I wouldn't get my hopes up though.
http://www.fionawoodfoundation.com/pages/5171/about-the-scarless-healing-appeal
Well if they can 100% regenerate 3rd degree burns then that sounds like the cure to scars 
.... am hopeful ... could you imagine .. no more being depressed with the disfiguring marks left behind by cuts , acne , accidents etc ...
Yeah, it would be great. Scarless healing will come around and I might be alive to see it but honestly I think that if I will I'll be like 60 at the very least (I'm 33 now). But it's cool that it will happen so that future generations won't necessarily have to go through the same things people here, myself included, have gone through. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
I wouldn't be so sure ... by the time you'll be in your 60s ... scar cures will be common place, hell i'd be sure as to assume that you could extend your life by decades with new medical technology ever evolving year after year .... years ago cancer was a death sentence .... now Stem cells can replace the cancers cells when injected into your blood stream ... there's always hope , may we all one day be free of this prison sentence that is scarring .
This hour long video is really worth a watch, It really shows you a lot about what's going on currently in the quest for obtaining a way to regenerate instead of scar. Which is a lot.
One thing that is said by the way, is that animals in general scar less than people which reminded me of the scarless results in the mouse using the hydrogel.
Another thing is that it is estimated that it will take at least another 40+ years before people can regenerate completely. That is, if it is possible in the first place.
Lapis btw, humans are also evolved animals.
And you, with the way you are framing your post, whilst using POV, are prejudicing strict scientific information as it is. That video is also 4years old. POV is incomplete evidence, on the other hand something that proves something is more complete. Pointing to POV over evidence is regressive. Going by evidence is so simple: Scientific evidence > POV. Scientific evidence and expectancy > POV. Scientific evidence and expectancy > than noise. Also again, if you look at the control, it is 'standardised' and thus has parallel behaviour and known behaviour in all animals, it dissolves in tissues. It is a very reliable control. The control gets similar results (incomplete regeneration) in all tissues. The hydrogel with evidence, outperformed the control, and got complete regeneration, this brings a 'reliable' scientific expectancy.
i have news
a friend has telephonically communicated whit one of the doctor
that doctor is on pig test and he said ''' in mouse hidrogel Works path.......in pigs is not'''
Will you please shut the F**K UP !!! ..... stop trying to piss on other peoples hopes to get rid of scarring ..
If you're telling me this Dextrax hydrogel would be able to 100% regenerate 3rd degree burn scars with sweat glands , hair follicles , subalous glands ..... and people are questioning if it will be effective on indented scars and scars from cuts .... come on man ... injuries from 3rd degree burns can kill you ! , 3rd degree burns destroys all 3 layers of skin .... if this isn't considered a cure for scarring then i don't know what is .
i have news
a friend has telephonically communicated whit one of the doctor
that doctor is on pig test and he said ''' in mouse hidrogel Works path.......in pigs is not'''
Will you please shut the F**K UP !!! ..... stop trying to piss on other peoples hopes to get rid of scarring ..
Hey whattobehandsome, you'll be happy to know that user was banned from the site for this drivel.
Also, Recell is a very useful device and a great product with a lot of potential for 2nd degree burns and to help lessen scarring in 3rd degree burns. But as others have stated, it isn't a complete cure in the sense that it can regenerate tissue back to the way it was before the injury (with appendages and same morphology). Still, great stuff and I'm happy to see it moving so quickly through clinical trials!
Hi Golfpanther bro 
yes i have read that it works very well on scarring ... i didn't think it'd work on something like 3rd degree burns wow ! 
... thank you amigo .... there will be a cure one day bro .... there's too much money involved man ... think of the economy how it would benefit that ! ... like i said medical science is advancing everyday !
Hi guys, thank you for your hope, I am desperate and I am suffering a lot because my scars are also in my mine.
I been in contact with the dextran hydrogel Facebook webpage.
The guy said that the large animals trials are still ongoing.
I dont know if it is good or bad, what do you think?
Don't worry guys, we have to get this eventually! In 1903, the New York Times predicted that flying machines might be possible in 1 to 10 million years, and later that same year, the wright brothers made their first flight! So who knows what they'll come up with in the near future