Acne.org Products
Anyone who hasn't read this article yet should do so immediately:
https://medium.com/matter/could-this-man-hold-the-secret-to-human-regeneration-1e66944f0a8d
It's an older story (2013), but this particular site just posted it now which prompted me to relay it to you.
It's well-written, a fun story to read, and has some amazing insights into what the future may hold for regeneration. The researcher, named Michael Levin, has been studying how electrical signals can be used to tell the body to start regenerating limbs and organs. So far he has only been able to get it to work on frogs, but the article states that his next project, which he is supposedly working on last year to current, is testing mammals - starting with mice. The initial test they are conducting is attempting to regenerate a mouse's digits completely after they have been cut off.
It's different in health care. Have you read any of the peer reviewed journal articles, even ones submitted to prestigious dermatology journals? I can show you dozens of journal articles that have been "vetted" that demonstrate how various laser technologies can lead to up to 50 percent or greater improvement in reducing acne scars. But this simply is not true. The assessment of improvement is completely subjective and the "after" photographs are clearly taken with different lighting or angles or shot scale. Just google Journal of Dermatology or several other publications on lasers and acne scarring. Or, for example, the research literature published on a-cell etc. You have a very idealistic view of science. Real scientists know that there's a lot of murky areas and things aren't black and white when it comes to the application of scientific TECHNOLOGIES for COMMERCIAL interest. These labs are publishing with an eye towards securing funding for up to the next decade!! Do you not understand that? Us inferring from these papers that this will EVENTUALLY help acne scar victims is friggin preposterous. In any case, I'm not interested in further educating you about the real world sociology of scientific communities. I know for a fact that the application of hydrogel with or without laser treatment will not be enough to solve ACNE SCARS, and I don't give a shit what it did for mice who were induced with lesions in this study. It's all fucking irrelevant. Just make peace with your scars and move on with your life. This thread is beyond hopeless and depressing. The technologies for such manipulation of scar tissue are at least two decades away. Goodbye.
What's the basis of comparing laser technologies that aim at some hard to define and subjective improvement to the dextran hydrogel? I completely agree that a lot of the laser treatments are dubious in their efficacy, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The research paper concerning the dextran hydrogel resulted in complete regeneration in mice. There's no way to trick the mind into thinking that using lighting and angles; it either is complete regeneration (with hair, glands etc.) or it isn't.
And you claim to "know for a fact" that the dextran hydrogel with or without laser treatment will not be enough to solve acne scars. Okay, so we're just supposed to take the word of an anonymous message board poster as fact? I see no logic or science involved with that statement whatsoever. I'd never tell you I "know for a fact" that the dextran hydrogel is 100% going to work in humans as it did in mice. That would be a preposterous claim just as yours is for claiming the inverse.
If the papers were existing in a vacuum and solely the product of Gerecht's lab with no clear path toward commercialization, I might agree with your assertion that it would be silly to speculate on what good it might do for actual scar sufferers. But the thing is (as I pointed out before) that the dextran hydrogel is already on the path toward being an actual product and not just a tool her lab could use to secure more funding.
So in your opinion all research and results are just irrelevant? Again, I'm sure some labs publish papers just to secure more grants to keep their operation moving forward. But all signs point to this being something more than just a way to keep Gerecht and her team going. I'm sorry your upset and depressed about the state of things, but your subjective feelings and opinions (like technologies for scar free healing being two decades away) amount to nothing more than shouting into the void.
I've tried Co2 ablative and it caused some serious problems. I've also tried 4 fraxel restores, 4 repairs, and 4 rounds of subcision.
I'm wary of try-it-yourself solutions as I could just make things worse. Also, I'm not sure they're more effective than what I listed above.
Thanks for informing. I'm sorry your treatments weren't successful. Do you have severe scarring? I plan on getting Total Fx plus subcision with a scar expert here in Sd. Clderm.com that is. I have mild shallow rolling and boxcars that look amazing in certain light but sighty in shadow casting lights. I'll be content with 40% improvement after 6 months and won't mind doing another round next year.
In the meamtime I resort to microneedling and saline mini subcision and will continue 6 months after ablative for constant collagen stimulation. I suggest you do same or opt for filler meanwhile. Much luck to everyone
If you get even 10 percent notcieable improvement with all that I'll be VERY surprised. All those treatments are just a cash cow for derms and plastic surgeons.
It's different in health care. Have you read any of the peer reviewed journal articles, even ones submitted to prestigious dermatology journals? I can show you dozens of journal articles that have been "vetted" that demonstrate how various laser technologies can lead to up to 50 percent or greater improvement in reducing acne scars. But this simply is not true. The assessment of improvement is completely subjective and the "after" photographs are clearly taken with different lighting or angles or shot scale. Just google Journal of Dermatology or several other publications on lasers and acne scarring. Or, for example, the research literature published on a-cell etc. You have a very idealistic view of science. Real scientists know that there's a lot of murky areas and things aren't black and white when it comes to the application of scientific TECHNOLOGIES for COMMERCIAL interest. These labs are publishing with an eye towards securing funding for up to the next decade!! Do you not understand that? Us inferring from these papers that this will EVENTUALLY help acne scar victims is friggin preposterous. In any case, I'm not interested in further educating you about the real world sociology of scientific communities. I know for a fact that the application of hydrogel with or without laser treatment will not be enough to solve ACNE SCARS, and I don't give a shit what it did for mice who were induced with lesions in this study. It's all fucking irrelevant. Just make peace with your scars and move on with your life. This thread is beyond hopeless and depressing. The technologies for such manipulation of scar tissue are at least two decades away. Goodbye.
What's the basis of comparing laser technologies that aim at some hard to define and subjective improvement to the dextran hydrogel? I completely agree that a lot of the laser treatments are dubious in their efficacy, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The research paper concerning the dextran hydrogel resulted in complete regeneration in mice. There's no way to trick the mind into thinking that using lighting and angles; it either is complete regeneration (with hair, glands etc.) or it isn't.
And you claim to "know for a fact" that the dextran hydrogel with or without laser treatment will not be enough to solve acne scars. Okay, so we're just supposed to take the word of an anonymous message board poster as fact? I see no logic or science involved with that statement whatsoever. I'd never tell you I "know for a fact" that the dextran hydrogel is 100% going to work in humans as it did in mice. That would be a preposterous claim just as yours is for claiming the inverse.
If the papers were existing in a vacuum and solely the product of Gerecht's lab with no clear path toward commercialization, I might agree with your assertion that it would be silly to speculate on what good it might do for actual scar sufferers. But the thing is (as I pointed out before) that the dextran hydrogel is already on the path toward being an actual product and not just a tool her lab could use to secure more funding.
So in your opinion all research and results are just irrelevant? Again, I'm sure some labs publish papers just to secure more grants to keep their operation moving forward. But all signs point to this being something more than just a way to keep Gerecht and her team going. I'm sorry your upset and depressed about the state of things, but your subjective feelings and opinions (like technologies for scar free healing being two decades away) amount to nothing more than shouting into the void.
Yup, did you see all the stuff that was presented from a-cell and that other whatever it was spray on skin --all of that had research and fda trials inoav, man there've been tons of things and they never worked and they all went through YEARS of stuff.
Seabs135, is that true that HG still classified as class 2 device? I thought i saw somewhere on their website that they are also employing stem cells on their HG
In a few last post of yours, you said that it should be approved between late 2016 to 2017.. as far as i knew clinical trials in human cloud last up to 15 years? Hope what i've read is not true
Thx seabs for your insight earlier
rudy1986, There is nothing dangerous with regards to the device, the device has components in it that have been used and tested for years in humans, and it has been stated the device would be a class1 or 2. On the bio-gem website it also states that human trials should begin in mid to late 2016. With regards to trials in devices, trials in devices are different to trials with drugs, you only need one. and from what I have read a trial or a testing is usually short (months)... And the operational testing is way more open than trials for drugs; trials for drugs and testing for devices are two different things..
Please correct my logic here :
1.They said that they recently completed porcine study, meaning it was already successful in pigs...
2.But they also said that they are currently engaging in pigs AGAIN but this time with acute wounds
Whats the difference between point 1 and 2? I see no difference really..
Can anyone help me ? They finished pig test wasnt it?
Also what is this ambigous word they are using :
Mid-to-late 2016 means :
1. Start mid 2016 end late 2016
2. Start could be mid 2016 or late 2016, while the end still unknown
Which one is it?
Well, I don't think any of us know the answer to that. However, it's doubtful that they'd finish within six months of starting the trials given their track record and how long trials typically take. I'd lean more toward option 2 withe trials wrapping up sometime in 2017 or 2018, but I don't know for sure.
In regards to your questions about the tests on pigs and why they've started up one for acute woundsif you read on their site they explain that the new trials are for immunodeficiencies that would prevent even the normal scar response from taking place (hence, acute wounds). As another poster pointed out, if they can solve that riddle as well by adding stem cells and growth factors that grant someone the ability to heal it would mean a HUGE financial windfall. This is, at least in part, about making money after all. A person with immunodeficiencies doesn't have the same response to injury as someone without them so it's likely things will need to be added to get the same outcome as the dextran hydrogel alone for people whose bodies respond to injury in a non-compromised way.
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/37108
In the link you can find a PDF doc, the hydrogel was degraded by the body "pigs" in five days only, so the scaffold was too soft. Probably the hydrogel needs some adjustings to be more consistent.
The hydrogel has the potential for skin regeneration but pigs and mice degrade the hydrogel at different rate. Mice 21days, pigs 5days, I am not scientist but the hydrogel properties can be adjusted to degrade at slower rate in pigs, around 21days, this is essential for skin regeneration.
i see thx for the info repola
Judging by the timeline , the pdf was published around april or may 2014.... while the website was established at nov 2014 while still stating that they aim for scar free wound healing.. though maybe like i said earlier, it could not meet the timeframe in 2017 or 2018 but longer for FDA approval...
Also the hydrogel degrade faster pigs and blood vessel was observed around the edge..
Before reaching to the center of the wound, the hydrogel was completely digested, so it continues healing like it was before hydrogel being applied, hence normal healing continues?
any thoughts guys?
Just curious, where does it say that the hydrogel was degraded after 21 days in mice? The only thing I can find on the matter seems to indicate that the hydrogel only took about 7 days to completely digest in mice.
With further adjustments to the hydrogel, it will hopefully produce the same results in pigs and ultimately humans that it did in mice. The sheer fact that complete regeneration of skin was provoked in a mammal is unprecedented in and of itself.