Acne.org Products
Ok u guys compare the regeneration of acell on the diabetic ulcer on the TED Talks. With this one using Integra. Im not too good at judging, but Integra looks quite promising too? Kirk what do u think about this? And guys? Opinions please.
My opinion is that the first wound looks painful. However I would like to see what it looks like sealed, though if you look at it, the skin that is sealing, there doesn't seem to be much scarring on what looks like a prolonged injury. I wonder what the history of the wound is? Has it been hard to heal for a long time etc.
It also suspiciously looks like a similar foot to the one on ted talks with the toes missing etc.
It is not as good as the ulcer on ted talks which was a problem ulcer that completely closed, IMO.
Also the time period of 6weeks and it hasn't healed I wonder how long the ted talks one took?
hey kirk i got the pics from this source.
http://www.podiatrytoday.com/article/6037
Also, it seems to me much like scarless healing? the wound is a chronic wound and it then healed with what seems like no scars? They dont have a complete photo of the whole wound when it is finally fully closed though. Also, imo a period of 6 weeks wouldnt suffice to close a wound as large as this. Probably 2-3 months.
My guess is that after 2-3 months, it healed with some slight scarring due to the fact the toes cant regenerate. But its really a miracle, or we need is to be able to regenerate skin. This pic showed it healed the FULL DERMIS? THIS seems to do the job. NOW, DOCS where are the treatments to remove our scars???!!!!!???
SW Cub has kindly posted his/her communication with an Acell representative and from what I deduce of Acell's reaction to using their ECM technology for scarless healing it seems the product is not suitable for us scar sufferers. Firstly he plays down the ability of Acell to regenerate joints/nail beds: "We have NO expectations" are pretty powerful words, which is highly surprising given the amount of media coverage and quotes from Dr. Badylak indicating the opposite.
Secondly, he says "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM". If Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not.
Furthermore, the above Acell rep goes on to even promote Intercytex's product Valveta, an entirely different company to Acell, as "the most advanced research" that he is aware of on the mitigation of scar! From this it clearly shows that Acell (or this Acell rep) don't know too much about what is currently happening in scar research. Valveta is not even a scarless healing product and it is Renovo's Juvista that is at the most advanced stage of development.
Dear oh Dear is all I have to say! I have now become very pessimistic; it seems Acell is like several other companies that exploit all the media coverage they are getting to raise their profile and hope to gain more funding. I have virtually given up hope of Acell being an elixir for scar sufferers and it is no wonder Acell have not done any clinical trials in humans.
Thanks anyway to SW Cub for posting those emails though.
EDIT: Apparently a doctor in Toronto (Dr. Jones) has managed to obtain some Acell and will test it's anti-scar potential on patients who have hair transplant scar strips. Let's see his results: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_en...category-0.html
I have thought that Acell's position that they did not expect that in it's current form it could regenerate something as complex as a joint.
as for the "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM" and "Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not." I have to disagree ... He says they have no experience in treating existing scars with Acell. ..to test the primary function would be to test Acell's ability in PREVENTING scarring not REVISION. He states that they have no experience in REVISION, not PREVENTION.
It seems like he brought up valveta through a quick google search of acne scar revision. ...
I also believe I have brought up integra a few times in this thread ...only problem is that this thread has grown huge and has it's primary focus changed to Acell. I think we should petition to get another forum opened up ...one dedicated to discussion of future acne scar treatments.
as for the "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM" and "Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not." I have to disagree ... He says they have no experience in treating existing scars with Acell. ..to test the primary function would be to test Acell's ability in PREVENTING scarring not REVISION. He states that they have no experience in REVISION, not PREVENTION.
Prevention is the same as revision. If you can prevent scarring from occurring in the first place then you will be able to remove exisiting scars from patients via scar excision (a form of scar revision) and use Acell to suppress the body's automatic scarring response process thus encouraging only 'normal' skin forming over the wound.
If Acell is effective at scar prevention then surely the reps of the company would have indicated this in the email and their respective communications saying something like "Although we have not experimented with Acell on existing scars, you may be interested to know that the product has good scar prevention properties". The rep does not say this. I get the impression from that entire email that he plays down Acell's usage in scar treatment.
I think the only property Acell may possess is improved skin healing, not scar prevention, similar to Renovo's Zesteem product.
If you find evidence that Acell has strong anti-scarring properties in humans then I can't wait to know but I, myself, unfortunately can't locate any.
It seems like he brought up valveta through a quick google search of acne scar revision. ...
For a company on the cusp of regenerative medicine, not knowing what other research is taking place within your field is rather poor. If you're product was effective at regeneration in humans you would almost certainly not promote another company's product, just seems strange to me.
I also believe I have brought up integra a few times in this thread ...only problem is that this thread has grown huge and has it's primary focus changed to Acell. I think we should petition to get another forum opened up ...one dedicated to discussion of future acne scar treatments.
Yes I definitely agree with this. Having one thread for all scar research is now too overwhelming. People don't have the time to read through this entire thread for the details, it is far too disorganised. Maybe we should post a new topic for each piece of scar research/trial and include the terms "Scarless healing" in the title so that people know the topics are all interlinked despite being seperate threads, eg Renovo's Juvista (Scarless Healing).
Right now I'm kind of getting the round about from the Integra people, but it seems like I'm pretty close to getting some answers from them regarding their product and will report back asap.
I forget who it was, but this link: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_en...category-0.html
is very encouraging. Doctors are beginning to try this stuff out and come forward looking for test patients. It's only a matter of time before we start getting some results.
On days like this we all have to agree, from the greatest optimists to the most persistent pessimists, it's a most exciting moment in our scar-suffering lives right now to come back and check this website. Even if nothing happens, just the onslaught of discussion and new ideas is at a peak right now. It's wild.
Right now I'm kind of getting the round about from the Integra people, but it seems like I'm pretty close to getting some answers from them regarding their product and will report back asap.
I forget who it was, but this link: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_en...category-0.html
is very encouraging. Doctors are beginning to try this stuff out and come forward looking for test patients. It's only a matter of time before we start getting some results.
On days like this we all have to agree, from the greatest optimists (kirk) to the most persistent pessimists (hopeseed), it's a most exciting moment in our scar-suffering lives right now to come back and check this website. Even if nothing happens, just the onslaught of discussion and new ideas is at a peak right now. It's wild.
Yes, I agree!!!!!!!
(although I don't think hopeseed is a pessimist, though...)
it's a most exciting moment in our scar-suffering lives right now to come back and check this website. Even if nothing happens, just the onslaught of discussion and new ideas is at a peak right now. It's wild.
Amen to that man! I'll drink a beer to that 
. Let's hope we are able to reap the rewards in the long run with all this teamwork.
We will indeed reap the rewards from this teamwork. I enjoy talking to all of you more so than I enjoy talking to other doctors. Everyone here has a different background, perspective and experience that when placed in a collective medium has the potential to really get one's imagination (as an interplay of stimulating ideas, visions, etc...) reaching towards achieving the goal of scarless regeneration. We are living in exciting times and regenerative medicine is rapidly creating a new branch in the cosmetics industry that I like to call 'Regenerative Cosmetics'... It's target market is not only elderly people who want to look young, but indeed anyone who is concerned with biological imperections, be them genetic, illness related or otherwise. This is a future industry with seeds already planted within the "corporate soil" that will potentially be worth tens of billions of dollars (if not hundreds) within ~5 - 10 years. As more and more money is poured into related fields the advancements will come in leaps and bounds. That's capitalism for you! Just think of Moore's Law and the computer revolution and you'll know what to expect from the accelerating leading edge of scientific discoveries in regenerative biotechnology. 
The integra rep pointed me to this site which contains before and afters:
http://ilstraining.com/idrt/idrt/brs_it_00.html
As you can see, none of this looks very good. I think we're all misinterpreting the phrase "scarless healing." I think you can have healing that is scarless yet still doesn't look good. Just because it's scarless doesn't mean the skin looks right. I've gone from an emotional high to the real world again.
Prevention is the same as revision.
Yes and no. I know what you mean, though. If something can prevent scarring, then it is the primary facet of the scar revision process. The perpetual quandary that has plagued scar revision procedures is the inevitable prospect of trading one set of scars for another. Sometimes the new scars are better, sometimes they are worse, and sometimes you can't tell the difference between old scars and the scars that replaced them.
Acell has been billed as a product that could potentially fulfill the most important aspect of scar revision- the healing phase.
Scar revision + scar prevention = scar free skin
Scar revision ( damaged tissue removal) followed by scar prevention (healthy tissue replication/ complete tissue regeneration) culminating in normal skin without scars.
If the Acell research and development team had a reason to believe that this product would produce scar free wound regeneration, they would have specifically tested it for this process and would have likely be conducting human trials by now.
People should not question Acell representatives regarding scars. The Acell product itself would obviously not remodel existing scar tissue. This line of questioning is misdirected, in my opinion, and seemingly only confuses the people at Acell. We only need to concern ourselves with the level of tissue regeneration that can be induced by this product. "Scar revision" alone is another process.
Their responses still leave me with diminished hope because the people at Acell should be able to figure out what we are implying when we talk about scar regeneration. If this product could truly cause perfect wound regeneration, they would likely be able to deduce that this product would be the missing vital element to the post scar revision process. Yet, they still maintain that there is no evidence that it will be effective for the "treatment of scars". Either the representatives at acell are a little obtuse and do not understand the type of application relevant to a scar revision process, or the product simply does not regenerate tissue to the degree that has been hoped for.
Once again, the question is whether or not acell can regenerate completely normal dermal tissue on fresh deep traumatic wounds (ie, excision wounds, dermabrasion wounds, etc). One need not even bring up the notion of revising existing scarring at all because, frankly, when that is removed it is no longer of consequence. What we are concerned with is if these wounds will be stimulated to heal with perfectly regenerated tissue.
But, after all...let's be honest. If Acell had demonstrated the capacity to regenerate deep wounds completely, this would be REVOLUTIONARY. It would unequivocally be the most important development in medicine in the last century. But other than this website and short of scouring the web for obscured quasi-tabloid articles chock full of cute little anecdotes about a guy and his model airplane accident, there is relatively little press about this product.
SW Cub has kindly posted his/her communication with an Acell representative and from what I deduce of Acell's reaction to using their ECM technology for scarless healing it seems the product is not suitable for us scar sufferers. Firstly he plays down the ability of Acell to regenerate joints/nail beds: "We have NO expectations" are pretty powerful words, which is highly surprising given the amount of media coverage and quotes from Dr. Badylak indicating the opposite.
Secondly, he says "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM". If Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not.
Furthermore, the above Acell rep goes on to even promote Intercytex's product Valveta, an entirely different company to Acell, as "the most advanced research" that he is aware of on the mitigation of scar! From this it clearly shows that Acell (or this Acell rep) don't know too much about what is currently happening in scar research. Valveta is not even a scarless healing product and it is Renovo's Juvista that is at the most advanced stage of development.
Dear oh Dear is all I have to say! I have now become very pessimistic; it seems Acell is like several other companies that exploit all the media coverage they are getting to raise their profile and hope to gain more funding. I have virtually given up hope of Acell being an elixir for scar sufferers and it is no wonder Acell have not done any clinical trials in humans.
Thanks anyway to SW Cub for posting those emails though.
EDIT: Apparently a doctor in Toronto (Dr. Jones) has managed to obtain some Acell and will test it's anti-scar potential on patients who have hair transplant scar strips. Let's see his results: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_en...category-0.html
I have thought that Acell's position that they did not expect that in it's current form it could regenerate something as complex as a joint.
as for the "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM" and "Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not." I have to disagree ... He says they have no experience in treating existing scars with Acell. ..to test the primary function would be to test Acell's ability in PREVENTING scarring not REVISION. He states that they have no experience in REVISION, not PREVENTION.
It seems like he brought up valveta through a quick google search of acne scar revision. ...
I also believe I have brought up integra a few times in this thread ...only problem is that this thread has grown huge and has it's primary focus changed to Acell. I think we should petition to get another forum opened up ...one dedicated to discussion of future acne scar treatments.
I have an even better idea, I think we should have an acne.org/wiki for members were we can validate facts by citations about certain subjects, were you can imagine you lets say on january 23rd 2003, edited and cited something about integra on the scar free healing topic...
I was going to propose this idea months back after a new user assumed we must be constantly talking about juvista after he had read the first post and then went to joing the discussion, I knew then the thread had got to long and we would be circular in discussing and coming back to subjects.
So I thought about proposing a wiki, were someone can read it before they join this thread etc. I had even drafted up a longish post to propose the idea but scrapped it, because I thought there would be no will for it.
I'm still guessing there will be no will to get an acne.org/wiki; but what do you lot think about a site based wiki?
Dear Stephen,
Thanks for your inquiry. I am a colleague of Dr. Stephen Badylak and I am helping him deal with the massive influx of inquiries following the recent publicity on the use of extracellular matrix
(ECM) to facilitate the regeneration of a finger tip.
ECM has been used extensively; it is estimated that 1,500,000 patients have been treated with some form of ECM. The predominate form of ECM is sheet material, and some of the most prevalent applications are hernia repair, treatment of pressure ulcers, and orthopaedic procedures, such as rotator cuff, etc.
The powdered form use in the fingertip regeneration is strictly experimental and has only been used on two patients. It should be noted that the two success stories to date involved the loss of the fingertip-above the first knuckle, and the nail bed was not destroyed. We have no expectations that the current ECM technology can regenerate joints (knuckles) or nail beds. We have no relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM. Dr. Badylak is investigating other applications of ECM, but the most advanced research that I am aware of on the mitigation of scar is being done by Intercytex in England; see http://www.intercytex.com/ and look at their Valveta video.
I hope this introduction helps and thank you for your interest.
The best place to follow developments in this area is on our web site
at www.mirm.pitt.edu
John
John N. Murphy
Executive Director-McGowan Institute & Research Professor-Chemical
Engineering
Phone: 412-235-5155
Fax: 412-235-5290
Email: jmurphy@pitt.edu
and he replied....
Dear Stephen,
Your hypothesis may be correct, but at this time we do not have any data or applicable programs to accurately answer your question.
John
It seems a lot of people here are so excited about Acell that they don't read previous posts in this thread.
SW Cub has kindly posted his/her communication with an Acell representative and from what I deduce of Acell's reaction to using their ECM technology for scarless healing it seems the product is not suitable for us scar sufferers. Firstly he plays down the ability of Acell to regenerate joints/nail beds: "We have NO expectations" are pretty powerful words, which is highly surprising given the amount of media coverage and quotes from Dr. Badylak indicating the opposite.
Secondly, he says "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM". If Acell's primary function is to turn off the body's emergency healing method of scarring, as indicated by Dr. Badylak previously, then surely the first and most simple test the Acell team would have tried would have been with scar revision; clearly they have not.
Furthermore, the above Acell rep goes on to even promote Intercytex's product Valveta, an entirely different company to Acell, as "the most advanced research" that he is aware of on the mitigation of scar! From this it clearly shows that Acell (or this Acell rep) don't know too much about what is currently happening in scar research. Valveta is not even a scarless healing product and it is Renovo's Juvista that is at the most advanced stage of development.
Dear oh Dear is all I have to say! I have now become very pessimistic; it seems Acell is like several other companies that exploit all the media coverage they are getting to raise their profile and hope to gain more funding. I have virtually given up hope of Acell being an elixir for scar sufferers and it is no wonder Acell have not done any clinical trials in humans.
Thanks anyway to SW Cub for posting those emails though.
EDIT: Apparently a doctor in Toronto (Dr. Jones) has managed to obtain some Acell and will test it's anti-scar potential on patients who have hair transplant scar strips. Let's see his results: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_en...category-0.html
Neca he says we have ano expectationsa for regenerating the joint. And if you look at his next sentence "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM". He kind of antagonised the hope that some may have that this limited aexpectationa can be applied to scarring.
He did not bring the scarring into the minimum aexpectationa like you seem to be perceiving???
The adjoining sentence has nothing to do with expectation. The second sentence is him telling you as a scientist that he has not officially experienced any experimentation on skin scarring for various design reasons. And that to me is him telling you to deduce your own logic if it will work, (if we had a wiki and could document facts we could deduce this logic much better, removing the circular battle over expectation IMO. I mean we would have citations that regeneration of all scaring tissues in the subjects body are basically the same, wead have citations from the two fingers and blood vessel, the aorta of a dog and on and on. And we would have much less of this circular discussion that is confusing and constantly changing the key aexpectation perceptiona of new and veteran members alike on this board)
Also in the letter he leaves scientific subtext that the universal ecm can be used for scar free healing on any part of the body (again imagine we had a wiki here, were we could show just how universal ecm is). He claims it has been used on 1,500,000 people. This means it has no safety issues on the universal scarring response of primates.
These are completely different things, (when has nail bed expectation = scar treatment experience?; when has apples = oranges? The only time apples = oranges are in some kind of association fallacy) though he uses the word expectation to stop you thinking it could regenerate a joint (if you asked him he would say it regenerates a stump, not a joint, going on the official case study so far, were the soldier had a stump), he removes the 'limited expectation' for scar free healing that he has with forming a joint. He has not said anything about expectation regarding skin regeneration. (Also he mentions scar treatment, which is different to wound treatment that we know Acell could only be sucessful on, we know it can't dissolve scars)
In fact he maybe should have made a new paragraph here instead of a separate sentence here imo. But I suppose he was being intentionally ambiguous.
My conclusion of that letter is that he has said nothing new and answered it trying to swerve and avoid minefields which there are plenty if you are trying to bring out any product.
Also going on the fact/valid based logic I would put into a wiki backing that letter up, I interpret that letter positively.
The integra rep pointed me to this site which contains before and afters:
http://ilstraining.com/idrt/idrt/brs_it_00.html
As you can see, none of this looks very good. I think we're all misinterpreting the phrase "scarless healing." I think you can have healing that is scarless yet still doesn't look good. Just because it's scarless doesn't mean the skin looks right. I've gone from an emotional high to the real world again.
Go to post 389. We can deduce from that, and other things this does not have the same regeneration response as Acell.
IMO we need a wiki which will limit the fight over expectation by using and organising facts.
Neca he says we have ano expectationsa for regenerating the joint. And if you look at his next sentence "we have NO relevant experience on the treatment of scar using ECM". He kind of antagonised the hope that some may have that this limited aexpectationa can be applied to scarring.
I understand that 'no relevant experience' doesn't necessarily mean that Acell will definitely not work to prevent scar formation. The aspect that confuses me from that entire email is the lack of acknowledgement that one of the primary supposed properties of Acell is scar reduction/elimination. Acell is supposed to be used in wound care and reconstructive surgery amongst other things but there is no mention of this. Even if they have no relevant experience of scar prevention with Acell, he doesn't mention that they intend to look into this aspect.
In order to prevent us ending up in a perpetual cycle of discussion regarding the nuances of the email I think it's better if I contact them and ask for some clarification. I mean for all we know the rep may just have provided inaccurate or incomplete information.
Also going on the fact/valid based logic I would put into a wiki backing that letter up, I interpret that letter positively.
Yes Kirk let's make a Wiki, that would be a great idea. Collecting all the facts together would be very useful for many newcomers as well.
The integra rep pointed me to this site which contains before and afters:
http://ilstraining.com/idrt/idrt/brs_it_00.html
As you can see, none of this looks very good. I think we're all misinterpreting the phrase "scarless healing." I think you can have healing that is scarless yet still doesn't look good. Just because it's scarless doesn't mean the skin looks right. I've gone from an emotional high to the real world again.
Go to post 389. We can deduce from that, and other things this does not have the same regeneration response as Acell.
IMO we need a wiki which will limit the fight over expectation by using and organising facts.
I still worry about all these products that are focused on "wound healing" as opposed to scar regeneration. These manufacturers are looking for "scarless healing" products because they want severely wounded people to be able to return to maximum ranges of motion. They are not striving for an aesthetic component, strictly functional.
I'm worried that all we have here is something that would leave you looking like a permanent scab. Technically no scar, but your skin's texture is all messed up and unappealing. So you look like a burn victim in treated areas.
We need results and if anyone is in the Toronto area I recommend pestering that doctor who is looking to treat hair transplant scars experimentally for free and see if he wants to try other things. Otherwise, someone needs to find a doctor who is willing to try this out for other forms of scarring.
Someone mentioned ACell would be creating a "locate a doc" directory in August, any truth to this?
Someone talked about "recruiting plastic surgeons." What types and where did you get your info?
The second sentence is him telling you as a scientist that he has not officially experienced any experimentation on skin scarring for various design reasons.
Also in the letter he leaves scientific subtext that the universal ecm can be used for scar free healing on any part of the body
Kirk, don't you think that if Acell ecm was something that was potentially going to be used for SCAR-free healing, they might get the bright idea to employ the application of Acell in numerous post scar-revision clinical trials?
Why does Acell not seem to be able to figure out that with the correct scar tissue removal procedure, the application of Acell will result in scar free healing, invariably proving itself be the lynch-pin of a true scar revision process? Don't you find it exceptionally odd that they haven't even alluded to this possibility? For God's sake, if you had a product that regenerated skin without scars, wouldn't you be able to figure out that if you manually cut the scars out and apply this to regenerate healthy and normal new skin, then you have the best "scar treatment" possible?
It is abundantly obvious how key Acell would be in a true scar removal procedure, yet they curiously have "no experience" with this application and apparently seem to have absolutely no interest in conducting clinical trials to validate this particular usage. This is very suspect, in my opinion.
This all points to the unfortunate prospect that this ecm material clearly will not regenerate skin to the degree that it would prove useful in a post-scar revision type of application. If it would, then Acell surely would be able to make this correlation and would have already already hosted clinical trials to validate this very thing.
They continue to deflect all questioning about "scarring" by refering us to other companies. For God's sake, if you had a product that regenerated skin without scars, wouldn't you be able to figure out that if you manually cut the scars out and apply this to regenerate healthy and normal new skin, then you have the best "scar treatment" possible?
Scarcrash, I think you let your prose get a little wild in the extremes. ACell is hardly fighting an onslaught of queries from scar sufferers. Hell, even most of us, the most desperate of scar sufferers, have barely done more than sent an email to a customer service rep that was likely never read.
I believe there exists sincere logic to explain the lack of scar regeneration trials in that ACell seems to be in the line of products that was developed as overall regeneration. Likely a branch off from studies with far greater scopes (like regenerating limbs) than removing tiny little scars from young people. Thus, there could be an understandable reason for the lack of studies that might just be kicking in as we pester for examination.
Note that no one from ACell has ever deflected questioning by referring us to other companies. That was Dr. Badylak at UPitt.
Here's an interesting study by intercytex:
http://www.intercytex.com/icx/services/dow...s/inte_pers.pdf
They actually do an excision into healthy skin (like we've talked about). However, the problem with all these studies we've seen is that they don't evaluate far enough into the future. I want to see how the excision looks in 2-3 months, not just 28 days. They're all so worried about wound repair.
Likely a branch off from studies with far greater scopes (like regenerating limbs) than removing tiny little scars from young people.
You think that they are too busy studying the limb regenerating capacity of Acell? If Acell won't regenerate a finger above the first knuckle or nail bed, how would it regenerate an entire limb?
Their studies have far greater scopes than removing tiny little scars from young people?
I find this condescending. You make it sound as though facial acne scarring is insignificant. Look, you may have "tiny little scars" but I do not. I know that disfiguring acne scarring is certainly not physically handicapping like a missing arm, but it is certainly as psychologically handicapping (if not more so).
Anyhow, how do you know that their studies of "far greater scopes"? I thought that this was the ultimate problem. We have no idea how this has been studied, what it is capable of, etc, etc...
We are only hearing what it is likely NOT capable of- not what it is.
You think that a product that could heal deep wounds without scarring is of a small scope? I can't even imagine the billions of dollars that would be made if this was actually possible. But, why would Acell want to waste their time on something that may help a few pimply-faced teenagers. LOL
That was Dr. Badylak at UPitt.
My mistake- it still interesting that one of the few people with knowledge of/experience with Acell doesn't seem to see any correlation between this product and the treatment of scarring. I find this very interesting.
Likely a branch off from studies with far greater scopes (like regenerating limbs) than removing tiny little scars from young people.
You think that they are too busy studying the limb regenerating capacity of Acell? If Acell won't regenerate a finger above the first knuckle or nail bed, how would it regenerate an entire limb?
Their studies have far greater scopes than removing tiny little scars from young people?
I find this condescending. You make it sound as though facial acne scarring is insignificant. Look, you may have "tiny little scars" but I do not. I know that disfiguring acne scarring is certainly not physically handicapping like a missing arm, but it is certainly as psychologically handicapping (if not more so).
Anyhow, how do you know that their studies of "far greater scopes"? Have you become privy to their studies? I thought that this was the ultimate problem. We have no idea how this has been studied, what it is capable of, etc, etc...
We are only hearing what it is likely NOT capable of- not what it is.
You think that a product that could heal deep wounds without scarring is of a small scope? I can't even imagine the billions of dollars that would be made if this was actually possible. But, why would Acell want to waste their time on something that may help a few pimply-faced teenagers. LOL
That was Dr. Badylak at UPitt.
My mistake- it still interesting that one of the few people with knowledge of/experience with Acell doesn't seem to see any correlation between this product and the treatment of scarring. I find this very interesting.
Obviously I don't think they are studying the limb regenerating capacity of ACell at the moment, however I can see that being the initial source of the research. The scope of the search likely grew smaller and smaller as more realistic goals came into play. Such as trying to regrew fingertips instead of legs.
I don't believe scarring is insignificant. If I believed that I wouldn't be here. However, other people (e.g. funders like the government) may not recognize acne scars as a cause worthy of equal importance as amputee veterans.
I said the entire time that I have no idea, I am not "privy" to inside information. I strictly said that I can visualize a scenario in which the research process would have excluded scar revision research. I don't think I could have made this more clear.
Finally, you've really been focused on such an invention as "the greatest medical innovation of the past century." Even if it could do what we all hope it does, it wouldn't be that amazing. Just because something could perfectly or to a strong degree restore skin to it's original state, such a product would only really be used in the same cases it currently already is. That is, how big is the scar repair industry? Large but not revolutionary. Would the availability of a 100% effective scar revision tool really change that a lot? I don't see it. Many people don't mind scars that much at all. The most this sort of product could possibly hope for would be to be bought out by Johnson & Johnson and integrated into all band-aids as a scar preventing agent.
Once again, all this debate is pointless. You say that the only focus of ACell is what it can't do. Well I'm glad I don't need a new arm or else I'd be heartbroken, but other than that, nothing else has been disproved at this point. Of course, I'm with you in the camp that I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't believe scarring is insignificant. If I believed that I wouldn't be here. However, other people (e.g. funders like the government) may not recognize acne scars as a cause worthy of equal importance as amputee veterans.
I didn't mean "acne scars" in particular, but scarring in general and more specifically disfiguring facial scarring from burns, traumatic injuries, disease, etc .
Even if it could do what we all hope it does, it wouldn't be that amazing...Would the availability of a 100% effective scar revision tool really change that a lot? I don't see it.
I have to disagree with you here.
Once again, all this debate is pointless....Of course, I'm with you in the camp that I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah, we're in the same camp.
Obviously I don't think they are studying the limb regenerating capacity of ACell at the moment, however I can see that being the initial source of the research. The scope of the search likely grew smaller and smaller as more realistic goals came into play. Such as trying to regrew fingertips instead of legs.
I don't believe scarring is insignificant. If I believed that I wouldn't be here. However, other people (e.g. funders like the government) may not recognize acne scars as a cause worthy of equal importance as amputee veterans.
I said the entire time that I have no idea, I am not "privy" to inside information. I strictly said that I can visualize a scenario in which the research process would have excluded scar revision research. I don't think I could have made this more clear.
Finally, you've really been focused on such an invention as "the greatest medical innovation of the past century." Even if it could do what we all hope it does, it wouldn't be that amazing. Just because something could perfectly or to a strong degree restore skin to it's original state, such a product would only really be used in the same cases it currently already is. That is, how big is the scar repair industry? Large but not revolutionary. Would the availability of a 100% effective scar revision tool really change that a lot? I don't see it. Many people don't mind scars that much at all. The most this sort of product could possibly hope for would be to be bought out by Johnson & Johnson and integrated into all band-aids as a scar preventing agent.
Once again, all this debate is pointless. You say that the only focus of ACell is what it can't do. Well I'm glad I don't need a new arm or else I'd be heartbroken, but other than that, nothing else has been disproved at this point. Of course, I'm with you in the camp that I'll believe it when I see it.
That was exactly the point I was trying to put across in the other thread, but you definitely did it more eloquently haha.
My question is, why would the government pump so much into something if it's futile? So many advances in science seemed so pitiful at their humble beginnings when you think about it. This idea is still technically in a very primitive state. So to just write limb regeneration off as an impossibility is very ignorant if you think about it. I mean look at the Wright Brothers plane next to the SR-71 lol. Now I do, however, agree that these advances could be and probably are a ways down the road, BUT that's why I keep stressing the word CURRENT. Just because it is isn't currently being studied or tried for something doesn't mean it can't be used for it. As hoursafter stated and how I crudely expressed in the other thread, "They have bigger fish to fry." And as far as what I have heard, skin regeneration for burn victims is going to be a key point backed by the government along with limb regeneration. And lets not forget, just because we haven't heard about it, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't meeting some success. Something can undergo many trials before it can be deemed conclusive, and jumping the gun when all the kinks aren't worked out can be quite embarrassing and costly for a company. Invalid results could be grounds for pulling ones funding, and for a company, that is definitely not good...
I do stand with you guys on the fact that I won't be sold until I see undeniable proof though... I mean hell I might not even be convinced until my scars are gone hahah 
The second sentence is him telling you as a scientist that he has not officially experienced any experimentation on skin scarring for various design reasons.
Also in the letter he leaves scientific subtext that the universal ecm can be used for scar free healing on any part of the body
Kirk, don't you think that if Acell ecm was something that was potentially going to be used for SCAR-free healing, they might get the bright idea to employ the application of Acell in numerous post scar-revision clinical trials?
Why does Acell not seem to be able to figure out that with the correct scar tissue removal procedure, the application of Acell will result in scar free healing, invariably proving itself be the lynch-pin of a true scar revision process? Don't you find it exceptionally odd that they haven't even alluded to this possibility? For God's sake, if you had a product that regenerated skin without scars, wouldn't you be able to figure out that if you manually cut the scars out and apply this to regenerate healthy and normal new skin, then you have the best "scar treatment" possible?
It is abundantly obvious how key Acell would be in a true scar removal procedure, yet they curiously have "no experience" with this application and apparently seem to have absolutely no interest in conducting clinical trials to validate this particular usage. This is very suspect, in my opinion.
This all points to the unfortunate prospect that this ecm material clearly will not regenerate skin to the degree that it would prove useful in a post-scar revision type of application. If it would, then Acell surely would be able to make this correlation and would have already already hosted clinical trials to validate this very thing.
I leave the board for 24 hours and it becomes the busiest its been...
Kirk, don't you think that if Acell ecm was something that was potentially going to be used for SCAR-free healing, they might get the bright idea to employ the application of Acell in numerous post scar-revision clinical trials?
IMO: It is all about logistics, were are you going to focus your efforts avoiding minefields, avoiding fuss, your confidence in the product. And the important thing with a universal ecm is its safety.
And we just don't fully know the logistics and planning of those involved in designing trials etc.
They may have decided a long time ago that the better tactic was to get it's safety certificate, avoid fuss and let it be trialled in xyz perceiving that it will eventually take off in many applications, such was the confidence etc... I mean if an application can be used universally, you only need it used for one label, and it can later build a use for other off label applications etc.
Who knows here.
But it is known that ecm is universal, it regenerates it's local tissues around it. Pure ecm is the best at regenerating compared to denatured ecm like an application mentioned on this thread that only gets 95% regeneration. And it is said that scarring is similar throughout the body on tissues that scar, so I guess they knew it would be used universally.