Acne.org Products
Repola in the paper the wound got complete regeneration. This was also an experiment with a control which also dissolved in the tissue, and where the typical behaviour is known of the control, which gives this its reliability of a parallel process. The control has been tested on every mammal going from small mammals to big mammals that have more tissue stress on wounds. The control behaves similar in all, it gets digested in all wounds... Btw, hair growth from a burn scar, I have never ever seen a source? Did you mean you have seen a citation that the spiny African mouse can completely regenerate tissue and hair, maybe this is what you meant?
As far as I know the way hydrogel works is that it draws in stem cells to heal scar tissue or burns. Some surgeons are using stem cell enriched fat grafting to do the same. Recell also uses the same concept. Then there is 3d printing, nanotechnology etc. So don't know why hydrogel won't work.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/How-To-Treat-Acne-Scarring/187751721248937?hc_location=timeline
As far as I know the way hydrogel works is that it draws in stem cells to heal scar tissue or burns. Some surgeons are using stem cell enriched fat grafting to do the same. Recell also uses the same concept. Then there is 3d printing, nanotechnology etc. So don't know why hydrogel won't work.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/How-To-Treat-Acne-Scarring/187751721248937?hc_location=timeline
I have news for you. I did stem cell gafting from fat using an advanced machine. My skin improved but the scar tissue remains deep in the skin so it is viewable.
I believe all this can create nice improvements over what is currently the norm. What I am stating is that I doubt it can recreate perfect skin.
http://www.scar-club.com/pdf/journal/SCAR%20Journal%20Vol%201_Yannas%20edited.pdf
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/06/cotsarelis/
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/growing-hair-on-scars/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/science/new-technique-holds-promise-for-hair-loss.html?_r=0
Repola, Im not being rude here, but if you show me your sources at least quote what you are looking at, so I dont have to CTRL + F hair, and so I can cut the work load. This is like shoving a massive 1000 page document on someones desk. And this is going to produce a needlessly long post.
Anyway, the sources you have provided here do not back up what you originally stated, what you have done is here is lazy, you are also hoping that I say f... this work load... And then you can claim some image of credibility? Also more importantly and sadly though all this does is just distracts away from quality genuine cited information in the thread imo. So this is my last post on this.
Your premise I think you are trying to validate: Without human intervention and without further wounding bringing a wounded pocked (an injection wound, or a bigger wound) mice can regenerate hair naturally and spontaneously in scars; humans on the other hand cant.
Below is your sourced evidence. All these sources also vary in what they are highlighting. Which makes me think wtf at the ambiguous choices you have given yourself. I could also just fairly end the response hear at that ambiguity. But out of respect Ill go on.
Your first cite and second does not reference your premise that hairs grow naturally in scars in mice:
http://www.scar-club.com/pdf/journal/SCAR%20Journal%20Vol%201_Yannas%20edited.pdf
Nothing in the above about hair growing on scars, in fact it is a cite that highlights hair only grows in regenerated skin. This is opposite to your premise.
Ctrl + f reveals only one mention of hair, it would have been nice to quote this too, It mentions partial regeneration of skin and goes on to state partial regenerated skin differs from physiological skin in the absence of skin appendages.( hair follicles, sweat glands, etc).
Quote, DRT is a macromolecular network synthesized as a highly porous analog of ECM with highly specific structure that degrades in vivo at a controlled rate. Among other morphological and functional characteristics, partially regenerated skin is mechanically competent, fully vascularized 6 and sensitive to touch as well as heat or cold. The regenerated dermal-epidermal junction, with its extensive formations of rete ridges and capillary loops (Fig. 2), leaves no doubt that de novo partially regenerated skin organ is clearly not scar. However, partially regenerated skin differs from physiological skin in the absence of skin appendages (hair follicles, sweat glands, etc.).
Your second cite:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/06/cotsarelis/
This cite from where Im looking states Fgf9, turns the healing process towards regeneration and therefore hair follicle regeneration. It does not say hair grows spontaneously in scars. Quote Importantly, when the investigators added Fgf9 back to the wounds that do not normally regenerate, FGF9 triggered the molecular cascade of events necessary for skin and hair regeneration; thus, leaving the door open for using Fgf9 to treat wounds and hair loss in people.
This cite should not have been used.
Your third cite is also wrong:
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/growing-hair-on-scars/
This source, which doesnt reference its sources, it loosely claims hairs grew in scars after human intervention with regards to a human creating a micro wound pocket and injecting stemcells and wnt. It basically states an injection (a new wound) injected with wnt in the healing process that followed created hair.
You claimed that mice grow hair on scars spontaneously without human intervention. The reference is invalid like the other two.
The next source which you have left vague:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/science/new-technique-holds-promise-for-hair-loss.html?_r=1&
This is actually about transplanting grafts into scar tissue, which is also more human intervention, and has nothing to do with hair growing spontaneously into scars.
This also should have not been used
The next cite is here and my eyes are hurting:
And this is the same info as the information previous, it is about grafting human hair into mice. Hence transplanting hair. It has nothing to do with hair spontaneously growing into scars.
I could go on but Ill leave it.
Just stick to the facts.
From Wikipedia:
Sweat glands and hair follicles do not grow back within scar tissues.
From Yahoo answers:
Does hair grow back over a scar?
No it doesn't. Sweat glands and hair follicles do not grow back within scar tissue. Sometimes hair growing from hair follicles on the surrounding healthy skin, close to the scarred area, gives the impression that the hair is actually growing from the scar tissue itself. This is especially the case in strangely shaped scars(where there may be a very tiny patch of healthy skin, surrounded by scar tissue). But to repeat: It is impossible for hair to grow on scar tissue.
From this website:
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/growing-hair-on-scars/
There is some good news. Scientists noticed that in some mice, if the scar met a minimum size, hair grew back after all. This meant that new hair follicles were being generated in these mice. The only cell type that can pull off such a feat is a stem cell.
Scientists studied the mice to figure out how this was happening, and found that the source of the new hair follicles wasnt hair follicle stem cells, as expected, but epidermal stem cells. This is surprising because adult stem cells are typically more limited in the types of cells they can produce. Only a hair follicle stem cell would be expected to be able to generate all the cell types needed to build a hair follicle.
Upon further study, scientists discovered that a protein important in hair follicle development, Wnt, was present in mice that grew hair in their wounds, and not present in mice that did not. This is useful information for people suffering unwanted bald patches from scars.
Scientists may be able to use this protein to help people grow new hair follicles. The one downside is that the new hair follicles in mice lack melanocytes, the cells that give hair its color. Then again, if scientists can manage to help people grow new hair follicles, adding pigment may be small potatoes.
From this article by (among others) Dr. Sun:
http://www.jscimedcentral.com/Regenerative/Articles/regenerative-2-1007.pdf
Our recent study has demonstrated that a dextran-based hydrogel devoid of growth factors and stem cells promoted dermal regeneration with complete skin appendages on a third degree burn injury. The dextran hydrogel might have induced signaling molecules and activated stem cells that helped reconstruct the embryonic skin niche for intact skin regeneration. Although much is still unknown about how dextran scaffold coordinates cell lineages to regenerate complete skin structures, it provides us a rare opportunity to understand how to improve our design of hydrogel scaffolds for deep dermal wound healing. On the basis of our findings, more efficient and personalized hydrogel scaffolds may be developed to further translational medicine.
Yep, I've yet to see any source that shows hair grows in any scar in a mouse or any mammal spontaneously... The only time hair grows back is with the process of regeneration near the appendage, not scarring. I have nothing against errors, we all make them, but the premise that hair grows in scarring spontaneously, without human intervention, is clearly misinformation which harms accurate information.
I would have brought up your last Sun source if I had it http://www.jscimedcentral.com/Regenerative/Articles/regenerative-2-1007.pdf in it another point is brought up that explains collagen 1 in scarring antagonises appendage growth...
The only time appendages have ever regenerated back is through wounding and then regeneration, where a human intervention into a wound has promoted regeneration around a hair, not scarring.. Or from grafting and transplantation of hairs and tissue which is more human intervention. (This has been done since 1959 in humans)
From Wikipedia:
Sweat glands and hair follicles do not grow back within scar tissues.
From Yahoo answers:
Does hair grow back over a scar?
No it doesn't. Sweat glands and hair follicles do not grow back within scar tissue. Sometimes hair growing from hair follicles on the surrounding healthy skin, close to the scarred area, gives the impression that the hair is actually growing from the scar tissue itself. This is especially the case in strangely shaped scars(where there may be a very tiny patch of healthy skin, surrounded by scar tissue). But to repeat: It is impossible for hair to grow on scar tissue.
From this website:
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/growing-hair-on-scars/
There is some good news. Scientists noticed that in some mice, if the scar met a minimum size, hair grew back after all. This meant that new hair follicles were being generated in these mice. The only cell type that can pull off such a feat is a stem cell.
Scientists studied the mice to figure out how this was happening, and found that the source of the new hair follicles wasnt hair follicle stem cells, as expected, but epidermal stem cells. This is surprising because adult stem cells are typically more limited in the types of cells they can produce. Only a hair follicle stem cell would be expected to be able to generate all the cell types needed to build a hair follicle.
Upon further study, scientists discovered that a protein important in hair follicle development, Wnt, was present in mice that grew hair in their wounds, and not present in mice that did not. This is useful information for people suffering unwanted bald patches from scars.
Scientists may be able to use this protein to help people grow new hair follicles. The one downside is that the new hair follicles in mice lack melanocytes, the cells that give hair its color. Then again, if scientists can manage to help people grow new hair follicles, adding pigment may be small potatoes.
From this article by (among others) Dr. Sun:
http://www.jscimedcentral.com/Regenerative/Articles/regenerative-2-1007.pdf
Our recent study has demonstrated that a dextran-based hydrogel devoid of growth factors and stem cells promoted dermal regeneration with complete skin appendages on a third degree burn injury. The dextran hydrogel might have induced signaling molecules and activated stem cells that helped reconstruct the embryonic skin niche for intact skin regeneration. Although much is still unknown about how dextran scaffold coordinates cell lineages to regenerate complete skin structures, it provides us a rare opportunity to understand how to improve our design of hydrogel scaffolds for deep dermal wound healing. On the basis of our findings, more efficient and personalized hydrogel scaffolds may be developed to further translational medicine.
Debating about whether or not the hydrogel will work is ridiculous because no one knows for sure. It could work, or it could not work. Who knows?
I'm more interested in opinions on when everyone thinks the human trials will begin.
Also, I posted an article about electric fields ablating scar tissue and ending up with complete regeneration, the same as with the hydrogel. This would be helpful for people not willing to remove chunks of skin for regeneration.
Here's the official scientific paper:
I'm just happy to know the world is headed towards a scar-free future. I hope it happens soon though I mean it's 2014 already.
Seabs135
Lazy what? I have been Reading all the cites Word by Word several times,so do your homework same as I do,
In the first one, you can see that mice heal mainly by contracion (scarless) than humans,
in the others you can see that mice have better ability to regrow hair tan humans.
Did I mention any hair regrow naturally and spontaneously in scars? Of course no, so do you think that make a third degree burn on a mouse and then put the hydrogel over the wound is hair regrow spontaneously,
This is what they did with the hydrogel, scarless with some hair regrow that is all.
I repeat, how many times the hydrogel has been tested? one, has been tested in humans? no, has been tested by independent researchers? no.
As far as I know Dr Sun was part of the researchers group actually I have been in contact with him by email
So he is not a independent researcher.
Why the researchers are so cautious? because they are not sure, meanwhile the hydrogel can be a good candidate for skin scarless?, scarfree? will see.
Seabs135 Please read carefully, and do your homework before post. You have nothing to refute me.
Debating about whether or not the hydrogel will work is ridiculous because no one knows for sure. It could work, or it could not work. Who knows?
I'm more interested in opinions on when everyone thinks the human trials will begin.
Also, I posted an article about electric fields ablating scar tissue and ending up with complete regeneration, the same as with the hydrogel. This would be helpful for people not willing to remove chunks of skin for regeneration.
Here's the official scientific paper:
I'm just happy to know the world is headed towards a scar-free future. I hope it happens soon though I mean it's 2014 already.
Whoever is running the Scarless Healing/Dextran Hydrogel facebook page said human trials will likely begin late 2014. But it's probably all speculation at this point. I'm still going to hope that he/she chose that date because of inside intel.
Even so, the trials will probably be confined to recent burn victims and other catastrophes rather than acne scar sufferers
ARG, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT ANY LONGER!!!
I know scarring has been such a traumatic part of everyone's life on this forum, but I can speak for myself and say that I've learned so much about myself. This whole ordeal has only made me a stronger person and I'm sure it's done the same for all of you. Think positive and great things will happen. I truly believe that.
I should take a break from this thread
Repola, to save time Im going to go through what you have just stated.
This all goes back to here
In this post you posted
Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t. (<<<check that as that is the premise)
The premise here is Mice can sometimes regrow hair over scar tissue, and humans can't. (<<<This premise is fixed)
Ill go through your reply:
First you state, I have been Reading all the cites Word by Word several times,so do your homework same as I do,
But you have not done your homework. All your citations clearly do not validate the premise on post 5176. Just to remind you of the premise, Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t. Therefore your sources have to validate the premise, if they dont you clearly have not done your homework.
Next you stated In the first one, you can see that mice heal mainly by contracion (scarless) than humans,
The above has got nothing to do with the premise Mice can in sometimes can regrow hair over scar tissue, and humans cant.
Also, contraction, is NOT related to something without a scar. Contraction when it goes on to long can be a serious problem in burns leading to contracture.
Contraction comes about with scarring, and contraction brings varying gradations of inflexibility and deformities to the patient with a scar. In wound healing, in wounds that heal with complete regeneration contracture does not happen.
I was going highlight this error, in my original post, but I decided against it out of respect and to cut the flaming, (you may have thought I was being funny?) and to stick to the conveyed premise you STILL have not proven.
Next you state in the others you can see that mice have better ability to regrow hair tan humans.
I honestly think you are trolling here. There is absolutely no evidence presented for that claim you have now just made. Basically what you have presented some mice studies on mice which has nothing to do with your premise, and a reinventing the wheel with regards to transplant grafting (first out in 1959 which also has nothing to do with the original premise)
Back on to the original premise, this also does not address the premise of Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t.
Next you stated, Did I mention any hair regrow naturally and spontaneously in scars? Of course no, so do you think that make a third degree burn on a mouse and then put the hydrogel over the wound is hair regrow spontaneously,
Yes you did. Have a look at your premise: Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t. You explained that mice can regrow hair over scar tissue.
Btw, with the hydrogel, this is not what you believe. It is what the paper states or concludes.
Next you stated This is what they did with the hydrogel, scarless with some hair regrow that is all.
Again you are moving away from the premise.
The paper clearly states complete skin regeneration with appendages.
Next you state I repeat, how many times the hydrogel has been tested? one, has been tested in humans? no, has been tested by independent researchers? no.
Again you are moving away from the premise.
And you dont say. However it got complete regeneration against a state of the art control. I give up.
Next you stated: As far as I know Dr Sun was part of the researchers group actually I have been in contact with him by email So he is not an independent researcher.
Again you are moving away from the premise.
And you dont say. The paper was independently reviewed.
Next you state, Why the researchers are so cautious? because they are not sure, meanwhile the hydrogel can be a good candidate for skin scarless?, scarfree? will see.
Again you are moving away from the premise.
And if you could translate English you would see it has advanced under current standards and protocol set out by the FDA. With angel investors. And it is expected to be a parallel process.
Next you stated, Seabs135 Please read carefully, and do your homework before post. You have nothing to refute me.
Are you serious?. You have walked away from the premise on every statement.
Seabs135
Lazy what? I have been Reading all the cites Word by Word several times,so do your homework same as I do,
In the first one, you can see that mice heal mainly by contracion (scarless) than humans,
in the others you can see that mice have better ability to regrow hair tan humans.
Did I mention any hair regrow naturally and spontaneously in scars? Of course no, so do you think that make a third degree burn on a mouse and then put the hydrogel over the wound is hair regrow spontaneously,
This is what they did with the hydrogel, scarless with some hair regrow that is all.
I repeat, how many times the hydrogel has been tested? one, has been tested in humans? no, has been tested by independent researchers? no.
As far as I know Dr Sun was part of the researchers group actually I have been in contact with him by email
So he is not a independent researcher.
Why the researchers are so cautious? because they are not sure, meanwhile the hydrogel can be a good candidate for skin scarless?, scarfree? will see.
Seabs135 Please read carefully, and do your homework before post. You have nothing to refute me.
Dr Sun is no longer involved in the project and has left JHU and Columbia...
I repeat how many times the hydrogel has been tested? one, Has been tested in humans?no, has been tested by independent researchers? no
I have been following your answers to the people and you are always trying to attack in the forum, you can not answer any of my questions.
You are 100% sure the hydrogel is going to work, I am happy for you, what are you doin in here? trying to convince people like a politician,
But if you want to convince somebody why dont you burn your fucking face with some petrol then I will be 100% sure.
I am not going to reply to you any more, I use to reply to asholes but no more thanks.
Repola, I'm not fighting anyone. You brought up a premise and gave misleading sources to validate a premise. I have pointed it out because it is misinformation. You also brought forward a mistake that contraction was less scar, which I left alone, as I suspected that could flame something.
With regards to me answering questions, I answer via what has been quoted, or what the science states. With regards to me attacking anyone. How can I attack someone if I quote off a paper, or from an article?
How to re-grow hair
Recently, scientists stumbled onto the finding that, at least in mice, hair will sometimes re-grow after wounding. They were studying how wounds heal in mice and noticed that sometimes hair grew back. And sometimes not.
This was surprising. Why? Because scientists thought that losing hair because of scarring was permanent.
Hair grows out of hair follicles. Since hair follicles are like "mini organs," scientists thought they only formed when a fetus grows in the womb. Like how your liver or your lungs only form as a fetus.
So hair re-growing in the wounds was completely unexpected. To figure out what was going on, the scientists wounded adult mice by cutting away some of the back skin.
The wounds needed to be at least half the size of the mouse's back to form new hairs. Any smaller and hair follicles didn't form.
They weren't sure why the wound had to be that big. But they wanted to learn more about how the hair grew back in. And if the process was similar to what happens when we're in the womb.
How could the scientists answer these questions? First off, they needed to understand how hair forms in an embryo.
Turns out, we already know a lot of what is going on there. We know some of the key genes and proteins that cause hair growth.
So they looked to see if one of the key players in hair development, KRT17, was involved in growing hair after wounding. And it was.
KRT17 showed up in the new hair follicles at about the same time it would be expressed in embryonic hair follicles. So these hair follicles developed similar to embryonic hair follicles.
provide insights to the
relative importance of these processes in wound closure. In rodents, which have a
mobile integument, contraction accounts for almost all of wound closure; in the human,
where the skin is tethered to subcutaneous tissues, contraction accounts for little more
than a third of the closure process.
(Contraction in rodents mean less scar) in humans mean deformation) why because in humans the skin is tethered to the subcutaneous tissues.
http://www.scar-club.com/pdf/journal/SCAR Journal Vol 1_Yannas edited.pdf
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news58
The way of healing in mice and humans is different so be cautious with the hydrogel.
Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t. (<<<check that as that is the premise you stated)
The premise here is Mice can sometimes regrow hair over scar tissue, and humans can't. (<<<This premise is fixed)
The premise has NOT been changed and it is now NOT (hence the goal posts have not been moved): Mice can regrow hair in and around scar tissue, after human intervention brings some regenerative and support tissue inside a wound. Example a human wounding and applying a product or tissue that bring regeneration to create a hair (<<<This is NOT your original premise).
1. again none of the sources prove Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t. like you stated instead >>> they show a human created a wound, and there was a small regeneration response after human intervention.
2. Contraction, has nothing whatsoever to do with less scar. Stating that is ignorance. And using your latest source that actually contradicts what you are saying, to state that contraction means something it is not, is serious ignorance.
I know what contraction is. Contraction comes with scar tissue and is the result of contraction of scar tissue; or scarring is secondary to contraction, btw this is actually stated in your source, (do you now still believe contraction means less scar?)... Usually contraction leaves the wound, however If contraction goes on and is on a big area wound, you get contracture, a serious problem. Contraction brings mechanical deformation (this is stated in one of your sources btw).
Anyway for the last time, lets look at your sources, even though you have misinformed, on every source you have brought up:
First lets look at your second source. Your second source here http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news58 shows nothing about contraction, or anything about hair growing out of scar without human intervention. It does not prove: Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t.. It is invalid and should not have been used.
It has hair regeneration in mice after wounding and the application of a product (human intervention).
Your first source was left dead. However, looking at the url it roughly matches what you posted before.
I think this is your first source in post 5195: http://www.scar-club.com/pdf/journal/SCAR%20Journal%20Vol%201_Yannas%20edited.pdf and this addresses contraction. But get this: it completely contradicts everything you are saying.
Im going to keep this short as possible. You are misinformed.
Now you state, "Contraction in rodents mean less scar", the paper also does not back that up. The paper argues that scarring happens because of contraction and in the summary it states treatments that limit contraction reduce scarring.
Here is what it states in your document on the first paragraph. Quote, Healing of deep skin wounds in the adult mammal takes place by the processes of wound contraction and scar formation. There is evidence that scar formation is secondary to contraction. Efforts to block scar formation can therefore benefit from strategies for blocking contraction.<<< Please, please read that (on the first paragraph), this contradicts everything you state about contraction being less scar (and I wont shout, but I cannot believe you are actually using this document). The paragraph states stopping contraction on ALL 'mammals' could stop scarring; it does not state contraction is less scar tissue, therefor we need contraction.
But more importantly in the summary it quotes: Wound contraction establishes a plane tensile stress field in a skin wound which appears to be required for scar formation. Blocking of wound contraction by biologically active scaffolds leads to induced regeneration. Again this source does not back up what you state. Where does it summarize contraction means less scar? It will only take you a few sentences. This source should have not been used.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but would anyone with acne scars believe me if I said they had nothing to worry about? Because you don't!
Debating about whether or not the hydrogel will work is ridiculous because no one knows for sure. It could work, or it could not work. Who knows?
I'm more interested in opinions on when everyone thinks the human trials will begin.
Also, I posted an article about electric fields ablating scar tissue and ending up with complete regeneration, the same as with the hydrogel. This would be helpful for people not willing to remove chunks of skin for regeneration.
Here's the official scientific paper:
I'm just happy to know the world is headed towards a scar-free future. I hope it happens soon though I mean it's 2014 already.
Great post! Thanks for the link, it's definitely something to keep our eyes on!
You know what's funny about all these researchers? They must not talk or read up on one another at all! I found an article about this study and this is a quote from the senior author of the paper, Martin Yarmush:
Previously, scarless regeneration has only been observed in adult amphibians and early in mammalian fetuses, both of which do not have an adaptive immune response. Even though our rodents had an intact adaptive immune system, we were able to generate scarless skin regeneration in these adult mammals. Further study of this technique will help us better understand the mechanism of scarring. - Martin Yarmush
This study was published almost 2 years after the dextran hydrogel paper and yet he claims that the regenerative results they achieved were a first! I'm not saying he's lying or ignoring the other data, I think it's just that he doesn't know it exists at all. It's baffling to me that people working in the same sphere of research can be so ignorant about what others are doing. I guess their myopia probably serves them well in terms of accomplishing their own goals, but you have to wonder if a more collaborative approach would bring results more quickly.
Regardless, thanks again!
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.
Nonsense! 40 years from now we will have artificial lab-grown organs (all exepct the brain), the 'human body shop' and life extension therapies so we can live 150 years, people will not die from cancer, heart disease and organ failures, and generally speaking new technologies such as 3D printing, targeted drug deliveries, brain computer interface, tissue engineering and stem cells will reach the stage of almost total perfection, I believe that genomic medicine probably won't reach the stage of total perfection in 40 years, however it will be much more advanced than it is now. And scars will be an ancient history.
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.
Nonsense! 40 years from now we will have artificial lab-grown organs (all exepct the brain), the 'human body shop' and life extension therapies so we can live 150 years, people will not die from cancer, heart disease and organ failures, and generally speaking new technologies such as 3D printing, targeted drug deliveries, brain computer interface, tissue engineering and stem cells will reach the stage of almost total perfection, I believe that genomic medicine probably won't reach the stage of total perfection in 40 years, however it will be much more advanced than it is now. And scars will be an ancient history.
Great! Cant wait for my 70th birthday
meh