what does this have to do with people that already have scars? i mean sure u got acne this stuff can help but scars?

what does this have to do with people that already have scars? i mean sure u got acne this stuff can help but scars?

At this point it seems to remain unknown as to whether the application of this or such a substance can reverse existing scarring. It is being described as a topical antiscarring agent which could mean either or both a prophylactic anti-scarring agent or a scar reversal agent. It could be that if you have existing scars you would need to undergo a deep peel and then have this substance applied. I would think the trials would reveal that. I thought it important to note that it was "very effective at penetrating human skin in vitro" this would mean effective as a topical agent. Perhaps after continued topical use it would inhibit the tough scarred collagen enough to allow regeneration to occur.

Neca,

I just thoroughly read the article, 'Therapeutic Strategies for Tissue Regeneration' and found it illuminating. My definition of regeneration has been rather strict and in that stringency I may have been confused by what I considered the overuse of the term regneratation. This is the definition the article gives:

"Gareth Roberts (Novothera Ltd, London, UK) reviewed the path of regenerative medicines

from promise to marketed product. The approach of regenerative medicines sits within the context of the body healing itself. This can occur by 1) replacing damaged tissue (e.g., organ transplantation), 2) by tissue repair (e.g., adding new cells to an organ) and 3) tissue regeneration using factors to stimulate cell renewal."

I personally have only considered number three to be the true definition of regeneration.

Another interesting excerpt which harkens back to the personalized approach we discussed earlier in this thread:

"An interesting development from their studies was a comparison of the expression profile in certain Caribbean populations predisposed to keloid formation. The gene profiles were different in these individuals, offering the possibility of developing more personalized treatments."

And finally the most heartbreaking and true ringing of it all:

"Professor Ferguson finished his talk by drawing attention of the audience to Lucy Grealyas book aAutobiography of a face.a The quotation which follows undoubtedly convinced the audience

of the need to develop treatments that are acceptable to both the clinician and the patient. aoeI spent 5 years of my life being treated for cancer, but since then Iave spent 15 years being

treated for nothing other than looking different from everyone else. It was pain from that, from feeling ugly, that I always views as the great tragedy of my life. The fact I had cancer seemed

minor in comparison.a

A lot to think about!

Thanks again for posting Neca!

Anna

So glad to see you posting again!

 

All very interesting stuff!

 

It is odd that the article would refer to TGF B3 as Tumor Growth Factor B3, when it has always been Transformative Growth Factor B3 and not at all related to tumor growth. Am I confused somehow???

I know, that shocked me quite a lot...I thought it was a slight Freudian slip . But if you google "tumour growth factor" there are 56,000 results so I guess it's not wrong lol. But I guess at least we know the point it's trying to make, that TGFb3 are good for anti-scarring .

I have seen posts about MSM in the past with mixed reviews I will take a look at the results your search criteria produces.

Yes, it's probably just anecdotal or very hit and miss. I will give it a try at least when I do my aloe vera anti-scarring needling test session.

UK-421045 selected for preclinical evaluation as topical antiscarring agent

Researchers have synthesized novel selective nonpeptidic inhibitors of procollagen C-proteinase (PCP), a key molecule for collagen deposition that leads to the development of fibrosis and scar tissue formation. Within this series of compounds, UK-421045 potently inhibited PCP (IC50 = 11 nM) and had high selectivity (more than 10,000-fold) over matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) involved in wound healing, such as MMP-1, -2, -9 and -13. In the human dermal fibroplasia model in vitro, UK-421045 blocked insoluble collagen deposition by 76% at 10 mcM, showing superiority to compounds in the series. Moreover, UK-421045 demonstrated good solubility in both aqueous and organic solvents and was also very effective at penetrating human skin in vitro (Fish, V.P. et al. J Med Chem 2007, Advance publication).

That's an excellent find Kirk and very encouraging. I agree with what Anna has just posted about, that collagen isn't always a good thing. In fact, I would say a large percentage of the scarring I have is the result of using Retin-A Micro for too long a period of time thus generating too much collagen. I believe that the RAM increased my skin's development of collagen causing some areas to have a different type of matrix on the skin. The difficulty would be removing the form of scar tissue and replacing it or encouraging the skin to growth the standard basketwoven collagen matrix. Probably either dermabrasion or more peels then applying the above product.

Do we know which company or research unit is performing the investigation into this product?

It seems like scar tissue research is getting A LOT of attention now, I hope this flow of news can continue and finally produce something highly workable which we can all use.

Neca,

 

I just thoroughly read the article, 'Therapeutic Strategies for Tissue Regeneration' and found it illuminating. My definition of regeneration has been rather strict and in that stringency I may have been confused by what I considered the overuse of the term regneratation. This is the definition the article gives:

 

"Gareth Roberts (Novothera Ltd, London, UK) reviewed the path of regenerative medicines

from promise to marketed product. The approach of regenerative medicines sits within the context of the body healing itself. This can occur by 1) replacing damaged tissue (e.g., organ transplantation), 2) by tissue repair (e.g., adding new cells to an organ) and 3) tissue regeneration using factors to stimulate cell renewal."

 

I personally have only considered number three to be the true definition of regeneration.

 

Another interesting excerpt which harkens back to the personalized approach we discussed earlier in this thread:

 

"An interesting development from their studies was a comparison of the expression profile in certain Caribbean populations predisposed to keloid formation. The gene profiles were different in these individuals, offering the possibility of developing more personalized treatments."

 

And finally the most heartbreaking and true ringing of it all:

"Professor Ferguson finished his talk by drawing attention of the audience to Lucy Grealyas book aAutobiography of a face.a The quotation which follows undoubtedly convinced the audience

of the need to develop treatments that are acceptable to both the clinician and the patient. aoeI spent 5 years of my life being treated for cancer, but since then Iave spent 15 years being

treated for nothing other than looking different from everyone else. It was pain from that, from feeling ugly, that I always views as the great tragedy of my life. The fact I had cancer seemed

minor in comparison.a

 

A lot to think about!

 

Thanks again for posting Neca!

Anna

Hehe, you don't know how happy that post made me feel Anna. I have a huge smile on my face now as I highlighted the exact same areas that you did after having finished reading that PDF a few weeks ago but forgot to post my summaries.

How applicable is that quote from Grealy's book:

aoeI spent 5 years of my life being treated for cancer, but since then Iave spent 15 years being treated for nothing other than looking different from everyone else. It was pain from that, from feeling ugly, that I always views as the great tragedy of my life. The fact I had cancer seemed minor in comparison.a

Amazing! I'm really glad you found that as significant as I did.

It really hit home how I feel when I read it. It shows how emotionally debilitating medical problems that occur on the face are, no matter how minor (scarring, acne, alopecia etc.) as opposed to ones that occur in the rest of the body (eg heart, liver, lung problems etc.). You always see your face each day so you always see the problem, at least with conditions that affect other parts of the body can be forgotten about more easily each day.

Sometimes I wish God could have given me diabetes instead of skin problems. A needle injection each day and eating properly really is as easy as it gets when compared to what I am doing to myself to treat my skin problems each day.

so predictions anyone?how long will it be before something really gets rid of scars?i would say 5 to 10 years if ever.

Sometimes I wish God could have given me diabetes instead of skin problems. A needle injection each day and eating properly really is as easy as it gets when compared to what I am doing to myself to treat my skin problems each day.

dude, diabetes is no walk in the park.

I am not a sufferer but I have friends/relatives who are and there is a little more to it than a needle injection a day and eating properly a diabetic's life expectancy is still way less than non-diabetic. I'd take bad scars any day.

time prediction for proper scar treatment? Who knows but I'm not going to hold my breath. My hunch is not in the next 20 years. HOWEVER, I do believe that fillers will get better and better, giving those bad scarring a more normal look.

nikkigirl,

I would say that we will know a lot more within the next few months as to whether there will be a major advance in regenerative medicine. If the first phase of DARPA's regeneration project is successful and they can create a blastema (by whatever means) there will be a huge rush toward actually regrowing mammalian limbs. The government is pushing this so hard because it is very costly to pay for the ongoing costs of disabled soldiers. Incidentally, some of the major advances in cosmetic surgery have arisen out of the treatment of war wounds.

Rupert,

I agree that diabetes is no walk in the park, but I can honestly say that I would give 20 years of my life not to have to deal with scarring or any affliction which makes one feel hesitant to interact with people. We are social creatures and anything that interferes with that interaction is a huge detriment. The woman I quoted said the tragedy of her life was not cancer, it was the aftermath of scars... I am hopeful that the filler route is greatly successful for you.

Cheers everyone~

Anna

Rupert,

I agree that diabetes is no walk in the park, but I can honestly say that I would give 20 years of my life not to have to deal with scarring or any affliction which makes one feel hesitant to interact with people. We are social creatures and anything that interferes with that interaction is a huge detriment. The woman I quoted said the tragedy of her life was not cancer, it was the aftermath of scars... I am hopeful that the filler route is greatly successful for you.

 

Cheers everyone~

Anna

I doubt it will be greatly successful but what each individual regards as a success is different. I am not determined to look scarless, that has happened and can't be reversed, just a bit of fill would be good. Sure I will keep an ear out for any miracle treatments but cos I don't think that will happen, I'm not going to get too stuck on that.

More on fillers, which Neca posted regarding Vavelta:

http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxrhy/

A Phase II trial has commenced in the UK, designed to test the efficacy of VAVELTAa in naso-labial folds. A second Phase II trial is planned to start this summer to evaluate the efficacy of VAVELTAa in facial imperfections. It is anticipated that preliminary results from these trials will be available at the end of 2007.

http://www.vavelta.com/vavelta/tools/downl...andouts-rhy.pdf

We'll see at the end of 2007 what this shows!

yeah good post Anna.

vavelta is isolagen (which I had in 2005), the only difference being that the fibroplasts are harvested from a donor rather than from yourself.

This I find soooo curious.

Other people's fibroplasts can live and produce collagen once injected into you? I thought that any foreign person's tissue cannot live inside you without continual medication to avoid the rejection (e.g. kidneys, liver etc). Its different having say cow collagen injected into you. Fibroplasts have to produce the collagen when inside you and to do that, they have to survive.

Anyway since isolagen withdrew business it would be good to see a replacement company in the UK. Hopefully, with the external donor business, they should be able to pump the stuff out at less cost. Isolagen always whined to me that the high cost of isolagen was because of the multiplying of the fibroplasts in the lab. Getting them to grow. If they can get some economies of scale going here, hopefully us consumers could get it at an affordable price.

isolagen claimed they closed down cos of the cost of producing the product but I reckon it was that too many people were demanding their money back for wrinkles which it just didn't work on.

I can vouch that it worked well for some of my less deep scars.

I have the same concerns Rupert.

In the phase I study shown in the link there were a few adverse effects. They define allogenic as: allogenic

Taken from different individuals of the same species. Also called allogeneic.

I had always taken allogenic to mean taken from the same individual.

Anyway, I don't know why the body does not reject it. I know that the company ACell which manufacturers the pig bladder powder matrix (the powder which was used to regenerate a lost finger tip) renders that product acellular and therefore not subject to rejection. I don't know how that would be done for fibroblasts that are supposed to be reproducing.

I personally was one of those unlucky individuals who was allergic to collagen and couldn't go out in the sun for almost two years after my injections so I am very wary of fillers.

I would definitely do a test first to see if it works and doesn't cause a negative reaction!

My best!

Anna

I would definitely do a test first to see if it works and doesn't cause a negative reaction!

 

My best!

Anna

yeah when it comes out. U notice how companies are very good at saying, "it will be out in 2005" and in 2007 you are still wondering why they are pratting about

did u not have a test injection for the cow collagen? or did that not show and u when injected in the face it hived up?

All I remember is I bought a vial for about $250 from the plastic surgeon and I think the test spot under my arm didn't react....of course I'm not in the habit of sunning myself under my arms! Anyway, it was the weirdest thing. After any significant sun exposure it would welt up as if I'd just had the injection... They kept calling me to ask when I was coming back for more injections too....Crazy!

thats mad to actually be ringing you up after you probably complained.

I feel sorry for Americans, I often wonder if the average doc there is just a salesman trying to con you out of money.

somebody on this forum was pming about docs for scars - Swinehart and Berman. I have known people here at org who have had their faces fked by those two.

lol Swinehart and Berman - wouldn't touch those 2 with a bargepole.

I don't know if you've seen it but 'Sicko' is a really good movie. It highlights some of the many issues with the US health care system. I have always thought education should be a meritocracy wherein you only get into school if the have the intellectual capacity, and then it should be free. U.S. doctors are saddled with huge debt when they finally get out of school... the money grubbing is a natural consequence, and we pay the price. Everyone loses.

Do you see potential for substantially better treatment of scars in any current developing science / technology (stem cell, recell, laser etc) ? Which appears most promising and how soon do you think it will be available?

 

Dr. Garcia's reply to your question: Hopefully within the next two years weall see some strides. I do think weall see a huge difference in the future. For instance, tumor necrosis factor is interesting.

 

The above is from the thread where somebody went to Dr. Julio Garcia and he gave his answer regarding the future of scar treatments. I had not researched Tumor Necrosis Factor before. One more thing to add to the list!

Edit Update:

Dr. Garcia was super fast in responding. It appears that TNF is more applicable to keloid treatment. http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic205.htm

Neca,

I sent you a PM with some Bio-Tech suppliers...hopefully they will be of help. It seems pointless to me for companies to be selling tainted growth factors to researchers given that any results obtained from studies using such would reasonably have to be considered invalid??? Am I missing something???

Thanks for all your posts Neca!

Anna

Neca,

 

I sent you a PM with some Bio-Tech suppliers...hopefully they will be of help. It seems pointless to me for companies to be selling tainted growth factors to researchers given that any results obtained from studies using such would reasonably have to be considered invalid??? Am I missing something???

 

Thanks for all your posts Neca!

Anna

Wouldn't they (the buyers) be able to purify the growth factors through various filters that laymen cant understand? etc. It is probably a very good way to stop us usually uninformed laymen from buying untested medicine etc. I mean in the main we wouldn't have the knowledge to purify.

Or, lets say if they (the buyers) didn't know how to purify, then perhaps this is another way:

if they didn't purify perhaps they don't yet need valid results yet, and thus they may choose to buy the cheap stuff until they need the good stuff; perhaps they are just lets say piloting the process with the impure stuff before they begin the validation process etc. Where when they have shown an example of the process with the use of the pilot to the wholesalers, they will then get some license and the wholesalers will then make them the more expensive pure chemicals?

Interesting post Kirk!

There is so much I want to learn about all of this. Even though I research a LOT I still feel like there is a mountain of things I don't know. Maybe they simply state that they are not for human use to avoid liability...I wish I knew. Sometimes desperation makes me tempted though...

Rupert,

You mentioned that Isolagen worked well for some shallower scars. Would you have pursued further treatment if it further if it were still available?

Thanks, Anna

Rupert,

 

You mentioned that Isolagen worked well for some shallower scars. Would you have pursued further treatment if it further if it were still available?

 

Thanks, Anna

for about 3 shallow scars it levelled them 100%and has to this day, two years later. By shallow, I mean they were originally about 1 mm deep. People forget that some people on the board who no longer visit had good results with isolagen and never post anymore. Isolagen didn't work well for some of the deep scars. My own theory is that if u have subcision and the scars are shallow, then the fibroplasts placed under the scars have a fighting chance of laying down new collagen under the scars before the scars have a chance to re-attach. Add to that, that the isolagen plumps up the normal surrounding skin and you're in business.

too bad the company was run by morons and doesn't work for wrinkles. I had my smile lines injected and it did feck all.

It would be good if Isolagen opened in USA but seeing as they envisaged their market as wrinkles and there are newly formed groups in England trying to claim back money cos it didn't do jack for their wrinkles at ‚£3,000, then I have my doubts that isolagen will ever re-open.

your scars shallow Anna?

actually just thinking about it, I had shallow depressions (1-2 mm deep from surface of face) on my temples and I have forgotten I even had these scars. I looked for them this morning in my bathroom mirror b4 my shower (after posting here) and yeah I could see them if I screwed up my eyes and got real close to the mirror. In other words, if u have to search for them, they aren't a problem. I used to hide them with hair. So yeah, isolagen did a good job on those as well.

But funnily enough, the scars I care about are the ones rooted in the fat of my face which are a little more obvious. Most people have shallow scars though and to those who got properly injected by somebody competent like Chewy, the results must have been very pleasing.

Well, I have to say that I must be lucky or something, but I barely get scars after having a huge cyst. Once, I even took a big piece of meat and skin from my nose when accidentaly hitting a cabinet shelf. My nose is smooth as new, and it happened like 2 months ago.

All I am trying to say that sking healing is in the genes, some people have it good others don't. I just believe the cure to scarring will be found just when science learns more about genetic engineering.

And it may sound crazy, but genes can be modified even on a grown organism.

but well, meanwhile it doesn't hurt to try ..

best of lucks to all of you

Other people's fibroplasts can live and produce collagen once injected into you? I thought that any foreign person's tissue cannot live inside you without continual medication to avoid the rejection (e.g. kidneys, liver etc).

ADVANCES IN AESTHETIC CELLULAR REJUVENATION - Growing Human Fibroblasts for Regeneration and Repair

The below link explains why Intercytex's Vavelta treatment should not cause rejection of donor fibroblasts.

http://production.investis.com/vavelta/too...vances-2_04.pdf

Article excerpts: "Intercytex uses allogeneic fibroblasts, which means cells removed from one person, expanded into cell banks as described later in this paper and applied to another for treatment. At first glance this would appear to go against the principles of immunology and one might think that the approach would result in an immune response in the recipient and a rejection of the injected fibroblasts. However, scientific and medical evidence points away from this. Allogeneic fibroblasts have been successfully used in medical applications now for over ten years. In terms of their immunogenicity, allogeneic fibroblasts appear to behave, to all intents and purposes, as though they are autologous (ie removed from and applied to the same person.

All available data on the immunogenicity of fibroblasts indicates that they do not initiate an immune response. This is probably due to their inability to co-stimulate the proliferation of T-lymphocytes which are necessary for mounting a cell-mediated immune response "

Neca,

 

I sent you a PM with some Bio-Tech suppliers...hopefully they will be of help. It seems pointless to me for companies to be selling tainted growth factors to researchers given that any results obtained from studies using such would reasonably have to be considered invalid??? Am I missing something???

 

Thanks for all your posts Neca!

Anna

 

Wouldn't they (the buyers) be able to purify the growth factors through various filters that laymen cant understand? etc. It is probably a very good way to stop us usually uninformed laymen from buying untested medicine etc. I mean in the main we wouldn't have the knowledge to purify.

 

Or, lets say if they (the buyers) didn't know how to purify, then perhaps this is another way:

 

if they didn't purify perhaps they don't yet need valid results yet, and thus they may choose to buy the cheap stuff until they need the good stuff; perhaps they are just lets say piloting the process with the impure stuff before they begin the validation process etc. Where when they have shown an example of the process with the use of the pilot to the wholesalers, they will then get some license and the wholesalers will then make them the more expensive pure chemicals?

 

Yes, of course these biopharmas are capable of purifying any chemical they want. It's clearly not difficult to do. The problem arises whereby us, layman, try to obtain these types of chemicals which have not been secured for 'safe'/therapeutic use. Thus the biopharmas do not seem too willing to supply us with TGFs since they are worried these 'untested in human' substances could cause detrimental side-effects. I'm guessing they do not really want any liability.