Acne.org Products
SO I understand the need/desire to continue to cite one-off scientific papers and indulge in fantasies of the pseudo-science varieties, but I do not have evidence that any of this now or soon will lead to any sort of predictable cure or even a 70 percent improvement in acne scars (deep, rolling, depressed, icepick, you know what I'm talking about). NONE. No real before and after pictures and please don't tell me something looks promising or will "soon" be here. This thread was started 7 years AGO!!!! And people SEVEN years ago were saying the same thing, so if anyone has concrete evidence I'm not going to be impressed, i.e. someone with real scars fixed of those scars. Okay? Now carry on with this pointless discussion, it's amusing but I suppose that's all we can do.
Also many of you here are probably just kids or something, but look at this paper about the matrix tunale laser that is supposed to produce up to 50 percent improvment!!!! LOOK AT THIS CRAAAAAAP!!!! Assuming the doctors here would have posted the results of their BEST patient outcomes. LOOK AT THE IMPROVEMENT:
ZERO IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!! They just changed the light and the angle of the photograph in the before and afters. After FOUR!!! Treatments this laser did NOTHING. If you track a single scar in both the before and after it's still there and not 1 percent improvement leave alone 50!!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956966/ Guys there's nothing and won't be for at least 50 years.
I initially figured I would just not reply and leave you to your pessimism, but what the heck, I'll bite. Plus, you're negatively influencing some of the impressionable people of this forum, and that's something that one must be very cautious of.
First of all, I'll take the obvious route of argument and say that there in fact is compelling scientific evidence to support a hopeful perception of the future of scarring, i.e. DHG, resveratrol, and decorin.
Secondly, in a few of your other posts, you allude to stem cell treatment as if it is the only anti-scarring method being examined, or as if it is the only potentially effective option. This is not true. While I agree that it may be many years before we see significant progress in stem cell therapy, this is not indicative of the potential progress toward scar-free healing in its entirety. Again, take a look at DHG, resveratrol, and decorin.
Thirdly, your argument that scar-free healing hasn't been achieved in the past 7 years, therefore it won't be achieved within the next 50, is completely baseless. We didn't have internet for thousands of years, and yet, here we are, posting on an electronic forum because an individual/s took the initiative to accomplish something that hadn't been accomplished before. Would it have been beneficial for society to say, "Don't get your hopes up, guys. We haven't had the internet for so long, we probably won't be getting it any time soon." The obvious answer is no, because the time it takes for something to be accomplished does not exponentially grow according to the time that has already passed. Otherwise, nothing would ever have been accomplished. In fact, the opposite is true. The longer you've been working toward something, the closer you are toward finishing. As I'm sure you've noticed, my reasoning should be painfully apparent and logical to any individual. Where did you get the number 50 from, anyhow? What evidence is indicative of that particular number?
Fourthly, I fail to see how comparing one completely unique method of treatment to other entirely unique methods of treatment is productive or relevant. Perhaps the laser you speak of didn't achieve optimum results. Lasers are rather infamous for this reason. However, that does not in any way indicate the effectiveness of DHG, resveratrol, or decorin.
Fifthly, cheer up, and stop attempting to crush the hopes of a vulnerable community with an imaginary boot.
On this thread I'm puzzled by: 1. The bizarre denial of evidence, doing so as if they say evidence is something 'telling you' something from someones point of view. Something shown inside a document published in the PNAS, is not someone telling you something from a point of view. This is actually first rate evidence; denying it is madness. It is there for posterity. 2. The abuse to posters for showing cited evidence. 3. The ignorant assumption that historical evidence is optimism/pessimism. Stating, 'Im optimistic that XYZ won the cup in some sport in 1988,' is a fallacy. We know someone won the cup in 1988 by reading documents. 4. The platform sharing with regards to different standards and pseudoscience, which in turn obscures evidence. 5. The blind referring to the future, instead of looking at the evidence. I have yet to see any document signed, witnessed and dated from the future. And in all other logic examples I can think of, I can think of no situation where people ignore historical evidence in favor of pessimistic/opportunistic shouting. Example if someone has evidence of the motor bike, they dont then ignore that evidence and then look to the future with optimism/pessimism with regards to bikes..
On this thread I'm puzzled by: 1. The bizarre denial of evidence, doing so as if they say evidence is something 'telling you' something from someones point of view. Something shown inside a document published in the PNAS, is not someone telling you something from a point of view. This is actually first rate evidence; denying it is madness. It is there for posterity. 2. The abuse to posters for showing cited evidence. 3. The ignorant assumption that historical evidence is optimism/pessimism. Stating, 'Im optimistic that XYZ won the cup in some sport in 1988,' is a fallacy. We know someone won the cup in 1988 by reading documents. 4. The platform sharing with regards to different standards and pseudoscience, which in turn obscures evidence. 5. The blind referring to the future, instead of looking at the evidence. I have yet to see any document signed, witnessed and dated from the future. And in all other logic examples I can think of, I can think of no situation where people ignore historical evidence in favor of pessimistic/opportunistic shouting. Example if someone has evidence of the motor bike, they dont then ignore that evidence and then look to the future with optimism/pessimism with regards to bikes..
Finally, someone with reasoning that I can agree with. However, I don't believe that optimism is something to be frowned upon, or that the optimism expressed within this forum is entirely appropriate to your logic. I believe that the aforementioned optimism simply comes from a place of hoping that the results of the recently discovered treatments will prove consistent to their effectiveness when human trials are carried out.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your level head. I'm not sure why many people of this forum insist on sulking and spreading false negativity, even when an effective treatment for their condition has been clearly displayed to them.
Bozo, I agree with you. But I think we have a tiny semantic difference with the meaning of the word optimism... To me optimism (or pessimism) can get mixed up. Some one can think it comes from when you close your eyes and spin a bottle. However, to me, when you have scientific information with a reliable control, giving you historic info, you expect something; and this to me is different to optimism/pessimism. It is reasoning, a reliable scientific expectancy. I personally like to use the term expectancy. Imo, this is because expectancy has data backing it up. The expectancy here is huge.
Seabs135
The only thing i fear is that when they able to regenerate skin, with hair follicles and sebaceous glands , they fail on restoring the texture to what it was previously before injury
It would be physically impossible for this to happen. The significance of the regeneration of hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands cannot be taken lightly enough. This has, to my knowledge, never been seen before within the medical community. The only reason that scars have their characteristic non-uniform texture is because when our skin becomes injured, the body goes into a panic mode of sorts, and replaces all of the small, uniform collagen with large, densely packed collagen. This over expression of collagen causes the appearance of a scar, and inhibits cells from penetrating into the wound site and properly regenerating the tissue. Since we know that the regeneration of glands and follicles is far more complex and on a deeper level than simply administering proper collagen expression, we can conclude that if the Dextran Hydrogel proves to be effective in humans, we should have no fear of remnants of scar texture.
It could be a lot less than 12 years if we are looking at things that are either:
1. Classed as a device and not a drug in which case it takes only a few years of trials, 2-3 years.
2. Already approved and for sale but intended for other purposes, then there is nothing to stop people from buying it to treat scars.
And even if it is classed as a drug it can take quite a bit less than 12 years, for example this company,
http://www.scarxtherapeutics.com/
is developing a drug against scars, I contacted them and they think it will be approved early next decade, so that will be 7-8 years from now.
Seabs135
The only thing i fear is that when they able to regenerate skin, with hair follicles and sebaceous glands , they fail on restoring the texture to what it was previously before injury
It would be physically impossible for this to happen. The significance of the regeneration of hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands cannot be taken lightly enough. This has, to my knowledge, never been seen before within the medical community. The only reason that scars have their characteristic non-uniform texture is because when our skin becomes injured, the body goes into a panic mode of sorts, and replaces all of the small, uniform collagen with large, densely packed collagen. This over expression of collagen causes the appearance of a scar, and inhibits cells from penetrating into the wound site and properly regenerating the tissue. Since we know that the regeneration of glands and follicles is far more complex and on a deeper level than simply administering proper collagen expression, we can conclude that if the Dextran Hydrogel proves to be effective in humans, we should have no fear of remnants of scar texture.
Meaning we will once again return to our old skin?
Hopingforacure, complete regeneration means regeneration exactly like you do when you regenerate non-injured. Incomplete regeneration means regenerating imperfectly with a lot, or a little of collagen over production.
The first paragraph has information cited, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(biology)
They say to enter first human trial on mid to late 2016, animal trial finished at 2015..
What do u guys say ? Whats the ETA to the market for us
Late 2016? Where did you read this?
-- Nevermind I just read it... I really was hoping the first human trial wouldn't be another TWO YEARS away?! 
So this means for the hydrogel we are likely looking at about 5 years from now until it's for sale. (Clinical trials in humans start in 2 years and my estimate is that these take 2.5 years to FDA approval so that's 4.5 years and then add 0.5 years from approval to commercialization.)
I've had my scars for six years so I can easily wait another five years. Hey, the last six years just flew by.
Now I'll just add a speculation here and that is that once it's approved for veterinary use in a year from now I assume it's the same product as will later be approved for human use so I think there can be a possibility to just buy it under the pretense of treating a wounded pet but instead use it on yourself.
What i really doubt is that will it work on old scars. And about the application, who will do it for us?
hi scargone2017
They say to enter first human trial on mid to late 2016, animal trial finished at 2015..
What do u guys say ? Whats the ETA to the market for us
Late 2016? Where did you read this?
-- Nevermind I just read it... I really was hoping the first human trial wouldn't be another TWO YEARS away?!
wtf they have been doing animal trials for 2 years now , how long could it possibly take... what are they even doing...
Relax. Putting up the website means they are confident going forward. The website specifically mentions the dextran hydrogel and before this website there has been nothing but the original research article and the press reporting about it and that was three years ago and since then it has only been this forum thread talking about it in any depth on the entire web.
Think about say... when Obama's presidency began. Feels like pretty recently, right? That was more than five years ago. Time flies.
And I refer you to my above speculation that we could aquire it as soon as it is available for veterinary use which will be in a year or so.
Now I should say I bought resveratrol but it came as powder in capsules and it doesn't seem to absorb into the skin (even when mixing with a gel) so I have started taking it orally in a total of ten capsules so far. I have observed slight improvements as verified by before and after photographs and on about a handful of spots on the scar tissue I see an improvement in the texture meaning a thinner and more "granulated" texture.
And I don't know if the improvement I have seen is because of the resveratrol and if so if it's because of that which I tried to apply directly on the skin or that which I took orally or a combination. I can say that all my scars are past the "remodeling phase" so any improvement shouldn't happen by itself other than reduction of redness which is not what I'm talking about. Keep in mind as I've said before that mine are hypertrophic so I don't know how this translates to acne.
Upon further research, I've come to some conclusions about the differences between hypertrophic and atrophic scarring, resveratrol and decorin, and the potential use of resveratrol and decorin in scar treatment.
I had previously believed that atrophic scarring was simply an over expression of collagen, similar to hypertrophic scarring, and that the depressed appearance was a result of the scar tissue preventing the skin from stretching properly. Dissatisfied with this theory, I began to research the pathology of atrophic scarring. I was woefully disappointed in the lack of verifiable scientific explanation. Many sources claimed that, as opposed to hypertrophy, which is an excess of tissue in response to a wound, atrophy occurs when there is a loss of tissue, be it collagen, muscle, or fat. This explanation seemed logical, but I still failed to understand why, if there isn't any legitimate scar tissue in an atrophic scar, the collagen, muscle, and fat don't simply regenerate. After all, we know that collagen is capable of regenerating, as evidenced by the prevalence of hypertrophic scar tissue after a wound. If the human body was not capable of producing collagen, hypertrophic scars would not exist. And we know that muscles are capable of regenerating as well. And so, this brought me to fat tissue. Evidently, fat cells are not capable of regenerating on their own, or at least, they regenerate at a very slow rate. This would explain why atrophic scars persist in spite of a lack of dense collagen which inhibits proper regeneration. However, this does not explain why acne is more prone to scarring when picked at. Certainly, minor damage to the surface of the skin is not capable of producing loss of fat tissue.
Eager to learn more about the pathology of atrophy, I stumbled upon a research paper that further enlightened me. The research paper stated, "Fibroblasts and keratinocytes produce enzymes including those that determine the architecture of the extracellular matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of MMPs. MMPs are extracellular matrix (ECM) degrading enzymes that interact and form a lytic cascade for ECM remodeling. As a consequence, an imbalance in the ratio of MMPs to tissue inhibitors of MMPs results in the development of atrophic or hypertrophic scars. Inadequate response results in diminished deposition of collagen factors and formation of an atrophic scar while, if the healing response is too exuberant, a raised nodule of fibrotic tissue forms hypertrophic scars." [1] In other words, atrophic scarring is not a scar at all, at least not by common definition. Rather, atrophic scarring is a lack of a scar. This was an intriguing find, but disappointingly, this paper still does not answer the question of why the collagen does not regenerate, and fails to mention loss of fat tissue in the pathology of atrophy.
If this theory of atrophy proves true, it means that resveratrol and decorin may not have an effect on atrophic scarring as previously hoped for. Resveratrol and decorin improve scars primarily via destruction of collagen, which is beneficial in scars which display an over expression of collagen, but may not be beneficial in atrophic scarring. Theoretically, resveratrol/decorin-induced destruction could promote new collagen production in atrophic scarring in a similar manner to that of lasers or chemical peels. However, there is also the possibility that resveratrol and decorin could cause a worsening of the scar and its appearance by further damaging tissue.
In conclusion, it appears that the pathology of hypertrophic scarring is better understood than the pathology of atrophic scarring. I would be thankful for anyone who could point to scientific evidence and research which further clarifies the cause and pathology of atrophic scarring.
Sources:
Now I'll just add a speculation here and that is that once it's approved for veterinary use in a year from now I assume it's the same product as will later be approved for human use so I think there can be a possibility to just buy it under the pretense of treating a wounded pet but instead use it on yourself.
Not unless you have an M.D. accomplice. Excision is a requirement if you are concerned with pre-existing scars.