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

Scarless Healing

Recommended Posts

hey vladislav, thanks for your post! as opposed to seabs and alonso, i, unfortunately, am not 100% convinced about the hydrogel (see below), so it's always great to hear about other appoaches as well, especially when they are based on very thorough research (in contrast to the hydrogel's "hey, what do u know, it seems it healed w/o any scarring for some reason.") I've actually seen that paper before, newts are quite amazing creatures that we'll prob learn a lot from in the coming years. And the axolotl is so damn cute as well

Here are the checkmate facts:

-If a wound reepithilizes in under 3 weeks there will be no scar.

To actually prove this in any type of wound, you'll already have to have a method that heals wounds scarlessly by faster reep. while all other factors are held fixed. I think this simpy is an observation in second degree burns or similar mid-depth wounds where there already are remnants of adnexa left. hair follicles and sebaceous glands have long been known to speed up reepithelialization, so this is probably only an observation of a correlation.

-If a wound regenerates with hair and sweat glands there is absolutely no scar. Hair and sweat glands do not regenerate in scar.
i'm not sure this is 100 % true. the ecm may still be fucked up as far as i know, and the density of hair follicles may not correspond to native tissue. Also hair follicles and sebaceous glands originate from the same stem cell niche, but what about other appendages like eccrine glands and arrector pili muscles that don't? And even if this were true, there would imo at least probably still be the "scarred margin" problem that we discussed before.

don't get me wrong, I sure as fcking hell would like this hydrogel to eradicate my scars forever, but I'm just not seeing it happen that easy.

BTW what Vlad is talking about is limb regeneration, (before he was trying to talk about the regeneration of an internal organ). Limb regeneration which according to Helber Katz in 2006 was 10years off. We are interested in scar and its inverse, regeneration.

He is trying to talk about a car engine when it is about observing a potato, which I repeat has been observed.

Also does Vlad actually believe that anyone in his life will understand the migrating scarring matrix mechanism and the migrating regeneration matrix in minute detail? It is absolute horseshit they will. Do they understand in overkill why the bladder regenerated? No, but the fact is, in 1999 it was regenerated and put inside 10 humans. By using the overkill detail bs, he is using fallacy and the smoke and mirrors bs that $$%^&$( (not mention any names publically) used to sell a certain product that was worse than piss water and saline. Again what he is doing is dishonest. IMO if he is deliberate in this he could be bordering on trolling IMO

Anyway on to what you have said.

Fact it is clinically observed that if a wound reepithilizes in under 3 weeks from an injury there will be no scar.

In history no 3rd degree burn in a mammal has reepithilized in under 21 days. This scaffold degraded in under 5 to 7 days and the third degree burn reepithilized in under 14. On the other hand the control scaffold (a benchmark standard used in a certain hospital) was harder for the neutophils to degrade and as such the full thickness third degree burn behaved exactly like it usually does and scarred. Also the non treated section behaved like they usually do.

No one understands or will ever understand in your lifetime what happened after the 8020 hydrogel degraded, were it brought about regeneration but regeneration was observed quite clearly.

Fact if anything is regenerated, by logical default there can be no scar. Scarring and regeneration are inversely related, scarring blocks off cell communication and regeneration. Therefor if a sweat gland, or any other gland is regenerated there is no scar blocking off regeneration by logical default.

In that paper the full thickness section that recieved the hydrogel regenerated fully. In that paper a well used standard scaffold behaved like it usually does in mammal tissue, i.e it was hard for the neutrophils to degrade it and therefore after 30 days it was still reepithilizing.

Regarding the margin. I actually have not discussed this with you, without sounding like a xyz, I only pointed out something to you, nothing from my point of view needed discussed. There is no problem with the margin.

Anyway if you look at the paper, 1. they created a burn, 2. then cut out the middle core of the burn, they left a burned margin (a 2mm rim of untreated burned tissue) <<< this margin section (you are wrongly assuming was treated with the hydrogel), down to experimental design, was deliberately untreated as it was not cut out and thus, it behaved like it would when non treated.

The core in the middle of the margin, on the other hand had the burned tissue completely cut out. It was then treated with the hydrogel and completely soaked up the blood, digested the scaffold within 5 to 7 days, revascularized, reepithilized in under 14days and regenerated with absolutely no scar wall blocking off regeneration.

In summary as the margin was not debrided of the burned tissue, the margin as expected did not behave like the treated central core as it was not dissected like the core. There was nothing that stood out about the margin you claimed, there was no scarred margin problem you claim, the scarring on the burned tissue margin was expected. The margin you go on about and think was treated, was actually not treated with the hydrogel; it was left burned.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and it is the newest research that was announced in april 2012 by a group of scientists from two universities from the US

these investigations have already begun several years ago, and that will take 25 years calculated, funded by The Healing Foundation

in 2005

That research paper is not funded by The Healing Foundation, it is funded by US Army (Army Research Office), NIH, NSF, University of Florida, Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden.

Received: September 15, 2011; Accepted: February 3, 2012; Published: April 2, 2012

Funding: The Ambystoma Affymetrix Genechips were designed from a transcript assembly funded by NIH-NCRR (R24-RR016344). Most of the transcripts were generated under the NIH-NCRR grant and an Army Research Office grant (MURI: W911NF-09-1-0305) to Ken Muneoka, David Gardiner, and SRV. Additional transcripts were provided by Elly Tanaka through funding from the DFG Center for Regenerative Therapies, and Bernd Fritsch through funding from NIH-NIDCD (R01-DC005590-07S1). The axolotls were obtained from the Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center at the University of Kentucky, which is funded by the National Science Foundation (DBI-0951484). This study was supported by NIH 5RC2NS069480 to MM and AWS is funded by NIH-NIDDK 5T32DK074367. Publication of this article was funded in part by the University of Florida Open-Access Publishing Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly you could put something right in front of someones eyes and they'd ignore it..

If a wound reepithilizes in under 21 days you get scar free healing.

If anything is regenerated you get scar free healing.

If follicles and gland are grown you get scar free healing.

And on and on...

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seabs what do you say about this research paper?

Skin Regeneration in Adult Axolotls: A Blueprint for Scar-Free Healing in Vertebrates

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0032875

And what do you say about Salamander Genome Project?

http://www.ambystoma...-genome-project

And about those guys from the UoK and UoF?

http://www.ashleyseifert.com/

http://www.james-monaghan.com/

So they have a few conclusions about scar-free healing of the skin in axolotls, those are:

-regeneration of their skin is possible because of reduced hemostasis and inflammation, accelerated re-epithelialization, delayed&reduced ECM production

-MMPs are very important genes for faster re-epithelialization and delayed ECM production (some of MMPs are increased by 500-fold during re-epithelialization and then drastically decreased right after re-epithelialization)

-fibronectin and tenascin-C are important for the creation of the regenerative ECM

and so on.

And I've just read a few words about that hydrogel, it can heal 3rd degree burn wounds completely without scars, that is impressive, I can say that is SOMETHING - but they mention only burn wounds so I don't know if that hydogel is able to cope with hypertrophic scars or keloids!??? If it can, that it is great news but somehow it sounds too simple... and too good to be true... eusa_think.gif but I hope it will work razz.gif

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come across most of what you have posted on google alerts over time. Also the salamander stuff has been talked about on this thread before. I think the salamander project will play a part in limb regeneration.

Regarding scars, imo people tend to catergorise to much, stressing about labels, but they are all the same. They are bundled collagen that blocks regeneration. Burns = collagen, acne = collagen, knife wound scar = collagen, hypertrophic scar = collagen, keliod = over production of collagen. Scarring is the inverse of regeneration. Regeneration is if you like the finger print of scar free healing. If something brings about scar free healing it will reepithilize a wound before a keloid can happen

the hydrogel was digested by the white blood cells within 7 days, then the wound reepithilized the 3rd degree burn in under 14 days (under 21 days), whilst the standard control had the white blood cells struggling to digest the periphery after 7 days, and the control scarred after 30 days etc.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway on to what you have said.

Fact it is clinically observed that if a wound reepithilizes in under 3 weeks from an injury there will be no scar.

In history no 3rd degree burn in a mammal has reepithilized in under 21 days. This scaffold degraded in under 5 to 7 days and the third degree burn reepithilized in under 14. On the other hand the control scaffold (a benchmark standard used in a certain hospital) was harder for the neutophils to degrade and as such the full thickness third degree burn behaved exactly like it usually does and scarred. Also the non treated section behaved like they usually do.

No one understands or will ever understand in your lifetime what happened after the 8020 hydrogel degraded, were it brought about regeneration but regeneration was observed quite clearly.

Fact if anything is regenerated, by logical default there can be no scar. Scarring and regeneration are inversely related, scarring blocks off cell communication and regeneration. Therefor if a sweat gland, or any other gland is regenerated there is no scar blocking off regeneration by logical default.

In that paper the full thickness section that recieved the hydrogel regenerated fully. In that paper a well used standard scaffold behaved like it usually does in mammal tissue, i.e it was hard for the neutrophils to degrade it and therefore after 30 days it was still reepithilizing.

Regarding the margin. I actually have not discussed this with you, without sounding like a xyz, I only pointed out something to you, nothing from my point of view needed discussed. There is no problem with the margin.

Anyway if you look at the paper, 1. they created a burn, 2. then cut out the middle core of the burn, they left a burned margin (a 2mm rim of untreated burned tissue) <<< this margin section (you are wrongly assuming was treated with the hydrogel), down to experimental design, was deliberately untreated as it was not cut out and thus, it behaved like it would when non treated.

The core in the middle of the margin, on the other hand had the burned tissue completely cut out. It was then treated with the hydrogel and completely soaked up the blood, digested the scaffold within 5 to 7 days, revascularized, reepithilized in under 14days and regenerated with absolutely no scar wall blocking off regeneration.

In summary as the margin was not debrided of the burned tissue, the margin as expected did not behave like the treated central core as it was not dissected like the core. There was nothing that stood out about the margin you claimed, there was no scarred margin problem you claim, the scarring on the burned tissue margin was expected. The margin you go on about and think was treated, was actually not treated with the hydrogel; it was left burned.

Sorry, but there is such a thing as over-simplifying matters as well. I have not seen anything proving that reepithelialization under 21 days means scarless healing. As you say, it may be a clinical observation, but that also means that there was no control of other correlated factors (i.e. that adnexa are probably still intact in the wound bed and that epithelial stem cells will migrate directly from these instead of the wound margins (meaning faster reep and practically no scar, since these structures are still intact).) Also, I don't think the hydrogel paper mentioned the regeneration of any sweat glands? If it did, that would obviously be great, have only heard of hair follicles and their associated sebaceous glands being able to regenerate at this point.

I never said that they treated the margin, only that it is an observed fact in previous wounding induced hair follicle neogenesis studies that there will be a border of scarred skin circumventing the area of neogenesis. From chuckstonchew's conversation (thanks for that, btw, if you're reading this!) it seems that the researchers themselves were unable to give any conclusive answers whether all of the excised area regenerated or not. Anyway, time will tell if this was the case or not.

I'm happy that you're so optimistic, though, gives me some hope too smile.png

Edited by rimram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway on to what you have said.

Fact it is clinically observed that if a wound reepithilizes in under 3 weeks from an injury there will be no scar.

In history no 3rd degree burn in a mammal has reepithilized in under 21 days. This scaffold degraded in under 5 to 7 days and the third degree burn reepithilized in under 14. On the other hand the control scaffold (a benchmark standard used in a certain hospital) was harder for the neutophils to degrade and as such the full thickness third degree burn behaved exactly like it usually does and scarred. Also the non treated section behaved like they usually do.

No one understands or will ever understand in your lifetime what happened after the 8020 hydrogel degraded, were it brought about regeneration but regeneration was observed quite clearly.

Fact if anything is regenerated, by logical default there can be no scar. Scarring and regeneration are inversely related, scarring blocks off cell communication and regeneration. Therefor if a sweat gland, or any other gland is regenerated there is no scar blocking off regeneration by logical default.

In that paper the full thickness section that recieved the hydrogel regenerated fully. In that paper a well used standard scaffold behaved like it usually does in mammal tissue, i.e it was hard for the neutrophils to degrade it and therefore after 30 days it was still reepithilizing.

Regarding the margin. I actually have not discussed this with you, without sounding like a xyz, I only pointed out something to you, nothing from my point of view needed discussed. There is no problem with the margin.

Anyway if you look at the paper, 1. they created a burn, 2. then cut out the middle core of the burn, they left a burned margin (a 2mm rim of untreated burned tissue) <<< this margin section (you are wrongly assuming was treated with the hydrogel), down to experimental design, was deliberately untreated as it was not cut out and thus, it behaved like it would when non treated.

The core in the middle of the margin, on the other hand had the burned tissue completely cut out. It was then treated with the hydrogel and completely soaked up the blood, digested the scaffold within 5 to 7 days, revascularized, reepithilized in under 14days and regenerated with absolutely no scar wall blocking off regeneration.

In summary as the margin was not debrided of the burned tissue, the margin as expected did not behave like the treated central core as it was not dissected like the core. There was nothing that stood out about the margin you claimed, there was no scarred margin problem you claim, the scarring on the burned tissue margin was expected. The margin you go on about and think was treated, was actually not treated with the hydrogel; it was left burned.

Sorry, but there is such a thing as over-simplifying matters as well. I have not seen anything proving that reepithelialization under 21 days means scarless healing. As you say, it may be a clinical observation, but that also means that there was no control of other correlated factors (i.e. that adnexa are probably still intact in the wound bed and that epithelial stem cells will migrate directly from these instead of the wound margins (meaning faster reep and practically no scar, since these structures are still intact).) Also, I don't think the hydrogel paper mentioned the regeneration of any sweat glands? If it did, that would obviously be great, have only heard of hair follicles and their associated sebaceous glands being able to regenerate at this point.

I never said that they treated the margin, only that it is an observed fact in previous wounding induced hair follicle neogenesis studies that there will be a border of scarred skin circumventing the area of neogenesis. From chuckstonchew's conversation (thanks for that, btw, if you're reading this!) it seems that the researchers themselves were unable to give any conclusive answers whether all of the excised area regenerated or not. Anyway, time will tell if this was the case or not.

I'm happy that you're so optimistic, though, gives me some hope too smile.png

Simplifying?? I'm repeating clearly observed facts! E.g. if you see a potato in the garden, you see a potato in the garden. In no way do I have to explain why that potato is a potato at the nano level or the nanoXnano level. And in no way is it possible to explain at the nano level why that potato is a potato. In no way is it possible to observe the migrating nano matrix of how that potato grew into a potato in the soil. <<<<< please tell me you can see your fallacy with the magnifying glass? What you are suggesting you have to do is the equivilent of following one water molecule by microscope all the way along the flowing river nile to the nile mouth.

If you read the paper they said clearly they got "complete regeneration". On top of this, if you follow logic, and you regenerate "anything," then by logical default that is "scar free healing" anyway. Scars block off regeneration. E.g. in your tissues on your left leg now, lets say you had a scar on that leg, well were there is that scar there is no communication between the regneerated parts of tissue either side of the scar. If the scar was not there the two sides would be able to meet and regenerate the area blocked.

Regarding 21 days it has been clinically observed over the past centuary if a wound reepithilizes in under 21 days there will be no scar. And if a wound regenerates sweat glands and hair follicles there will be no scar.

This is all basic fact based logic.

The hair and the sebcacous glands proved regeneration. The fact that the wound reepithilized in 14 days proved there was no scar. (Wereas the control scaffold took way longer to be digested)

All I'm doing is observing facts, sticking to clear logic.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding scars, imo people tend to catergorise to much, stressing about labels, but they are all the same. They are bundled collagen that blocks regeneration. Burns = collagen, acne = collagen, knife wound scar = collagen, hypertrophic scar = collagen, keliod = over production of collagen. Scarring is the inverse of regeneration. Regeneration is if you like the finger print of scar free healing. If something brings about scar free healing it will reepithilize a wound before a keloid can happen

the hydrogel was digested by the white blood cells within 7 days, then the wound reepithilized the 3rd degree burn in under 14 days (under 21 days), whilst the standard control had the white blood cells struggling to digest the periphery after 7 days, and the control scarred after 30 days etc.

Well I hope you're right, it would be wonderful... rolleyes.gif maybe that hydrogel is somehow able to reduce hemostasis&inflamation and accelerate re-epithelialization... and maybe even create regenerative ECM... that would be SOMETHING... and 3 years of waiting for FDA approval is totally acceptable for me.

I have come across most of what you have posted on google alerts over time. Also the salamander stuff has been talked about on this thread before. I think the salamander project will play a part in limb regeneration.

I think that the limb regeneration in humnas will be the last thing we will see, it is very complex and it will be possible maybe in 20 or 30 years or something like that, before that they will achieve regeneration of the skin, spinal cord, heart, liver, etc - because it is much more simple than the regeneration of the whole limbs, of course.

Here are some other interesting research papers that they have published recently or they will publish very soon:

Seifert, A.W., Kiama, S.G., Seifert, M.G., Goheen J., Palmer, T. M., and Maden, M. Skin shedding and

tissue regeneration in African spiny mice (Acomys). (in revision, Nature)

Monaghan, J. R., Athippozhy, A., Seifert, A.W., Putta, S., Stromberg, A., Maden, M., Gardiner, D. M.,

and Voss, S. R. Denervation Quantitatively and Systemically Alters Transcription within the

Wound Epithelium of a Regeneration-Competent Salamander Limb. (in review, Open Biology)

Monaghan, J. R.*, Seifert, A. W.*, Michoneau, F.*, Pasch, B.*, Smith, M.D.*, Stier, A.C.*, and Maden,

M. Metamorphosis impedes limb regeneration in salamanders. (submitting to PNAS, May 18th)

Seifert, A. W., and Maden, M. The MRL mouse closes ear holes through hyperplastic growth, not

regeneration (in prep)

Monaghan JR and Maden M. (In Press) Visualization of retinoic acid signaling in transgenic axolotls during limb development and regeneration. Dev Biol.

Seifert AW, Monaghan JR, Smith DM, Pasch B, Stier AC, Michonneau F, Maden M. (In Press) The influence of fundamental traits on mechanisms controlling limb regeneration. Biological Reviews.

And here is a list of grants they're expecting right now:

2012 NIH K99/R00 Pathways to Independence Award – (PI) (submitted March 2012)

Submitted to NIAMS

(First impact score =34, resubmitted March) --Translating perfect repair: skin

regeneration in lieu of scarring

2012 NIH R21 – (Co-PI) (submitted Feb. 2012)

Submitted to NICDR

Deciphering the molecular regulation of mammalian blastema formation

2012 NSF IOS Preliminary Proposal – (PI) (requested to submit full proposal, due Aug. 2nd)

Submitted to IOS, Developmental Systems

Immune tradeoffs during tissue regeneration in mammals

2012 NSF IOS Preliminary Proposal – (Co-PI) (awaiting decision to submit full proposal)

Submitted to IOS, Developmental Systems

Developmental mechanisms driving regenerative decline at metamorphosis

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not cross referenced anything for or against what I've said in my post above.

BTW my last word on the salamander and limb regeneration it may, play a role in regenerating a digit in the next 5 or so years (heber katz 2006), they are getting close. BTW I was reading recently how a Dr saved a diseased diabetic foot, but a bone and joints are harder to regenerate than soft tissues.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice and interesting! So now there are 4 different technologies that promise a lot in the field of skin regeneration.

And here is something about technological progress in general - price of the genome sequencing - it was $3 billion in 1990, $100 million in 2001, $10K in 2012. and it will be only $1K in 2014:

800px-Genome_sequencing_costs%2C_May_2012.jpg

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All scarring is, is an over growth of collagen that blocks off regeneration thats it.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All scarring is, is an over growth of collagen that blocks off regeneration thats it.

hey seabs

in your opinion...

¿ do you think that hydrogel works on keloids?

You must investigate more bout keloids...many people have that cain of scar (keloid like all scar is an over growth of collagen path in keloids are more problems implicated like an "non stop" signal (non stop make collagen), a decrease of tgf b1,and b2 (perhaps there are the non stop signals).

please investigate that cain of scar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All scarring is, is an over growth of collagen that blocks off regeneration thats it.

hey seabs

in your opinion...

¿ do you think that hydrogel works on keloids?

You must investigate more bout keloids...many people have that cain of scar (keloid like all scar is an over growth of collagen path in keloids are more problems implicated like an "non stop" signal (non stop make collagen), a decrease of tgf b1,and b2 (perhaps there are the non stop signals).

please investigate that cain of scar.

A keloid is a collagen overgrowth like anyother scar. From the facts I've seen, all a scar is, is a collagen overgrowth in a constant feed back loop, were the fibroblasts are continuing to lay down the bundles of collagen to and beyond 30 days. Though keloids are way more extensive. Logic says, if the body reepithilizes normal tissue faster (in under 21 days) than the feed back loop then there will be no scar.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article found on pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22687479

Results of this study provided evidence for the alginate-gelatin hydrogel as efficient carrier for the topical delivery of bioactive molecules to the injured site. The astragaloside IV releasing hydrogel was shown a promising therapeutic formulation for wound healing, as well as its regenerative feature and underlying mechanism contribute to the skin regeneration were disclaimed.

(the full article is still in process)

Edited by WinnieTheBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article found on pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22687479

Results of this study provided evidence for the alginate-gelatin hydrogel as efficient carrier for the topical delivery of bioactive molecules to the injured site. The astragaloside IV releasing hydrogel was shown a promising therapeutic formulation for wound healing, as well as its regenerative feature and underlying mechanism contribute to the skin regeneration were disclaimed.

(the full article is still in process)

You can already get the full article if you navigate to the first link under the "link to - more resources" link. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but, this hydrogel seems to be a different hydrogel than the one mentioned in the previous articles. This quote is taken from the full article:

"In this study, the hydrogel made from the blended materials

of sodium alginate and gelatin was prepared and characterized"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article found on pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22687479

Results of this study provided evidence for the alginate-gelatin hydrogel as efficient carrier for the topical delivery of bioactive molecules to the injured site. The astragaloside IV releasing hydrogel was shown a promising therapeutic formulation for wound healing, as well as its regenerative feature and underlying mechanism contribute to the skin regeneration were disclaimed.

(the full article is still in process)

You can already get the full article if you navigate to the first link under the "link to - more resources" link. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but, this hydrogel seems to be a different hydrogel than the one mentioned in the previous articles. This quote is taken from the full article:

"In this study, the hydrogel made from the blended materials

of sodium alginate and gelatin was prepared and characterized"

Thanks

I know it is a different hydrogel. At the moment I have read of 4 different kinds of hydrogel for scarring alone. There is a lot of competition for hydrogel scaffolds on the future market.

The results show that a hydrogel scaffold has two features.

1. It is a great carrier

for topical delivery of bioactive molecules.

2. It increases skin regeneration.

This isn't scarefree healing yet, with al the topicals it can deliver. (inculding stem cells) And the perfection of the scaffold I wonder if something very close to scar free healing can be achieved.

The wound at day 12 is almost completly healed. D=hydrogel.

post-174338-0-37295300-1340192322_thumb.

post-174338-0-10178500-1340193049_thumb.

Edited by WinnieTheBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scielo.br...ipt=sci_arttext

Impressive results in scar healing with stem cells. (not scar free)

I hadn't seen these yet.

a06fig06.jpg

a06fig08.jpg

Nice results! But with those exclusion criteria they admit they cannot improve neither hypetrophic scars nor keloids:

The exclusion criteria were smoking, history of keloids or hypertrophic scarring, diabetes mellitus, any skin or connective tissue disease, previous supraumbilical scar, prolonged use of corticosteroids, previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, weight loss post-obesity, infection, hematoma, seroma or dehiscence during the abdominoplasty postoperative period and patient withdrawal during the course of the study.
Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any update on Gerecht hydrogel?

Last time I remember they had problems with funding, seems stange after the whole hype all over the news.

(did the mouse die or turn into a vampire)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any update on Gerecht hydrogel?

Last time I remember they had problems with funding, seems stange after the whole hype all over the news.

(did the mouse die or turn into a vampire)

Last I heard it was waiting for funding, So since december, that is six and a half month waiting for funding added ontop of the 2.5 year+ it takes for a device to go through the hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing bothers me about Sharon Gerecht - is she planning to set up her own company? I'm asking it because I've just read that she has patented her invention

http://releases.jhu....scar-free-skin/

The Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer staff has filed a provisional patent application to protect the intellectual property involved in this project.

so no one else can't use it now and sell it as a scar free treatment in the future, and if that dextran hydrogel is really able to cope with 3rd degree burn wounds, full-thickness skin excisions, diabetic foot ulcers, hypertrophic scars and keloids then she could easily get funding for her company from the venture capital firms and she could make a big fortune (you should remember that Renovo's market value was $500 million in 2006 and 2007 after IPO on the London Stock Exchange and before Juvista's clinical trial failures and the US market size alone for scar improvements was estimated at $4 billion a year)

Here you can see that venture capital funds in the US invest $5 to $7 billion in each quarter in entrepreneurial innovations and scientific inventions, in good business ideas, in anything that is promising and has a market potential

https://www.pwcmoney...page=historical

and most of that money is invested in life sciences and IT industry - and her invention belongs to life sciences sector and appears to be promising and has the huge market potential

invest_2008-q12012_700x576.jpg

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, someone should contact her.

My english isn't good enough for decent contact. That she has asked a patent says something of the trust she has in the product.

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

×