5 hours ago, NagarNikku_ said:I don't think so. Wrinkles are mostly caused by fat loss in the deep hypodermis layer of the skin, the fat bags basically shrink once we age.
What scarless regeneration would mean is regeneration of dermis, since epidermis regenerates itself. (It might regenerate hypodermis in causes of severe burns as well). But I'm not so sure about the fat pads regenerating under hypodermis.
P.S - I could be very well wrong though, since I'm not in the medical field and all my knowledge of this scarless healing is obtained by internet.
Not true , because some scar do indeed reach the hypodermis , look at burn scars for example , scientists are thinking in those terms for burn victims ... so these scarfree technologies won't just target regenerating the dermis.
On 9/10/2021 at 2:20 PM, Ivvan said:The main concern is both because we got old from waiting so long for scarless healing.
Lmao. I like your thinking, and avalid point I suppose lol.
On a side note..
I really hope that the research done on FAK is just a branch that spawned out of verteporfin research vs being the result of it. This paper makes it seem like were going backinto research mode instead of validation of verteporfin efficacy.
Other than that, the results are pretty good.The size of those wounds are gigantic it seems, like the size of onewhole cheek in humans. But for theexcision approach ofexisting scars to work I really think it needs tobe pretty close to full regeneration, otherwise this will only work for spot treatingindividual scarsvs larger areas. Removing a scar will always involve damaging the non scarred area surrounding it,which also need to be regenerated.
Putting pessimism aside. I think we can agree that this is a pretty big step forward,with finally a possible light ahead of the tunnel.I dont thinkweve seen any of these scar healing companies achieve anywhere near theresults were seeing here, orthe transparency ofDr. Longaker and his teamsresearch. He truly has spent A LOTof time studying regeneration.
9 hours ago, Scars4Life said:I really hope that the research done on FAK is just a branch that spawned out of verteporfin research vs being the result of it. This paper makes it seem like were going backinto research mode instead of validation of verteporfin efficacy.
The research of FAKI inhibition for scarless healing is older than verteporfin one.
Stanford filed patents earlier this year on using Verteporfin for wound healing and hair follicle neogenesis ---- https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021021607
6 minutes ago, mysharon said:Is this fda approved or just another scam? The ideaof a drug for scar treatment seems too far-fetched.
Well it is fdaapproved... just not for scarring. That's what makes this even more promising. However, we have to wait and see the pig studies.
I mean this is a scientific study conductedby researchers that have spent decades on this. Not some company trying to sellyou something. So I don't think it is a scam.
1 minute ago, gueste said:Well it is fdaapproved... just not for scarring. That's what makes this even more promising. However, we have to wait and see the pig studies.
I mean this is a scientific study conductedby researchers that have spent decades on this. Not some company trying to sellyou something. So I don't think it is a scam.
Pig studies?
Even if it works on pigs it doesn't mean it will work on humans. It will take decades before studies on humans are over and it gets fda approved for scars.
10 minutes ago, mysharon said:Pig studies?
Even if it works on pigs it doesn't mean it will work on humans. It will take decades before studies on humans are over and it gets fda approved for scars.
Well I suppose. No one is saying this will work 100%. They can't just test this on humans without any evidence it'll work. So they have to test it on pigs right? Their skin is closer to ours.We still have to see if it'll work on humans. The researchers have already filed patents and are going to test this on cleft lip surgery. If this does work, it's not going to be decades. Major emphasison if.
Isecond that! There are two many ifs ifs. Researchers will test all hypotheses, that's what they are paid to do. But at the current state of this drug's research they are faaar faaar away from any significant progressto using the drug for scar treatment purposes. Still on animal testing phase, still no definite results there. Moreover, pigs' skin is not human skin. Cleft lip surgeries are not acne scars. It will be decades untilthey can even come closer to fda approval for scars. IF it works at all. It all seems to be fitting more into the realm of science fiction than reality.
Microcoring which was into final stages of human testing and got fda-approved for wrinkles turned out to be a big disappointment for scar sufferers. We shouldn't put too much hope into something which is even more experimental.
9 hours ago, Lark said:Sure it is expensive. Does anyone have a source for it?
You want to buy a drug which isn't even proven to work yet? No studies on human, no idea how it can be used, nothing. Why?
21 minutes ago, mysharon said:Isecond that! There are two many ifs ifs. Researchers will test all hypotheses, that's what they are paid to do. But at the current state of this drug's research they are faaar faaar away from any significant progressto using the drug for scar treatment purposes. Still on animal testing phase, still no definite results there. Moreover, pigs' skin is not human skin. Cleft lip surgeries are not acne scars. It will be decades untilthey can even come closer to fda approval for scars. IF it works at all. It all seems to be fitting more into the realm of science fiction than reality.
Microcoring which was into final stages of human testing and got fda-approved for wrinkles turned out to be a big disappointment for scar sufferers. We shouldn't put too much hope into something which is even more experimental.
I feel you, but past inventions such as microcoring don't dictate the future. Even if this doesn't work on humans, it's still a breakthrough on understanding scarring.I do agree with you that managing expectations is the best thing to do. Hopefully, it will work. If it doesn't, then we just have to continue living life.
7 minutes ago, gueste said:I feel you, but past inventions such as microcoring don't dictate the future. Even if this doesn't work on humans, it's still a breakthrough on understanding scarring.I do agree with you that managing expectations is the best thing to do. Hopefully, it will work. If it doesn't, then we just have to continue living life.
We also have to be realistic and not create hype over an experimental drug still in the animal testing phase. Undoubtedly insights into scar formation are valuable but it is the lack of treatmentwhich has always been the problem for regenerative medicine. You will be surprised how many drugs are being tested experimentally for different conditions other than what they have been approved for with no success.
6 minutes ago, mysharon said:We also have to be realistic and not create hype over an experimental drug still in the animal testing phase. Undoubtedly insights into scar formation are valuable but it is the lack of treatmentwhich has always been the problem for regenerative medicine. You will be surprised how many drugs are being tested experimentally for different conditions other than what they have been approved for with no success.
You're not wrong at all, but what else are we supposed to discuss lol. There's nothingelse out there as of now that shows evidence of regeneration. We can be realistic and still be hyped over Verteporfin. If anything claims regeneration, it will be brought up in this forum. That's the point of the forum. No one is claiming it'll work the same on humans as it does on mice, but it's nice to see that they are continuing this research onto humans. We don't know the outcome yet.
This is just a discussion. We should always stay realistic, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about things that involve regeneration.
1 hour ago, gueste said:You're not wrong at all, but what else are we supposed to discuss lol. There's nothingelse out there as of now that shows evidence of regeneration. We can be realistic and still be hyped over Verteporfin. If anything claims regeneration, it will be brought up in this forum. That's the point of the forum. No one is claiming it'll work the same on humans as it does on mice, but it's nice to see that they are continuing this research onto humans. We don't know the outcome yet.
This is just a discussion. We should always stay realistic, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about things that involve regeneration.
We can discuss. It is whatwe are doing right now, aren't we?But we also see how people are looking to buy expensive experimental drugs which haven't been proven to work yet lol
Readthe papers, in none of the papers they mention acne scars. If anything they have enlightened the mechanism of fibrosis development and how to PREVENT it, at best the drug could be used to PREVENT acne scars from fresh acne lesions, not miraculously cure atrophic existing acne scars. Even if the fibrosis challengegets solved,there still remains the atrophy problem.
35 minutes ago, gantz said:fu
do decypher
Ditto!
If it did mean that results on pigs would mean results on humans, nobody would be spending billions on research inhuman trials.
29 minutes ago, mysharon said:Readthe papers, in none of the papers they mention acne scars. If anything they have enlightened the mechanism of fibrosis development and how to PREVENT it in, at best the drug could be used to PREVENT acne scars from fresh acne lesions, not miraculously cure atrophic existing acne scars. Even if the fibrosis challenged gets solved,there still remains the atrophy problem.
Ditto!
If it did mean that results on pigs would mean results on humans, nobody would be spending billions on research for human trials.
thanks doctor. we didn't know about this before