Wow. Its not an attack. Its common sense and obvious. Just because it regenerates in mice doesnt mean it will translate to people. Physcology is pretty useless as it is been taught or trained in society.its flawed.Its concept based and dualistic thus not worth my time. Im not attacking people here, im stating my concern for people who are clinging on to something hat has many years to go before it becomes a reality. Its not healthy. Also, that photo is a good example of a common problem people have with scarring. You see that red is the result of widespread scar tissue.its not normal skin. I use perfect skin on my face as a reference. Can science in the next couple of years create say the perfect skin near my temple in color and texture where my Scars and redness is? Until i see photos i dont care about studies. Iwant to see it in practice, on the news and available to the public. Seen these talks before. Just because trials are done doesnt always mean its truthful. Take mirvaso for example. Its a total scam and has ruined peoples skin. According to trials it did something completely different.

 

Im a mature person whos tired of hype over true practical substance.

It's common sense and obvious to sit behind a computer and diagnose someone with a disorder (body dysmorphic disorder relating to the skin)? Someone you've never met and likely never will meet and that ultimately you know very little about? And it's odd that you gave that person your untrained diagnosis and then immediately discredit the field (psychology) that discovered the existence of the disorder. Again, just try to keep it to relevant discussions about the topic of the thread and not misguided attempts to evaluate someone else on the board.

And as far as you referring to photos as concerned, I think that logic is inherently flawed. The researchers at JHU tested the device on mice and it resulted in complete regeneration. Not just through some eye test (which is wildly subjective) but to examining the resulting skin under a microscope and comparing it to the morphology of undamaged tissue. They tested its density, amount of appendages and many other factors to determine that it was the same as undamaged skin. But you'd rather rely on an eye test? That's what companies do now with scarless healing. And the bottom line is, if the skin is the same under a microscope and after exhaustive analysis, it's going to be skin like your undamaged tissues. Relying on photographic "evidence" alone is just not good science.

I agree with Enoughisenough. When we are in despair, it is not unusual to get excited about new 'miracle' treatments. The fact is that a treatment that can regenerate severely scarred skin to its original state is beyond unlikely. It would also be something so revolutionary that it would be all over the news and in the press - even at this pre human testing stage. Scientists/dermatologists/surgeons world wide would be sat 24/7 pissing their pants in excitement at such a finding and funding would not be an issue

I would jump for joy as high as any of you if this was the answer to gaining normal skin, but until it is proven and available, I am not raising any false hope. I have done that too many times. Yesterday's news was Recell, today it's Hydrogel. I wonder what's next.

Wow. Its not an attack. Its common sense and obvious. Just because it regenerates in mice doesnt mean it will translate to people. Physcology is pretty useless as it is been taught or trained in society.its flawed.Its concept based and dualistic thus not worth my time. Im not attacking people here, im stating my concern for people who are clinging on to something hat has many years to go before it becomes a reality. Its not healthy. Also, that photo is a good example of a common problem people have with scarring. You see that red is the result of widespread scar tissue.its not normal skin. I use perfect skin on my face as a reference. Can science in the next couple of years create say the perfect skin near my temple in color and texture where my Scars and redness is? Until i see photos i dont care about studies. Iwant to see it in practice, on the news and available to the public. Seen these talks before. Just because trials are done doesnt always mean its truthful. Take mirvaso for example. Its a total scam and has ruined peoples skin. According to trials it did something completely different.

Im a mature person whos tired of hype over true practical substance.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, thinks he can sense in his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, can see from his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

NO actualy. Its rational and common sense. Until something works and is available and has been shown to create perfect aesthetic skin from scarred skin in people, trials are what they are, hype until official.

You are the irrational one. IN 4 years time you will still be on this thread talking about the next big thing being the answer.

Until something is proven to work to create perfect skin on people with photos, its what it is, interesting.

You are very gullable if you think this is the cure. why? because it would be making waves in the medical community. It's hardly talked about outside of this thread.

I'm pulling my hair out, on this planet there are 7billion humans with versions of common sense, which one is the best version??? Which one is the most rational? Tell me?

Btw, a scientific method, just proves something objectively and is rational to all. Sticking to the science, the standards, the expectancy, is perfectly rational and reasoned, its scrutiny. If you did not do that things would never progress. Everything would literally go to a free for all, with all versions of 'common sense' claiming to be the best version.

Science ay. What use is science if nothing comes of it that we can actually use that works?

Seab135 tell me this, until it is proven to be fact it is merely research. So you claim scarless healing is now official. So you are saying it is an indisputable fact that when hydrogel is FDA approved acne scars are a thing of the past

then open up a thread telling people to wait for it, as it is according to science and your perception of the subjective analysis of doctors the answer to our prayers.

It's official ladies and gentleman. Dextran Hydrogel is the answer. Tell everyone. Why arent we all celerbrating. It's in the bag. Acne Scarring is over. Scarring is over. Dextran Hydrogel has solved everything.We no longer need lasers and all that nonsense.

Woopididooo..just 6 months to go before we are all blessed with perfect skin

get real.

I see you are going on to your version of common sense?

Science? It is everywhere you look. The computer you are using is the result of methodology and testing, the car you might drive is the result of science. What use is science? Ok then, try to prove something with no methodology, or a low grading of methodology and then claim it as fact? Doing so will generally produce garbage in and garbage out.

Science removes garbage and bs.

This is what I've claimed, by citing a paper written in 2011, citing the results in the paper, citing the controls in that paper, citing what the scientists have stated too, using reason, using evidence, scrutinising, I've cited the scientific standards are high, and I cited the scientific expectancy is high, I maintain that fair reasoning.

What I have never claimed, I've never claimed anything not cited, or speculated on an internet message board, I use sources.

I see you are going on to your version of common sense?

Science? It is everywhere you look. The computer you are using is the result of methodology and testing, the car you might drive is the result of science. What use is science? Ok then, try to prove something with no methodology, or a low grading of methodology and then claim it as fact? Doing so will generally produce garbage in and garbage out.

Science removes garbage and bs.

This is what I've claimed, by citing a paper written in 2011, citing the results in the paper, citing the controls in that paper, citing what the scientists have stated too, using reason, using evidence, scrutinising, I've cited the scientific standards are high, and I cited the scientific expectancy is high, I maintain that fair reasoning.

What I have never claimed, I've never claimed anything not cited, or speculated on an internet message board, I use sources.

Get real Seab135. Tell us. Yes or No. Dextran Hydrogel when approved will be the answer for acne scars? Based on your scientific research, is this the answer?! yes or no. You see, I'm coming to the conclusion of no. What happened to the courage of your conviction?

You either think it works or it doesnt.

So tell us seab135

ONce hydrogel is approved. The answer for acne scars is finaly here and we will all have perfect skin, as you have cited in your scientific articles.

Yes or no?

Your version of 'common sense' is coming to the conclusion and that is garbage in garbage out. Your false dichotomy choice or your ownership of a conclusion, is also bs.

Again, here is the courage of my conviction: using the peer reviewed evidence, from the paper, and the control, the scientific expectancy of a parallel process of complete regeneration is high. Other wise they would not have advanced. Once it is approved and if it gets complete regeneration like expected, then logically it could be used on any scar.

This argument seems utterly pointless. Seabs is right when discussing to the scientific data, which is incomplete in regards to answering the question of whether or not it will work for *humans*. We must wait for that. We don't know the answer yet...

Seabs

I was simply stating my personal opinion. Until evidence is presented in the form of totally regenerated previously acne scarred human skin I am not holding onto false hope. This is a message forum and because my opinions differ from the majority on this particular topic doesn't mean I shouldn't feel like I can express them.

The trial itself is focused on burns, not acne scarring. If hydrogel proves to be a success, I imagine that if anything, it may aid in the healing process of burns and result in less severe disfigurement. This would be a wonderful thing for burn victims.

With regards to acne scarring - full facial deep acne scarring of varying types. Is it reasonable to suggest that by performing surgical excision of large areas of skin, inflicting burns or any such like extreme action and applying the hydrogel method will result in fully regenerated, aesthetically pleasing skin? I think not. I also think that if you asked any unnassociated, credible surgeon/derm/scientiest that they would agree.

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

We are all here with on common grounds and should be on the same team, supporting eachother not attacking eachother for differing opinions.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, thinks he can sense in his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

I posted a video a few pages earlier in which an internationally renowned surgeon who is working on things which will contribute to the realization of genuine scarless healing said among other things that scarless healing will come along in "maybe another fifty years" so your estimation is somewhat spot on.

 

Seabs

I was simply stating my personal opinion. Until evidence is presented in the form of totally regenerated previously acne scarred human skin I am not holding onto false hope. This is a message forum and because my opinions differ from the majority on this particular topic doesn't mean I shouldn't feel like I can express them.

The trial itself is focused on burns, not acne scarring. If hydrogel proves to be a success, I imagine that if anything, it may aid in the healing process of burns and result in less severe disfigurement. This would be a wonderful thing for burn victims.

With regards to acne scarring - full facial deep acne scarring of varying types. Is it reasonable to suggest that by performing surgical excision of large areas of skin, inflicting burns or any such like extreme action and applying the hydrogel method will result in fully regenerated, aesthetically pleasing skin? I think not. I also think that if you asked any unnassociated, credible surgeon/derm/scientiest that they would agree.

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

We are all here with on common grounds and should be on the same team, supporting eachother not attacking eachother for differing opinions.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, thinks he can sense in his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

Even if the regrown skin tissue had a weird texture, if it simply regrew the tissue then other procedures like dermabrasion, laser resurfacing, chemical peels, etc, could be performed to smooth it out. The biggest hurdle right now is getting skin to reliably regrow after being damaged. Anyways, let's wait for the trials to finish.

 

Seabs

I was simply stating my personal opinion. Until evidence is presented in the form of totally regenerated previously acne scarred human skin I am not holding onto false hope. This is a message forum and because my opinions differ from the majority on this particular topic doesn't mean I shouldn't feel like I can express them.

The trial itself is focused on burns, not acne scarring. If hydrogel proves to be a success, I imagine that if anything, it may aid in the healing process of burns and result in less severe disfigurement. This would be a wonderful thing for burn victims.

With regards to acne scarring - full facial deep acne scarring of varying types. Is it reasonable to suggest that by performing surgical excision of large areas of skin, inflicting burns or any such like extreme action and applying the hydrogel method will result in fully regenerated, aesthetically pleasing skin? I think not. I also think that if you asked any unnassociated, credible surgeon/derm/scientiest that they would agree.

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

We are all here with on common grounds and should be on the same team, supporting eachother not attacking eachother for differing opinions.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, thinks he can sense in his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

Even if the regrown skin tissue had a weird texture, if it simply regrew the tissue then other procedures like dermabrasion, laser resurfacing, chemical peels, etc, could be performed to smooth it out. The biggest hurdle right now is getting skin to reliably regrow after being damaged. Anyways, let's wait for the trials to finish.

you really underestimate how difficult it is to create perfect collagen. You can smooth out as much as you want, It's not going to look like it did before acne/injury

you really underestimate how difficult it is to create perfect collagen. You can smooth out as much as you want, It's not going to look like it did before acne/injury

If you are seeking perfection, then you will be waiting forever. You will never have smooth baby skin again. Go on and live your life.

 

you really underestimate how difficult it is to create perfect collagen. You can smooth out as much as you want, It's not going to look like it did before acne/injury

If you are seeking perfection, then you will be waiting forever. You will never have smooth baby skin again. Go on and live your life.

Oh I know, thats what I'm telling people on here.

Perfect skin is around 30 years away.

I'm banging my head against a brick wall, I'm getting a witch Dr telling me I underestimate, you could not make this up. I underestimate nothing, Get this: it not a debate, it cannot be a debate, as you cannot debate a scientific result. And I'm only interested in 'scientific data.' Evidence has been presented of 'complete regeneration,' therefore: something has 'completely regenerated' morphology, therefore it 'regenerates morphology.' It something regenerates a tree it regenerates a tree and so on.

Another one, opinion, you should never care about an opinion, when the science shows 'complete regeneration.' That is like caring about the opinion of someone who is involved in the flat earth society, hence you know the data shows the world is spherical, his opinion is the world is flat.

I'm banging my head against a brick wall, I'm getting a witch Dr telling me I underestimate, you could not make this up. I underestimate nothing, Get this: it not a debate, it cannot be a debate, as you cannot debate a scientific result. And I'm only interested in 'scientific data.' Evidence has been presented of 'complete regeneration,' therefore: something has 'completely regenerated' morphology, therefore it 'regenerates morphology.' It something regenerates a tree it regenerates a tree and so on.

Another one, opinion, you should never care about an opinion, when the science shows 'complete regeneration.' That is like caring about the opinion of someone who is involved in the flat earth society, hence you know the data shows the world is spherical, his opinion is the world is flat.

good. Then I guess we are all saved. Hydrogel will be all over the news and we can officially shut down this sub forum.

because thats what your saying. Science knows best, so therefore what the article is claiming means we are all saved.

yawn

Like the people who have seen this crap reycled all over this thread we want to see it, not read about it or see unclear non human skin in small photos.

 

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

I posted a video a few pages earlier in which an internationally renowned surgeon who is working on things which will contribute to the realization of genuine scarless healing said among other things that scarless healing will come along in "maybe another fifty years" so your estimation is somewhat spot on.

Seab135 take note

You keep shouting about "scientific data". There have been many trials and many papers containing "scientific data". Data submitted from laser trials claimed a 98% reduction in scars. How many 98% reduction cases have you seen with your own eyes? How many people were excited to read this data, get a laser treatment and end up with further severe scarring, fat loss and further damaged skin tissue? Thousands!

This study has been tested on mice (apparently pigs at present). It is an interesting study and I shall follow to see how it progresses. It could be a great thing for burn victims, it could be a great thing for acne scarring, but the evidence for this has not been presented. This is my point. No evidence has been presented that damaged human scar tissue can be regenerated to its former undamaged state.

It's good to have hope and keep an open mind. It's not good to make claims that have not been validated and become aggressive if anyone disagrees with your statements.

I'm out of this thread for now. Human trials are predicted to take place in approx. 2 years. Time will tell.

I'm banging my head against a brick wall, I'm getting a witch Dr telling me I underestimate, you could not make this up. I underestimate nothing, Get this: it not a debate, it cannot be a debate, as you cannot debate a scientific result. And I'm only interested in 'scientific data.' Evidence has been presented of 'complete regeneration,' therefore: something has 'completely regenerated' morphology, therefore it 'regenerates morphology.' It something regenerates a tree it regenerates a tree and so on.

Another one, opinion, you should never care about an opinion, when the science shows 'complete regeneration.' That is like caring about the opinion of someone who is involved in the flat earth society, hence you know the data shows the world is spherical, his opinion is the world is flat.

Enoughiseough, Take note of what? That was an 'opinion' in 2010, it is not scientific evidence. Nearlydefeated I keep going on about reviewed scientific data because: get this: 'It is actually the truth,' It is reliable, It maintains standards, it gives you expectancy and advancement, It is not the opinion of me, you or anyone else, it is something that comes from get this: a testable method not, 'opinion,' or bias.

Enoughiseough, Take note of what? That was an 'opinion' in 2010, it is not scientific evidence. Nearlydefeated I keep going on about reviewed scientific data because: get this: 'It is actually the truth,' It is reliable, It maintains standards, it gives you expectancy and advancement, It is not the opinion of me, you or anyone else, it is something that comes from get this: a testable method not, 'opinion,' or bias.

So basically what your saying is ''Look, i have no idea if this is going to be useful or indeed is what we would like it to be, but until it is, say in 30-40 years i'm going to post this stuff on here as its an interesting subject that we can talk about while we sub conciously hope it will be the answer to our prayers''

thanks seab135

but no thanks

 

Seabs

I was simply stating my personal opinion. Until evidence is presented in the form of totally regenerated previously acne scarred human skin I am not holding onto false hope. This is a message forum and because my opinions differ from the majority on this particular topic doesn't mean I shouldn't feel like I can express them.

The trial itself is focused on burns, not acne scarring. If hydrogel proves to be a success, I imagine that if anything, it may aid in the healing process of burns and result in less severe disfigurement. This would be a wonderful thing for burn victims.

With regards to acne scarring - full facial deep acne scarring of varying types. Is it reasonable to suggest that by performing surgical excision of large areas of skin, inflicting burns or any such like extreme action and applying the hydrogel method will result in fully regenerated, aesthetically pleasing skin? I think not. I also think that if you asked any unnassociated, credible surgeon/derm/scientiest that they would agree.

I hope to God that the scar section of the boards is one day a thing of the past and none of us are suffering/embarrassed by our scarring, but I personally doubt it any decade soon.

We are all here with on common grounds and should be on the same team, supporting eachother not attacking eachother for differing opinions.

NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence.

He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, subjectively, thinks he can sense in his own emotional human fish bowl. Btw, I know scientific findings can look like magic, but they are not magic, usually there is a method to replicate them.

I think the issue is that some on this board try to pass opinions off as more than that. Plus, an opinion is usually informed by some modicum of data to support it rather than just assumption and speculation. For example, you write that it will improve healing on burns but you doubt that it will work on acne scars. Why is that? What evidence supports your opinion? Basically, if you cut out a huge chunk of skin that removes all layers of the dermis (like you'd need to do with a 3rd degree burn that the mice had) you have no skin at all. At that point the cause of the injury becomes somewhat moot because the triggers involved in healing the wound will be the same for your body no matter the cause. It's not as if the body will say to itself, "Oh, this tissued was excised because of a burn," or, "this tissue was excised because of acne scarring." The resulting tissue might vary depending on the area of the effected tissue due to mechanical stress and other factors, but once all layers of skin have been removed the body is not going to differentiate based on the cause of the injury. It's just going to receive a signal that there's an injury and go about healing it.

I have talked to one of the principal investigators (Dr. Sun) that worked on the 2011 paper several times and he maintains that the hydrogel is a very strong candidate for scar free healing even though he's now moved on to Columbia University (budget cut his position's funding at JHU). If someone had talked to an unaffiliated doctor, as you stated, and they had shared doubts based on scientific evidence I'd be all ears. But I don't think anyone has done that so most of the stuff being posted just ends up stemming from a need to protect one's self from being hurt.

Which, by the way, I completely understand! It sucks to have every reason to expect a specific result and end up with something less than that. But as of now, anyone saying with any degree of certainty that the dextran hydrogel won't work is just projecting their own assumptions. Whereas, with people that are of the mind that it will work are basing their point of view on a vetted, published paper. That's the key difference. Neither of us know for certain, but at least there's research to support one expectancy (that it will work) whereas thus far there isn't anything to counter that expectancy (that it won't).

I agree that we're all on the same team, but I wish this board would just be posts about credible scientific research. None of us (as far as I know) are scientists working in this field so it's really all we have to rely on. If there was a paper disproving the dextran hydrogel's ability to provide complete regeneration in humans (or pigs for that matter) I'd want to read it just as much as one saying it did work. Also, people regularly post other papers that could lead to scar free healing (not too long ago a Chinese paper was linked to that resulted in scar free healing using stem cells and Wharton's Jelly) so I'd love to see even more of that.

And on the subject of lasers, it's like comparing apples to oranges.. For one, at no point during pre-clinical trials or clinical trials did using lasers on scar tissues result in complete regenerationit wasn't even the aim. For another, the % of improvement is largely subjective. If you still have a scar, one person might see 20% improvement while another might see 75%. Whereas with the hydrogel on mice the skin was the same morphology and had all its appendages. The intention behind these two approaches is very different (one is improvement, the other is complete regeneration) so you can't draw any meaningful conclusions about how one will work based on the results of the other. Now, if someone could talk to those Chinese researchers about their findings and thoughts on the dextran hydrogel, that would be awesome!

Enoughisenough, you will twist my words again and again conveying this is a debate, wasting my time, I will stick to the empirical evidence and wont budge. I have stated, using the reference of a peer reviewed paper, complete regeneration was proven (<<<evidence, evidence) 'in the past' as in 2011 against a very reliable control.' What you have done in the quote is a strawman argument. Fallacious. I have not stated anything future tense, the papers I reference are in past with a result, they were completed in 2011.

Again I'm pulling my hair out here, as this this is not up for debate, as there is a result written on paper. This is not speculation. Also In a debate, there has to be more than one permutation. There can not be a debate here as there is 'empirical evidence with a result. and there is an advancement.' Also an appeal to authority, or a historic opinion, is not more reliable than recent scientific data, or any advancing scientific data. Anyone can pull out a reference book full of authority figures and state fallaciously, Daddy says this is so and so, therefore that recent empirical evidence is wrong. But that does not make the recent empirical evidence and tested science wrong.

So basically what your saying is ''Look, i have no idea if this is going to be useful or indeed is what we would like it to be, but until it is, say in 30-40 years i'm going to post this stuff on here as its an interesting subject that we can talk about while we sub conciously hope it will be the answer to our prayers''

thanks seab135

but no thanks

I don`t know if the dextran hydrogel can regenerate complete human skin, I have been reading a scientific publication about mice healing.

Mice healing is different than human healing. Mice heal 70% by contraction & 30 % by scar.

Humans heal 70 % scar & 30 % contraction.

Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t.

Science results are testable of course but how many times the theory of the relativity has been tested, thousands of times with the same results, but in the atomic world and in the black holes the Einstein`s theory doesn`t work and you have to use the quantum theory.

How many times the hydrogel has been tested? only one, In humans? never, It Has been tested by independent researchers? No.

The result of the hydrogel in mice can be a wound mainly healed by contraction about 90% & 10% by scar with hair over the scar so the scar is very small and with the hair regrow is almost undetectable, but not complete regeneration, the results in large animals and in humans may be different and further investigation, tests and trials will say if the hydrogel can complete regenerate human skin.

23/02/2012 Scientists at CERN have admitted an experiment that appeared to show neutrino particles could travel faster than light was potentially flawed. (You can found very easy more info with google if you are interested)

By the way if a particle can travel faster than light the Einstein`s theory is no longer valid.

The Newtons theory still valid in most of the cases but was replaced by the Einsteins theory because is more accurate.

Meanwhile I have hope but nothing is for sure.