Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
crappyskin

Hair Loss discorvery could also lead to a cure for scars

I agree with bama2000 they said on the news it would be at least 10 years off so im guessing possibly 15-20. At least it is good news for kids who get scars in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing is that people aren't calculating is that all the timelines are compressing with world competition and all the money the military (DARPA) is putting into limb and tissue regeneration. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see something substantive within five years. Just a few years ago we mapped the human genome and now 30 mammals have been mapped as well. Research that used to cost millions now costs thousands. That's why I'm hopeful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the thing is that people aren't calculating is that all the timelines are compressing with world competition and all the money the military (DARPA) is putting into limb and tissue regeneration. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see something substantive within five years. Just a few years ago we mapped the human genome and now 30 mammals have been mapped as well. Research that used to cost millions now costs thousands. That's why I'm hopeful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what you say is pretty much accurate in the commercial market. This doesn't apply to military studies.

Also, they aren't testing foreign substances for the most part either. They are testing naturally occuring enzymes and growth factors and bio-scaffolds... Much of this is not subject to regulations like drugs. For instance the A-Cell powder they are testing to regenerate fingertips right now at Fort Sam Houston on soldiers is already FDA approved for human use and already has a pretty impressive track record in veterinarian applications. It is not listed as drug it is listed as a medical device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of what you say is pretty much accurate in the commercial market. This doesn't apply to military studies.

Also, they aren't testing foreign substances for the most part either. They are testing naturally occuring enzymes and growth factors and bio-scaffolds... Much of this is not subject to regulations like drugs. For instance the A-Cell powder they are testing to regenerate fingertips right now at Fort Sam Houston on soldiers is already FDA approved for human use and already has a pretty impressive track record in veterinarian applications. It is not listed as drug it is listed as a medical device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of what you say is pretty much accurate in the commercial market. This doesn't apply to military studies.

Also, they aren't testing foreign substances for the most part either. They are testing naturally occuring enzymes and growth factors and bio-scaffolds... Much of this is not subject to regulations like drugs. For instance the A-Cell powder they are testing to regenerate fingertips right now at Fort Sam Houston on soldiers is already FDA approved for human use and already has a pretty impressive track record in veterinarian applications. It is not listed as drug it is listed as a medical device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even better. It falls into general domain. The A-Cell specifically though ( is already commercially accessible) just isn't being marketed as a tissue bio-scaffold to regenerate tissue on humans yet. It is approved as a wound dressing. It's like botox. It wasn't until a few years ago that it was approved for any other wrinkle other than the glabella lines (between the eyebrows) doctors were still using it for other wrinkles as off label use and that was a full blown toxin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Anna is a little optimistic and zonk is a little pessimistic! There is a huge amount of money to be made out of such a technology and I have no doubt that it will be brought to market as soon as humanly possible, however I also realise there is a lot of red tape to get through, various studies, trials etc. to achieve approval which unfortunately by its very nature does take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even better. It falls into general domain. The A-Cell specifically though ( is already commercially accessible) just isn't being marketed as a tissue bio-scaffold to regenerate tissue on humans yet. It is approved as a wound dressing. It's like botox. It wasn't until a few years ago that it was approved for any other wrinkle other than the glabella lines (between the eyebrows) doctors were still using it for other wrinkles as off label use and that was a full blown toxin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even better. It falls into general domain. The A-Cell specifically though ( is already commercially accessible) just isn't being marketed as a tissue bio-scaffold to regenerate tissue on humans yet. It is approved as a wound dressing. It's like botox. It wasn't until a few years ago that it was approved for any other wrinkle other than the glabella lines (between the eyebrows) doctors were still using it for other wrinkles as off label use and that was a full blown toxin.

I don't think this is worth getting into a debate over, but you're oversimplifying things. For example, even if it is in the public domain, who's going to manufacture and sell this product to doctors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The annals of medicine are filled with unfilled promises from hyped basic research and delays even if research leads to a viable product/treatment. Think how many decades we have been testng mice for cancer cures. This has led to some good drugs, but it took a long time with many failures. I think you are talking longer than 10 years, if ever. But, maybe I am a pessimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The annals of medicine are filled with unfilled promises from hyped basic research and delays even if research leads to a viable product/treatment. Think how many decades we have been testng mice for cancer cures. This has led to some good drugs, but it took a long time with many failures. I think you are talking longer than 10 years, if ever. But, maybe I am a pessimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The annals of medicine are filled with unfilled promises from hyped basic research and delays even if research leads to a viable product/treatment. Think how many decades we have been testng mice for cancer cures. This has led to some good drugs, but it took a long time with many failures. I think you are talking longer than 10 years, if ever. But, maybe I am a pessimist.

Billyboy,

I can understand your pessimism and the very fact that I spend so much of my personal time researching these things is a testament to the fact that I don't trust the established avenues. If you look at the website for the AAD they don't even list most of the treatments people on this site discuss as having shown promise. However, if we don't have hope why would we even come to this site??? Anyway, I choose to remain hopeful. Although, even if I do find something promising (I was the one who brought the TCA CROSS study to this board) most of the naysayers are perfectly happy to form a negative opionion without even having read the study. This is a large part of the reason I left this board for two years.

Thanks, Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The annals of medicine are filled with unfilled promises from hyped basic research and delays even if research leads to a viable product/treatment. Think how many decades we have been testng mice for cancer cures. This has led to some good drugs, but it took a long time with many failures. I think you are talking longer than 10 years, if ever. But, maybe I am a pessimist.

Billyboy,

I can understand your pessimism and the very fact that I spend so much of my personal time researching these things is a testament to the fact that I don't trust the established avenues. If you look at the website for the AAD they don't even list most of the treatments people on this site discuss as having shown promise. However, if we don't have hope why would we even come to this site??? Anyway, I choose to remain hopeful. Although, even if I do find something promising (I was the one who brought the TCA CROSS study to this board) most of the naysayers are perfectly happy to form a negative opionion without even having read the study. This is a large part of the reason I left this board for two years.

Thanks, Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The annals of medicine are filled with unfilled promises from hyped basic research and delays even if research leads to a viable product/treatment. Think how many decades we have been testng mice for cancer cures. This has led to some good drugs, but it took a long time with many failures. I think you are talking longer than 10 years, if ever. But, maybe I am a pessimist.

Billyboy,

I can understand your pessimism and the very fact that I spend so much of my personal time researching these things is a testament to the fact that I don't trust the established avenues. If you look at the website for the AAD they don't even list most of the treatments people on this site discuss as having shown promise. However, if we don't have hope why would we even come to this site??? Anyway, I choose to remain hopeful. Although, even if I do find something promising (I was the one who brought the TCA CROSS study to this board) most of the naysayers are perfectly happy to form a negative opionion without even having read the study. This is a large part of the reason I left this board for two years.

Thanks, Anna

Access to TCA is much different than access to whatever this article is proposing. I just re-read the article, and all it says is they've identified a pathway involved in regeneration. There is so much more to this research than just identifying a biochemical pathway, not the least of which include 1) making sure the messing with the pathway doesn't cause other unwanted side effects, 2) finding a way to chemically manipulate the pathway, 3) finding a chemical compound that is specific to that pathway only, 4) putting the compound through the proper paces to make sure it works properly.

Call it negativity or pessimism all you want, but I like to call it realism. This is a long, long way off.

And if you want to validate opinions by supposed "scientific accomplishments" or "knowledge of science," you should go back and read my posts where I describe my background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Zonk, I am sure that you do really meaningful and beneficial work. I don’t want to argue with you. My best to you and you’re right…time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×