Acne.org Products
Golfpanther and bozo, your main debate is actually that for bozo: you belive that atrophic scarring lack of any tissue... so while DE is an ECM it can be injectible and simply fill the void . That is where i disagree with you... Atrophic scar cannot regenerate because it HAS a scar tissue of a certain area which prohibit regeneration...
the only way to remove the scar is cut out an area of scar tissue, not just inject an ECM
Just imagine that scar tissue is like a wall, blocking air. In this case, air is our normal skin cells..
The only way for air to circulate is remove the wall, not make a small hole in the doror
Thecureforscars, in the interest of allowing you to understand the pathology of your condition, allow me to yet again explain:
Hypertrophic scarring does in fact possess this "wall" as you describe it. This is what is medically known as scar tissue, or an over expression of collagen in response to healing. This dense deposit of collagen prevents cells from mobilizing into the wound site and repairing damage. Atrophy, however, does not possess any scar tissue. It is categorically an absence of tissue, including scar tissue. This is why I do not like to refer to atrophy as "atrophic scarring," as this perpetuates confusion. Theories aside, as I think both Golfpanther and I have made our points, this is a scientific, medical, and undeniable fact of atrophy. I just wanted to clear up any confusion that you might be experiencing on the subject.
And yes, I can relate! By the time I get out of college, DHG should be on the market, or very nearly there. Though, I suspect by then, I will not care very much, as I will be more concerned with devoting finances to my future family. I think the issue will become less and less pressing for me as my life unfolds. I can rest assured knowing that my kids will never struggle with acne or scarring due to developing treatments, and that they will be some fine mamajamas.
The resveratrol I bought failed to make a noticable improvement.
But there is still hope. I have done additional research and ordered something different that I have great faith will work. If so, I'll be able to confirm this within 2-3 days.
Watch this space.
Thanks for your efforts
Looks like my order will arrive a bit later than expected. I had thought it would reach me either yesterday (wednesday) or today (thursday) but it didn't so I'm hoping for tomorrow friday instead. If I'm very unlucky I might have to wait until next week (monday or tuesday).
If the thing I've ordered does work to treat my hypertrophic scars, partially or completely, I will link to the product here.
Article just published today:
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2014-11-20-wnt-signaling-and-cell-reprogramming.aspx
"While investigating a rare genetic disorder, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine have discovered that a ubiquitous signaling molecule is crucial to cellular reprogramming, a finding with significant implications for stem cell-based regenerative medicine, wound repair therapies and potential cancer treatments."
...
"Weve shown that WNT signaling is required for cellular reprogramming, said Willert. Some of the processes that occur during cellular reprogramming resemble those that occur during regenerative processes and wound repair. For example, limb regeneration in organisms like axolotl and zebrafish require cells at the injury site to de-differentiate (change their function) and then rebuild the damaged tissue. WNT is essential for these amazing regenerative processes."
Has anyone heard of Interleukin-10? I was reading the abstract from an article from earlier this year that I hadn't seen yet. (Unfortunately the full text requires you to fork over cash).
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/wound.2013.0461
Quotation: "Efforts to develop IL-10 as an anti-scarring agent have demonstrated promising results."
Here's another one from the same journal in case you're curious:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/wound.2013.0471
As I said, the full text requires you to pay, and I'm not advertising for you to pay, but even the abstracts are interesting to read.
I also did a search and found that someone was talking about IL-10 back in 2008:
If the DH is supposed result in scar-free healing, why does Gemstone feel that by incorporating growth factors and/or stem cells it will further enhance cell recruitment and vascularization to improve wound healing? I suppose they are referring to large and / or chronic wounds as opposed to acute wounds, the latter of which would result in scar-free healing with just the use of the DH alone.
If the DH is supposed result in scar-free healing, why does Gemstone feel that by incorporating growth factors and/or stem cells it will further enhance cell recruitment and vascularization to improve wound healing? I suppose they are referring to large and / or chronic wounds as opposed to acute wounds, the latter of which would result in scar-free healing with just the use of the DH alone.
Well, some of this has to do with Gerecht's lab and their initial aims for the research. Originally, the dextran hydrogel paper for which we are all now acutely aware of, wasn't expected to give complete regeneration in a mouse. Their findings were a complete shock because they hypothesized going into the study that it would achieve better results than the control and other existing methods, but nothing close to complete regeneration.
The idea all along was to test out the DH, see how well it performed and then introduce stem cells and other growth factors to improve it. But you can't really improve on complete regeneration so that kind of put everything into a state of flux, because they weren't (and to my knowledge, still aren't) sure of how the DH worked so well.
As you said, I think part of why they're moving ahead with that is for hard to heal wounds that might need something extra to get the desired result and also because that was the through-line of the research all along. But they are still testing the DH by itself without anything added so it seems we're still on track.
So, what's it looking like, then? Three years at the earliest? I wonder how long it'll take for it to hit the market after the first human trials in mid-late 2016.
One concern that I have the DHG is that, if the existing acne scar must be excised before DHG is administered, then that will get very expensive very fast. For example, I have well over 50 scars on my face. At $250 per excision (which is generous), that's at least $12,000. This doesn't even factor in the cost of the hydrogel itself. Not to mention the downtime and physical pain that would accompany so many excisions. One could pick and choose which scars would be excised, but it almost doesn't seem worth it.
I wonder if it's possible to utilize the hydrogel in a different way but still get results. I mentioned injection before. That could potentially be beneficial for scars, provided the wound bed created by the needle is severe enough to warrant a sufficient wound repair response. Perhaps a laser could be utilized before administering the hydrogel. I'd imagine that would work to an extent, even if it doesn't achieve 100% improvement. I'd rather have 70% global improvement at $3,500 than 100% improvement on isolated scars at upwards of $12,000.
Yeah, I think light/laser treatment followed by hydrogel treatment is the best bet if injection isn't effective. Injection would certainly be the cheapest, most ideal option.
Another issue will be actually finding doctors that will be willing to use hydrogel on their patients, let alone for acne scar treatment. As far as I know, the hydrogel's current purpose is primarily to treat wounds, not get rid of scars. Someone would have to convince a doctor to try something new (which doctors are not very fond of). And, like I said, the most effective method of administering the hydrogel would have to be discovered, whether it be after excision, laser treatment, or through injection. Then, we'd have to convince a doctor follow this course of treatment. I'd imagine it would be difficult to find a willing doctor locally for many of us, so travelling out of the area would most likely be required. However, this time away coupled with the downtime from the treatment may not be acceptable as many of us have jobs and other responsibilities.
There are definitely some obstacles. What do you guys think?
So, what's it looking like, then? Three years at the earliest? I wonder how long it'll take for it to hit the market after the first human trials in mid-late 2016.
One concern that I have the DHG is that, if the existing acne scar must be excised before DHG is administered, then that will get very expensive very fast. For example, I have well over 50 scars on my face. At $250 per excision (which is generous), that's at least $12,000. This doesn't even factor in the cost of the hydrogel itself. Not to mention the downtime and physical pain that would accompany so many excisions. One could pick and choose which scars would be excised, but it almost doesn't seem worth it.
I wonder if it's possible to utilize the hydrogel in a different way but still get results. I mentioned injection before. That could potentially be beneficial for scars, provided the wound bed created by the needle is severe enough to warrant a sufficient wound repair response. Perhaps a laser could be utilized before administering the hydrogel. I'd imagine that would work to an extent, even if it doesn't achieve 100% improvement. I'd rather have 70% global improvement at $3,500 than 100% improvement on isolated scars at upwards of $12,000.
Yeah, I think light/laser treatment followed by hydrogel treatment is the best bet if injection isn't effective. Injection would certainly be the cheapest, most ideal option.
Another issue will be actually finding doctors that will be willing to use hydrogel on their patients, let alone for acne scar treatment. As far as I know, the hydrogel's current purpose is primarily to treat wounds, not get rid of scars. Someone would have to convince a doctor to try something new (which doctors are not very fond of). And, like I said, the most effective method of administering the hydrogel would have to be discovered, whether it be after excision, laser treatment, or through injection. Then, we'd have to convince a doctor follow this course of treatment. I'd imagine it would be difficult to find a willing doctor locally for many of us, so travelling out of the area would most likely be required. However, this time away coupled with the downtime from the treatment may not be acceptable as many of us have jobs and other responsibilities.
There are definitely some obstacles. What do you guys think?
The cost of the procedure when using excision is definitely something to think about. It's not going to be cheap since you'd need an anesthesiologist and a surgeon of some kind. Given the nature of removing scars with precision (as would be needed on the face) I'm guessing they would require some training that would increase cost. Still, while it's a hurdle it will be overcome due to how much money could be made. Driving down costs to make it more affordable to a greater number of people (especially with something so many would want) is inevitable, but yes, it might take some time.
While it might vary in some areas, I don't see it being too big of an issue finding a doctor if the results are the same in humans. Yes, as I wrote above I think they'd need some specialized training, but if you're a dermatology office that's already doing scar revision surgeries, which require excision, then you're already set up to implement something like this. The potential revenues would make it a no brainer.
One thing that is genuinely odd (at least to me) about the medical community is how little doctors seem to know about the research that is going on. So Gemstone will likely need to be active and effective with their marketing in order for the product to reach the ears and then hands of the doctors that could do it.
It's tough to say on lasers, but yes, that would be preferable if it could achieve the same results or at least results people could find sufficient. However, i don't think lasers that are currently being used would ablate the surface deep enough for the hydrogel to work the way that it was used in the research paper. And I don't think there's anyway of knowing at this point what the tangible benefit would be if the surface of the skin was only ablated to a moderate depth.
Scar excision costs around $1500. Now, I'd imagine that if you had several scars on your face the surgeon would remove a large portion of your skin that encompassed several scars instead of just excisions for each individual scar (this would likely include healthy tissue around the scars, but if the hydrogel achieved complete regeneration this wouldn't be an issue). Then the hydrogel would be placed over the resulting wound bed to completely regenerate the entire area. Obviously, this method only makes sense if complete regeneration with the dextran hydrogel is possible in humans. No one would want perfectly good skin being excised to come back at less than perfect. 
with full ablative lasers CO2 & Erbium you can go as deep as you need and they are much more precise, they can ablate layer by layer, micron by micron or a deep ablation in one time, it depends on the power settings, normaly for resurfacing they do not go very deep because of the risk of scarring, but they are surgical lasers useful to remove even cancer tissue precisely, so you can go any deep you need.
So it is possible to create a wound bed in each scar without touching good skin.
If anyone wants to visit Gemstone's website you can go here.
http://gem-bio.com.s198477.gridserver.com/
You can ask questions and keep up with their work.
To Rudy,
The Hydrogel is made to treat wounds leaving no scars behind. However, I believe it can treat already existing scars by doing an excision and applying the Hydrogel. This includes acne scars or any atrophic scarring. I don't think the age of the scar matters but I am uncertain of all of this. (I emailed Gemstone about this just to see if this is right)
For now just wait and see. On their website Human Clinical Trials are planned in 2016 so hopefully it will be marketed and commercialized in like 2017.
I will occasionally visit their site in case of update and news of the Hydrogel.
I hope this answered your questions.
is this similar? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dsu.12204/pdf
is this similar? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dsu.12204/pdf
Only in the sense that it aims to address scar tissue of some type.
However, these injections are only meant to provide (at best) improvement for existing scars and against the control for the experiment.
The hydrogel's aim (and results in mice) are aimed at providing complete regeneration. For example, the treatment you linked to it would not be able to restore appendages (hair for example) or completely healthy skin whereas the hydrogel is intended to provide both. Of course, no one knows with any certainty that it will work on humans the same as it did on mice, but that is the hope.
is this similar? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dsu.12204/pdf
Only in the sense that it aims to address scar tissue of some type.
However, these injections are only meant to provide (at best) improvement for existing scars and against the control for the experiment.
The hydrogel's aim (and results in mice) are aimed at providing complete regeneration. For example, the treatment you linked to it would not be able to restore appendages (hair for example) or completely healthy skin whereas the hydrogel is intended to provide both. Of course, no one knows with any certainty that it will work on humans the same as it did on mice, but that is the hope.
Where did you hear that hydrogel aimed at providing complete regeneration?
