Acne.org Products
I'm not trolling. Seabs is full of shit with his sophistry (look it up) about language and what a "thesis" means. A "thesis" is simply an hypothesis which is tested by experimentation. The hypothesis was falsified by the evidence. I clearly know much more about scientific procedure, method and language than Seabs and more importantly all of this wavering and ambiguity in the language from Gemstone is EXACTLY what medical laboratories looking to get more and more venture capital funding do to make their labs more money so as to suggest the possibility that something might work or that it is "promising" when really they have no evidence. MEDICAL SCIENCE IS NOT OBJECTIVE IN THE WAY SEABS is making it out to be. There are many many shades of grey that basically border on lying. Here anyone can read all these papers and see all the ambiguity and the language games that are aimed at securing funding to just pay people's daily and yearly wages. A real product may not even be viable or exist for humans. Trust me. This was the case with ACELL with that spray on skin (I forget what that one was called) and there are several more companies working on the exact same thing, i.e. supposed "skin regeneration". This thread started in 2007, more than 8 YEARS AGO!!!! And the people back then thought they were just around the corner from a breakthrough. Well fast forward 8 years and many have shifted from their 30s to fucking 40s and so will all of you without any ANY chance of any improvement So just leave this thread and come back in 10 years. It won't happen in 2030 or 2040. It might happen in 100 years, but we'll all be dead. Trust me. The promise of "complete skin regeneration" in the way all of us want is a complete science fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously I'm the only one talking ANY sense on this thread. SCIENCE FICTION!!!!
You're not speaking sense, you're just ignorantly clinging to a belief without any evidence to support it save for circular reasoning. You cite novel treatments that have been discussed on this forum in the past as evidence that DHG has no chance of working. That's assinign. That's like saying, "My car broke down on the way to Florida, so a plane will obviously do the same." The destination is the same, but the two methods of reaching it are not correlated or exclusive to each other whatsoever. One's failure can provide no prediction, support, or indication of the other's success. By the way, as far as I know, Acell's Matristem is still a candidate for regeneration. You say that we should just "trust you," but you've provided absolutely no evidence as to why we should. You can't just blatantly say that something isn't going to be effective because you don't think it will be effective. Groundbreaking treatments emerge all the time. Antibiotics are a recent development. Antibiotics were probably something that was outside of the realm of imagination for many people at its conception, and yet, here they are, saving hundreds of thousands of lives each day. I'm sure that 15-20 years ago, people would've laughed in your face if you told them that the Internet was going to be so socially prevalent, and yet, here it is, one of the greatest technological advancements in history. Please don't cling to the way things have been in the past. It makes it very difficult to move forward.
The reason I believe this "total skin regeneration" is impossible is that we do not adequately understand the underlying genetics of scar tissue formation leave and what factors (I'm talking about the interaction of thousands of genes, and their interaction) actually might lead to regeneration. This would be the wholly grail of regenerative medicine if it were possible. Just imagine the applications, it would revolutionize any surgery, cosmetic surgery, aging, leave alone fucking pathetic acne scars. I don't believe it's possible because the problem is way too complex and difficult and moreover may not even be possible. People believe science can achieve human immortality or that science can produce a complete AI consciousness. NO. Those two things will never, ever, ever, ever be created. I know because thinking consciousness can be reduced to simple neuronal connections etc. that can find an analogue in a computer is idiotic, consciousness is embodied and a way way more difficult thing to understand leave alone reproduce. Skin regeneration too is one of those holy grail problems that is an impossibility. But fine you guys wanna keep posting and socializing here and speculating which is basically all this forum has turned into. I'm the only one speaking any sort of real sense here. Once again I will take my leave of this forum and check back in 2016. Anyone wanna take bets we won't be any closer? hahahhahahahaha
I'm a professional software engineer and you are incorrect about AI "consciousness". We will eventually make computers that act nearly identically to human brains. It may take a long time, and it is a complex problem, but it is an inevitability. Elon Musk donated millions very recently to put laws into place to prevent AI from becoming a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking also recently said that the greatest threat to humanity right now aside from global warming is artificial intelligence.
What may make you think that AI superintelligence is impossible is that the current microprocessors have been evolving in a direction diametrically opposite to the computing paradigm of the human brain. However, IBM is developing a neurosynaptic chip codenamed TrueNorth that has an architecture that mimics neurons and synapses. It can perform pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than traditional chips, and consumes orders of magnitudes less energy due to the architecture shift.
This is of course only the beginning, but it's happening. I know this isn't really on topic, but I think this demonstrates that your argument is based more on your emotional state rather than having a logical basis.
Speaking of the human brain, you will never ever be fully satisfied. It is simply the human condition. Even if you were the most handsome rich person on the planet, something would still irk you. I have never met a person that contradicts this and if you think you have then you were deceived. In other words, stop getting so emotional about your "current problem".
I'm a professional software engineer and you are incorrect about AI "consciousness". We will eventually make computers that act nearly identically to human brains. It may take a long time, and it is a complex problem, but it is an inevitability. Elon Musk donated millions very recently to put laws into place to prevent AI from becoming a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking also recently said that the greatest threat to humanity right now aside from global warming is artificial intelligence.
What may make you think that AI superintelligence is impossible is that the current microprocessors have been evolving in a direction diametrically opposite to the computing paradigm of the human brain. However, IBM is developing a neurosynaptic chip codenamed TrueNorth that has an architecture that mimics neurons and synapses. It can perform pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than traditional chips, and consumes orders of magnitudes less energy due to the architecture shift.
This is of course only the beginning, but it's happening. I know this isn't really on topic, but I think this demonstrates that your argument is based more on your emotional state rather than having a logical basis.
Speaking of the human brain, you will never ever be fully satisfied. It is simply the human condition. Even if you were the most handsome rich person on the planet, something would still irk you. I have never met a person that contradicts this and if you think you have then you were deceived. In other words, stop getting so emotional about your "current problem".
Interesting, I like you. You seem smart. I could take issue with some of this --computers that mimic the human brain won't necessarily give rise to consciousness or sentience which I do believe are unsolvable problems and I'd be interested to hear your perspective. A little interregnum in all this talk about hydrogel. I do also firmly believe from the little reading I've done in the biological sciences that this scarless healing problem is insurmountable as well, but let's see. I'll check back in periodically. I'm gonna say this thread is gonna last till 2020 before any new stage of progress is made. No one taking bets?
And my view is such:
The brain is a machine that can be studied, understood, and replicated. Like any machine, if you produce a similar machine with parts that operate with the same mechanical principles, then it should be identical. I don't believe in spirits or other such nonsense. Consciousness is complex, but it is not divine. The specialness of consciousness is likely an illusion. With the correct algorithmic "loop" built into a computer we could likely construct something that feels the illusion of consciousness and sentience, just like we have been tricked into thinking we are some special, universe-centric being with free will. With identical hardware (neurons, synapses, etc) and software (logic, pattern recognition, ego) we can and will duplicate consciousness.
I'm a professional software engineer and you are incorrect about AI "consciousness". We will eventually make computers that act nearly identically to human brains. It may take a long time, and it is a complex problem, but it is an inevitability. Elon Musk donated millions very recently to put laws into place to prevent AI from becoming a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking also recently said that the greatest threat to humanity right now aside from global warming is artificial intelligence.
What may make you think that AI superintelligence is impossible is that the current microprocessors have been evolving in a direction diametrically opposite to the computing paradigm of the human brain. However, IBM is developing a neurosynaptic chip codenamed TrueNorth that has an architecture that mimics neurons and synapses. It can perform pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than traditional chips, and consumes orders of magnitudes less energy due to the architecture shift.
This is of course only the beginning, but it's happening. I know this isn't really on topic, but I think this demonstrates that your argument is based more on your emotional state rather than having a logical basis.
Speaking of the human brain, you will never ever be fully satisfied. It is simply the human condition. Even if you were the most handsome rich person on the planet, something would still irk you. I have never met a person that contradicts this and if you think you have then you were deceived. In other words, stop getting so emotional about your "current problem".
Interesting, I like you. You seem smart. I could take issue with some of this --computers that mimic the human brain won't necessarily give rise to consciousness or sentience which I do believe are unsolvable problems and I'd be interested to hear your perspective. A little interregnum in all this talk about hydrogel. I do also firmly believe from the little reading I've done in the biological sciences that this scarless healing problem is insurmountable as well, but let's see. I'll check back in periodically. I'm gonna say this thread is gonna last till 2020 before any new stage of progress is made. No one taking bets?
it won't last that long! The solution should be out by then!
Logic (sophistry)
Someone states something on record... Some record, 1 June 1969, "Jim has a car."
Someone else restates it and references it "Jim has a car." ("some record," 1June 1969)
Anyone can the research that 'valid' historical record for reference. There is NO ambiguity.
Nothing has been twisted by the messenger.
Also, grasp this: If there was a fallacy (sophistry) it would NOT in any circumstances belong to the messenger who cited a historical record word for word.
There is nothing twisted to make it illogical. (example no statement has been framed to mean something else there has been no strawman.). It is basically repeating a 'valid' record with a testable methodology, 'word for word.'
Repeating a record word for word is NOT under any circumstances a logical fallacy (sophistry). And if there was any logical fallacies they would belong to the person who inputted the record on reference, NOT the messenger who repeats something word for word from the reference, if he passes on the info.
As you can see this is quite clearly, 'logically sound.'
Circular logic
The promise of Jam... "Jam tomorrow, never today," repeatedly talking about the future, ignoring the cited past is circular logic...
I don't do the Jam tomorrow bullshit; I cite reliable valid references from the past. I cite "traceable bench marks from the past." And I want these references seen, not obscured.
Finally
One last thing I'm pondering here... I'm actually puzzled at how I'm being blamed, for citing some clear as daylight 'evidence' in the PNAS word for word by someone using the internet on a message board talking about and referencing his own authoritive version of 'sense,' you couldn't make this up. This is a logical fallacy called 'shooting the messenger.'
I'm not trolling. Seabs is full of shit with his sophistry (look it up) about language and what a "thesis" means. A "thesis" is simply an hypothesis which is tested by experimentation. The hypothesis was falsified by the evidence. I clearly know much more about scientific procedure, method and language than Seabs and more importantly all of this wavering and ambiguity in the language from Gemstone is EXACTLY what medical laboratories looking to get more and more venture capital funding do to make their labs more money so as to suggest the possibility that something might work or that it is "promising" when really they have no evidence. MEDICAL SCIENCE IS NOT OBJECTIVE IN THE WAY SEABS is making it out to be. There are many many shades of grey that basically border on lying. Here anyone can read all these papers and see all the ambiguity and the language games that are aimed at securing funding to just pay people's daily and yearly wages. A real product may not even be viable or exist for humans. Trust me. This was the case with ACELL with that spray on skin (I forget what that one was called) and there are several more companies working on the exact same thing, i.e. supposed "skin regeneration". This thread started in 2007, more than 8 YEARS AGO!!!! And the people back then thought they were just around the corner from a breakthrough. Well fast forward 8 years and many have shifted from their 30s to fucking 40s and so will all of you without any ANY chance of any improvement So just leave this thread and come back in 10 years. It won't happen in 2030 or 2040. It might happen in 100 years, but we'll all be dead. Trust me. The promise of "complete skin regeneration" in the way all of us want is a complete science fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously I'm the only one talking ANY sense on this thread. SCIENCE FICTION!!!!
... What in the hell is going on
Lol this thread got really derailed for a second.
Rez, I respect your opinion that it may be a long time before we see scar free healing in wounds, but your opinion does not change the fact that progress is being made. And arguably, progress is not made slowly and overtime in most instances like people might believe. It is more often made in breakthroughs and unexpected discoveries. Regardless of the complexities of wound healing, the simple fact of the matter is that we may have found something that works. It certainly works in mice, and they also have extraordinarily complex wound healing mechanisms. It sounds to me like you don't believe that we could achieve scarless healing simply because it would be so revolutionary. This pattern of thinking is common amongst much of mankind, but it's simply not logical. Regardless of how big a problem is, a solution is still possible. Trust me when I say that throughout history, there have been larger issues than the problem of scarring, and many of them have been resolved. Furthermore, we actually understand a lot about scarring and its processes. The issue that many researchers face is that they're not sure how to create a treatment that can control every process. But a resolution is inevitable, and we may have stumbled upon it. And look at it this way, since this thread started, the medical and scientific community now possesses 8 more years of progress than before. We are closer to a solution than ever.
Scarring because of acne are crazily depressing enough.. we will tell people what kind of hell we've been through after all of these are over.
I'm a professional software engineer and you are incorrect about AI "consciousness". We will eventually make computers that act nearly identically to human brains. It may take a long time, and it is a complex problem, but it is an inevitability. Elon Musk donated millions very recently to put laws into place to prevent AI from becoming a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking also recently said that the greatest threat to humanity right now aside from global warming is artificial intelligence.
What may make you think that AI superintelligence is impossible is that the current microprocessors have been evolving in a direction diametrically opposite to the computing paradigm of the human brain. However, IBM is developing a neurosynaptic chip codenamed TrueNorth that has an architecture that mimics neurons and synapses. It can perform pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than traditional chips, and consumes orders of magnitudes less energy due to the architecture shift.
This is of course only the beginning, but it's happening. I know this isn't really on topic, but I think this demonstrates that your argument is based more on your emotional state rather than having a logical basis.
Speaking of the human brain, you will never ever be fully satisfied. It is simply the human condition. Even if you were the most handsome rich person on the planet, something would still irk you. I have never met a person that contradicts this and if you think you have then you were deceived. In other words, stop getting so emotional about your "current problem".
Interesting, I like you. You seem smart. I could take issue with some of this --computers that mimic the human brain won't necessarily give rise to consciousness or sentience which I do believe are unsolvable problems and I'd be interested to hear your perspective. A little interregnum in all this talk about hydrogel. I do also firmly believe from the little reading I've done in the biological sciences that this scarless healing problem is insurmountable as well, but let's see. I'll check back in periodically. I'm gonna say this thread is gonna last till 2020 before any new stage of progress is made. No one taking bets?
I have to ask, what do you get out of trolling this board and proclaiming the sky is falling? Is the attention worth subverting something that others genuinely rely on for information?
In an earlier post you stated that complete regeneration was 20 years away at least. Okay, it's just a random opinion with no scientific basis or merit, but fine if you think that. But now you're stating that you think the problem is insurmountable and yet you provide no evidence and instead spout off with things like, "I've read so many journal articles."
Also, in earlier posts you've compared the dextran hydrogel and its results to papers that involved laser technologies. As others have pointed out, why? Lasers aim for some hard to objectively analyze improvement that usually ends up nothing more than a lukewarm consensus of, "Yeah, it's the scar produced using the laser is about 20% smaller than the control and it's maybe a little less noticeable." The dextran hydrogel aims to provide complete regeneration. In that case, you either get that result or you don't. There's no grey area for subjectivityI either have healthy skin with appendages or a scar leftover after the treatment. If you still have a scar then it didn't meet your aim.
Can I ask you a favor? Just stop posting. Don't post again and leave like you said you were going to. This board should be about sharing useful scientific information, not shouting matches over opinions. If you post something credible, I'd be all ears. But otherwise, stop hijacking the message board.
Acne scaring has made me stop caring a lot now days, don't care about knowing people. being in relationships,/ if it happens good if not still good,like being alone, and all in all i just dont give a fek and want to make a ton of money and buy nice cars/ race cars, and make women butthurt and enviousness of my lifestyle .
Just curious, has anyone got treatmets like dul fraxel and all that, i have booked in 1550 duel fraxel soon it is costly at 4k but they will do subsection, filler to. I do hope that gives my some will to enjoy my early 20s, as i have not done much living since acne. Anyone ysed SkinPen looks promissing but takes time i think
@imad I've done a similar treatment if not the same with the SkinPen. I used the DermaPen which has worked all right. I've only had about 3 treaments months seperated and I can say that my scars have improved slightly. Btw, I used needle sizes from .75-1.00mm. Now, my scars weren't as deep as they were. A scar on my left cheek has improved maybe like 10%-30%? My skin is smoother which is good. Maybe if I do it a few more times there may be a better change. It is pricey though so I hope you got the gauc. lol
I hope I can get in contact with the Gemstone. I emailed them months ago with no reply. If I do get into contact, I'll let you guys know. Just saying, it seems like a good investment if this were to work. In the mean time I'm going to look at other research similar to this one. Cya
As I am seeing it, even if there is a way to regenerate skin completely doctors would just not implement it in their standard medical procedure.
Would a doctor risk getting sued by cutting out your whole face and then applying the "scarfree healing" method? What happens if your face did not heal and rather scar even more? Doctors would go for the tried and tested method rather than something else that may work but not replicate success a 100% or 99% of the time.
As an example, I read from many blogs that drinking carrot juice solely was able to cure a stage IV cancer patient. There are scientific journals which states that the antioxidants in carrot are effective in destroying cancer cells. But, no doctor is going to say the remedy for cancer is drinking carrot juice. They would recommend going for chemotherapy or other traditional treatments to kill the cancer cells as they cannot guarantee that just by drinking juice you would be cancer-free. Same as scars, they would recommend fraxel /subcision / needling but they would not recommend "scarfree healing" as they cannot risk being sued or have it not work.
As I am seeing it, even if there is a way to regenerate skin completely doctors would just not implement it in their standard medical procedure.
Would a doctor risk getting sued by cutting out your whole face and then applying the "scarfree healing" method? What happens if your face did not heal and rather scar even more? Doctors would go for the tried and tested method rather than something else that may work but not replicate success a 100% or 99% of the time.
As an example, I read from many blogs that drinking carrot juice solely was able to cure a stage IV cancer patient. There are scientific journals which states that the antioxidants in carrot are effective in destroying cancer cells. But, no doctor is going to say the remedy for cancer is drinking carrot juice. They would recommend going for chemotherapy or other traditional treatments to kill the cancer cells as they cannot guarantee that just by drinking juice you would be cancer-free. Same as scars, they would recommend fraxel /subcision / needling but they would not recommend "scarfree healing" as they cannot risk being sued or have it not work.
I think you are wrong there my friend, it be the same as laser u sign a wavyer of what can happen and the risks and us people who are beaten down so much will do it anyway
im gunna post pone my laser and stuff for another 3 months and getting
Electric Auto Micro Needle Derma Stamp hopefully that makes new cells and then burns it off and make even more collgen
As I am seeing it, even if there is a way to regenerate skin completely doctors would just not implement it in their standard medical procedure.
Would a doctor risk getting sued by cutting out your whole face and then applying the "scarfree healing" method? What happens if your face did not heal and rather scar even more? Doctors would go for the tried and tested method rather than something else that may work but not replicate success a 100% or 99% of the time.
As an example, I read from many blogs that drinking carrot juice solely was able to cure a stage IV cancer patient. There are scientific journals which states that the antioxidants in carrot are effective in destroying cancer cells. But, no doctor is going to say the remedy for cancer is drinking carrot juice. They would recommend going for chemotherapy or other traditional treatments to kill the cancer cells as they cannot guarantee that just by drinking juice you would be cancer-free. Same as scars, they would recommend fraxel /subcision / needling but they would not recommend "scarfree healing" as they cannot risk being sued or have it not work.
Well, I don't think the carrot juice analogy is very apt. For one, there are a lot of conflicting studies on its use for cancer and for another a word like "effective" can mean many different things. How many cancer cells does a treatment need to be destroyed to be considered effective? Most of the time it only has to out perform a control (which is why so much of laser treatment for scarring is wrought with subjective issues of analysis) or merely have some effect (i.e. patient had 20% less cancer cells than patient B). With complete regeneration of skin it's either you did get complete regeneration or you didn't.
Now, in terms of doctors doing the treatment, I agree with the other poster who made the comment about waivers. Patients go through much more medically dangerous procedures than excisions day in and day out. Would some risk be assumed? Absolutely, but that comes with the role of being a doctor and waivers would be there to protect you against most unfavorable outcomes.
In a more realistic/cynical sense...doctors would do it because they could make a lot of money. I mean, a LOT of money. There would literally be no end to the streams of patients that would be fully willing to waive their right to sue in order to fulfill the dream of perfectly regenerated skin. This is yet another reason doctors would never tell someone with cancer, "Go home and drink a bunch of carrot juice." It sounds harsh, but in addition to the potential risks of recommending a controversial treatment there would be no market for such a treatment. Complete regeneration of skin (or heart tissue, muscle tissue etc.) would be a practically limitless market that would never be fully "cured" (since I could get a new scar at any time and need the treatment again).
If it works and gets approved for use, it wouldn't be long before dermatologists were using the method.
As I am seeing it, even if there is a way to regenerate skin completely doctors would just not implement it in their standard medical procedure.
Would a doctor risk getting sued by cutting out your whole face and then applying the "scarfree healing" method? What happens if your face did not heal and rather scar even more? Doctors would go for the tried and tested method rather than something else that may work but not replicate success a 100% or 99% of the time.
As an example, I read from many blogs that drinking carrot juice solely was able to cure a stage IV cancer patient. There are scientific journals which states that the antioxidants in carrot are effective in destroying cancer cells. But, no doctor is going to say the remedy for cancer is drinking carrot juice. They would recommend going for chemotherapy or other traditional treatments to kill the cancer cells as they cannot guarantee that just by drinking juice you would be cancer-free. Same as scars, they would recommend fraxel /subcision / needling but they would not recommend "scarfree healing" as they cannot risk being sued or have it not work.
Well, I don't think the carrot juice analogy is very apt. For one, there are a lot of conflicting studies on its use for cancer and for another a word like "effective" can mean many different things. How many cancer cells does a treatment need to be destroyed to be considered effective? Most of the time it only has to out perform a control (which is why so much of laser treatment for scarring is wrought with subjective issues of analysis) or merely have some effect (i.e. patient had 20% less cancer cells than patient B). With complete regeneration of skin it's either you did get complete regeneration or you didn't.
Now, in terms of doctors doing the treatment, I agree with the other poster who made the comment about waivers. Patients go through much more medically dangerous procedures than excisions day in and day out. Would some risk be assumed? Absolutely, but that comes with the role of being a doctor and waivers would be there to protect you against most unfavorable outcomes.
In a more realistic/cynical sense...doctors would do it because they could make a lot of money. I mean, a LOT of money. There would literally be no end to the streams of patients that would be fully willing to waive their right to sue in order to fulfill the dream of perfectly regenerated skin. This is yet another reason doctors would never tell someone with cancer, "Go home and drink a bunch of carrot juice." It sounds harsh, but in addition to the potential risks of recommending a controversial treatment there would be no market for such a treatment. Complete regeneration of skin (or heart tissue, muscle tissue etc.) would be a practically limitless market that would never be fully "cured" (since I could get a new scar at any time and need the treatment again).
If it works and gets approved for use, it wouldn't be long before dermatologists were using the method.
Any updates?Golfpanther?thanks